First page of the Chinese Exclusion Act passed by Congress in 1882
The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years. The law made exceptions for merchants, teachers, students, travelers, and diplomats.[2] The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first major US law ever implemented to prevent all members of a specific national group from immigrating to the United States, and therefore helped shape twentieth-century race-based immigration policy.[3][4]
Passage of the law was preceded by growing anti-Chinese sentiment and anti-Chinese violence, as well as various policies targeting Chinese migrants.[5] The act followed the Angell Treaty of 1880, a set of revisions to the US–China Burlingame Treaty of 1868 that allowed the US to suspend Chinese immigration. The act was initially intended to last for 10 years, but was renewed and strengthened in 1892 with the Geary Act and made permanent in 1902. These laws attempted to stop all Chinese immigration into the United States for ten years, with exceptions for diplomats, teachers, students, merchants, and travelers. The laws were widely evaded.[6]
An 1886 advertisement for "Magic Washer" detergent: The Chinese Must Go
The Opium Wars (1839–1842; 1856–1860) fought between China and Great Britain, in addition to drought and floods, left many Chinese people destitute and sent many unemployed farmers to start new lives in the Americas.[8][bettersourceneeded]
This "Official Map of Chinatown 1885" was published as part of an official report of a Special Committee established by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors "on the Condition of the Chinese Quarter".Chinese immigrant workers building the first transcontinental railroad
The first significant Chinese immigration to America began with the California gold rush of 1848–1855; it continued with subsequent large labor projects, such as the building of the first transcontinental railroad. During the early stages of the gold rush, when surface gold was plentiful, the Chinese were tolerated by white people, if not well received.[9] However, as gold became harder to find and competition increased, animosity toward the Chinese and other foreigners increased. After being forcibly driven from mining by a mixture of state legislators and other miners (the Foreign Miner's Tax), the immigrant Chinese began to settle in enclaves in cities, mainly San Francisco, and took up low-wage labor, such as restaurant and laundry work.[10] With the post-Civil War economy in decline by the 1870s, the anti-Chinese animosity became politicized by labor leader Denis Kearney and his Workingman's Party[11] as well as by California governor John Bigler, both of whom blamed "coolie labor" for depressed wage levels. In addition to economic pressures, US cultural products had long promoted racist views of Chinese people.[12]:25 Public opinion and law in California began to demonize Chinese workers and immigrants in any role, with the latter half of the 1800s seeing a series of ever more restrictive laws being placed on Chinese labor, behavior and even living conditions. While many of these legislative efforts were quickly overturned by the State Supreme Court,[13] many more anti-Chinese laws continued to be passed in both California and nationally.
In the early 1850s, there was resistance to the idea of excluding Chinese migrant workers, since they provided essential tax revenue.[14] The Xianfeng Emperor, who ruled China at the time, supported the exclusion because he was concerned that Chinese immigration to America would lead to a loss of labor for China.[15] But toward the end of the decade, the financial situation improved and state level exclusion laws were passed.[14] In 1858, the California Legislature passed a law that made it illegal for any person "of the Chinese or Mongolian races" to enter the state; however, this law was struck down by the State Supreme Court in 1862.[16]
The Chinese immigrant workers provided cheap labor and did not use government schools, hospitals, and such because the Chinese migrant population was predominantly healthy male adults.[14] January 1868, the Senate ratified the Burlingame Treaty with China, allowing an unrestricted flow of Chinese into the country.[17] As time passed and more and more Chinese migrants arrived in the United States and California in particular, violence often broke out in cities such as Los Angeles. The North Adams strike of 1870, broken by the replacement of all workers by 75 Chinese men was the trigger that sparked widespread working-class protest across the country, shaped legislative debate in Congress, and helped make Chinese immigration a sustained national issue.[18][19]
The Page Act of 1875 banned Chinese women from entering the United States to prevent the settlement of families, but continued to allow Chinese men and their labor.
