2026-04-02 17:00:44 UTC / 路透社
许多美国人都在关注涉及唐纳德·特朗普总统限制出生权公民权的美国最高法院案件，而诺曼·黄对此的关注多了一份额外的动力。对他而言，这关乎家族。
路透社报道
2026年4月2日 下午5:00 UTC 2小时前更新
2026年3月25日，加利福尼亚州旧金山，黄锦辉的曾孙诺曼·黄在其已故祖先的壁画前摆姿势拍照。路透社/卡洛斯·巴里亚
许多美国人都在关注涉及唐纳德·特朗普总统限制出生权公民权的美国最高法院案件，而诺曼·黄对此的关注多了一份额外的动力。对他而言，这关乎家族。
2026年3月28日，加利福尼亚州旧金山湾区，诺曼·黄在家中查看家庭照片。路透社/卡洛斯·巴里亚
这位居住在旧金山地区的居民是黄锦辉的曾孙。黄锦辉是一位华裔美国人，曾是1898年最高法院标志性出生权公民权案件的核心人物。该裁决确认，美国宪法第十四修正案赋予在美国领土上出生的公民权，包括父母为外国国民的婴儿。
现年76岁的诺曼·黄曾前往华盛顿，在周三大法官们听取辩论时站在法院外。他事后告诉路透社，大法官们应当重申这项有128年历史的先例，并作出不利于特朗普的裁决。
“我希望美国能把这件事处理好，”这位退休木匠说道。
1895年，时年20多岁的厨师黄锦辉从祖籍中国旅行归来后，旧金山的海关官员宣布他并非美国公民，并试图阻止他重新入境。
黄锦辉将此案上诉至最高法院，最高法院于1898年作出有利于黄锦辉的裁决，明确认定美国宪法第十四修正案承认出生权公民权。这张照片来自美国国家档案馆，馆藏于根据《排华法案》开展的联邦移民调查案件中。美国国家档案馆/供图 路透社
尽管黄锦辉出生在旧金山唐人街，但官员们称，由于他的父母是中国国民，他也应被视为中国公民，因此根据1882年《排华法案》——该法案限制中国移民入境并剥夺其公民权——他无资格入境。最高法院并不认同这一说法。
在当前这起案件中，诺曼·黄表示，法院的九名大法官不应“重塑我们的权利”，而应 upheld “128年来确立出生权公民权的先例”。
2026年3月31日，加利福尼亚州旧金山国际机场，诺曼·黄与妻子莫琳在登上前往华盛顿特区的航班前聊天。路透社/卡洛斯·巴里亚
2026年4月1日，华盛顿特区，美国最高法院就特朗普政府限制移民子女出生权公民权的合法性进行口头辩论当天，诺曼·黄与妻子莫琳在最高法院外的游行集会抵达后走过美国国会大厦。路透社/卡洛斯·巴里亚
2026年4月1日，华盛顿特区，美国最高法院就特朗普政府限制移民子女出生权公民权的合法性进行口头辩论当天，诺曼·黄在最高法院外的游行集会中手持曾祖父的照片。路透社/卡洛斯·巴里亚
在最高法院外的捍卫出生权公民权的游行集会现场，他称当天的辩论“对我而言是一个特殊的日子”。
“我看到这些人，就觉得自己绝对不是孤军奋战，如果我能助力他们，那就再好不过了。因为最终，需要整个美国站出来，让这个国家回归正轨，让这艘船保持平衡。”
2026年4月1日，华盛顿特区，美国最高法院就特朗普政府限制移民子女出生权公民权的合法性进行口头辩论当天，抗议者举着标语在最高法院外游行。合成图片。路透社/卡洛斯·巴里亚
特朗普成为首位出席最高法院口头辩论的在任总统，但他中途离场。此次辩论的焦点是特朗普去年签署的行政令的合法性，该行政令要求美国政府机构不承认父母均非美国公民或合法永久居民（即“绿卡”持有者）的在美国出生儿童的公民身份。
1/5诺曼·黄，黄锦辉的曾孙，2026年3月28日在加利福尼亚州旧金山湾区的家中查看家庭照片。路透社/卡洛斯·巴里亚
[1/5]诺曼·黄，黄锦辉的曾孙，2026年3月28日在加利福尼亚州旧金山湾区的家中查看家庭照片。路透社/卡洛斯·巴里亚
“我认为他到场是为了给法官们施压，迫使他们作出裁决，”诺曼·黄说道，“裁决应当基于宪法，而非基于恐惧——对报复的恐惧，对总统的恐惧。”
大法官们在提问中表现出对特朗普行政令的质疑。
周四，这位共和党总统在其Truth Social平台上发帖称：“袋鼠法庭！！！”
2025年1月20日，美国华盛顿白宫椭圆形办公室，在就职日当天，美国总统唐纳德·特朗普在签署文件、发布行政令并赦免1月6日事件参与者时发表讲话。路透社/卡洛斯·巴里亚
卡洛斯·巴里亚、胡利奥-塞萨尔·查韦斯和凯瑟琳·杰克逊报道；简·沃尔夫补充报道；威尔·邓纳姆编辑；梅-埃·黄和戴维·卢卡斯图片编辑；戴维·卢卡斯视觉制作
我们的报道准则：汤姆森路透社信任原则
Descendant of key figure in 1898 citizenship case hopes for the best from US Supreme Court
2026-04-02 17:00:44 UTC / Reuters
While many Americans are following the U.S. Supreme Court case involving President Donald Trump’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship, Norman Wong is doing so with a little bit of extra motivation. For him, it is about family.
By Reuters
April 2, 2026 5:00 PM UTC Updated 2 hours ago
Norman Wong, the great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark, poses for a portrait in front of a mural of his late ancestor, in San Francisco, California, March 25, 2026. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
While many Americans are following the U.S. Supreme Court case involving President Donald Trump’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship, Norman Wong is doing so with a little bit of extra motivation. For him, it is about family.
Norman Wong, the great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark, looks at a picture of his family, at his home in the San Francisco Bay Area, California, March 28, 2026. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
The San Francisco-area resident is the great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark, the Chinese American man who was at the heart of a landmark 1898 Supreme Court decision concerning birthright citizenship. That ruling recognized that the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment grants citizenship by birth on U.S. soil, including to babies born to parents who are foreign nationals.
Norman Wong, 76, traveled to Washington and was outside the courthouse as the justices heard arguments on Wednesday. He told Reuters afterward that the justices should reaffirm the court’s 128-year-old precedent and rule against Trump.
“I hope America gets this thing right,” the retired carpenter said.
When Wong Kim Ark, a cook who was in his 20s at the time, returned from a trip to his parents’ homeland of China in 1895, customs officials in San Francisco declared him a non-citizen and sought to prevent him from re-entering the United States.
Wong Kim Ark, who took his case to the Supreme Court who ruled in 1898 in Wong’s favor, establishing firmly that the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment recognizes birthright citizenship. Wong is seen in this photo housed in the National Archives from a federal immigration investigation case conducted under the Chinese Exclusion Acts. National Archives/Handout via REUTERS
Though he was born in the city’s Chinatown neighborhood, the officials said that because his parents were Chinese nationals, so too was he, and as such he was ineligible for entry due to an 1882 law called the Chinese Exclusion Act that restricted Chinese migration and citizenship. The Supreme Court disagreed.
In the current case, Norman Wong said, the court’s nine justices should “not reinvent our rights” and should uphold “the way birthright citizenship stood for 128 years of precedents.”
Norman Wong and his wife Maureen chat as they wait to board a plane to Washington D.C., at the San Francisco International airport in San Francisco, California, March 31, 2026. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
Norman Wong and his wife Maureen walk by the U.S. Capitol building as they arrive at a demonstration outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on the day the court hears oral arguments on the legality of the Trump administration’s effort to limit birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants, in Washington, D.C., April 1, 2026. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
Norman Wong holds a picture of his great-grandfather during a demonstration outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on the day the court hears oral arguments on the legality of the Trump administration’s effort to limit birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants, in Washington, D.C., April 1, 2026. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
Speaking outside the Supreme Court building amid demonstrators defending birthright citizenship, he called the day of the arguments “a special day for me.”
“I see these people and I feel like I definitely don’t stand alone, that if I can help empower them, great. Because in the end, it’s going to take America as a whole to stand up and to make this country right, to keep this ship balanced.”
Protestors hold signs during a demonstration outside the U.S. Supreme Court in this combination photo on the day the court hears oral arguments on the legality of the Trump administration’s effort to limit birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants, in Washington, D.C., April 1, 2026. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
Trump became the first sitting president to attend Supreme Court arguments, though he left midway through. At issue was the legality of Trump’s executive order signed last year that had instructed U.S. agencies not to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States if neither parent is an American citizen or legal permanent resident, also called a “green card” holder.
Item 1 of 5 Norman Wong, the great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark, looks at a picture of his family at his home in the San Francisco Bay Area, California, March 28, 2026. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
[1/5]Norman Wong, the great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark, looks at a picture of his family at his home in the San Francisco Bay Area, California, March 28, 2026. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
“I think he was there to apply pressure to the judges for their decision,” Norman Wong said. “The decision should be a constitutional decision, not a decision based on fear – fear of retribution, fear of the president.”
The justices through their questions signaled skepticism toward Trump’s directive.
In a post on his Truth Social platform on Thursday, the Republican president wrote, “Kangaroo Court!!!”
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks on the day he signs documents as he issues executive orders and pardons for January 6 defendants in the Oval Office at the White House on Inauguration Day in Washington, U.S., January 20, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
Reporting by Carlos Barria, Julio-César Chávez and Katharine Jackson; Additional reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Will Dunham; Photo editing by Maye-E Wong and David Lucas; Visual production by David Lucas
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
发表回复