Key to the transformation of Chinese immigration from a Californian to a national question was the political climate in 1876. This year was an election year and was exceedingly close[20] with both parties looking to the West Coast for aid in the coming election, it was through this that Californian politicians were able to project their concerns with Chinese immigration eastward into discourse in the capital.[19] Before 1876, Californian legislators had made various attempts to restrict Chinese immigration by targeting Chinese businesses, living spaces[citation needed] and the ships immigrants arrived on by way of ordinances and resultant fines, but such legislation was deemed unconstitutional through its violation of either the Burlingame Treaty, the Fourteenth Amendment, or the Civil Rights Act of 1866.[20] In light of such failures, It became clear that the issue had to be solved by the federal government. For Californian politicians advocating against Chinese immigration, therefore, the close political competition in 1876 provided a good opportunity to propel their cause from a state issue to a national issue. The idea was that the desire for West Coast votes would compel the political parties to adopt policies to appeal to Californian voters, by making known the heavy anti-Chinese sentiment in California, Californian anti-Chinese legislators could influence political parties into adopting an anti-Chinese immigration rhetoric.[19] This influence was conducted in a manner of ways; Firstly, throughout the spring many well-publicized anti-Chinese demonstrations were held, such as in San Francisco on April 5 which saw 20,000 people attend.[21] Secondly, on April 3, the California State Senate authorized an investigation on the effects of Chinese immigration on the state's culture and economy, with the findings to be sent to 'leading newspapers of the United States' and 5 copies for each member of Congress. Furthering these measures was the sending of a delegation by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to cities in the east to express anti-Chinese sentiment to crowds (and later newspapers).[19] Members of this delegation Philip Roach and Frank Pixley talked about the economic threat Chinese 'coolie' labor posed, but also on the perceived racial incompatibility and inferiority of Chinese immigrants, driving up fears and anxieties in other states. These remarks also found their way to senate hearings, such an example can be seen on May 1: RepublicanAaron A. Sargent, the senior senator for California, addressed the senate with a vicious attack on Chinese immigration before they voted on treaty negotiations with China.[19][22] The result of these efforts, among others, culminated in the overwhelming support of anti-Chinese policies by both political parties observed in their respective conventions in June.[19] It is for these reasons then that the election year of 1876 was instrumental in changing the question of Chinese immigration from a state to a national question; The competitive political atmosphere allowed a calculated political attempt to nationalize California's Immigration grievances,[2] as such leaders across the country (whose concerns with the benefits or ill of Chinese-labour were second to winning votes) were compelled to advocacy for anti-Chinese sentiment.[20]
Numerous strikes followed the Adams strike, notably Beaver Falls Cutlery Company in Pennsylvania and others[23][24] After the economy soured in the Panic of 1873, Chinese immigrants were blamed for depressing workmen's wages.[17] At one point, Chinese men represented nearly a quarter of all wage-earning workers in California.[25] By 1878, Congress felt compelled to try to ban immigration from China in legislation that was later vetoed by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The title of the August 27, 1873, San Francisco Chronicle article, "The Chinese Invasion! They Are Coming, 900,000 Strong", was traced by The Atlantic as one of the roots of the 2019 anti-immigration "invasion" rhetoric.[26] Furthermore, in 1876, the San Francisco lawyer H. N. Clement stood before a California State Committee and said: "The Chinese are upon us. How can we get rid of them? The Chinese are coming. How can we stop them?".[2] This perfectly reflected the overall feeling of many Americans at the time, and how public officials were partly responsible in making this situation seem even more serious than it actually was.
In 1879, however, California adopted a new Constitution which explicitly authorized the state government to determine which individuals were allowed to reside in the state, and banned the Chinese from employment by corporations and state, county or municipal governments.[27]
Three years later, after China had agreed to treaty revisions, Congress tried again to exclude working-class Chinese laborers; Senator John F. Miller of California introduced another Chinese Exclusion Act that blocked entry of Chinese laborers for a twenty-year period.[28] The bill passed the Senate and House by overwhelming margins, but this as well was vetoed by President Chester A. Arthur, who concluded the 20-year ban to be a breach of the renegotiated treaty of 1880. That treaty allowed only a "reasonable" suspension of immigration. Eastern newspapers praised the veto, while it was condemned in the Western states. Congress was unable to override the veto, but passed a new bill reducing the immigration ban to ten years.[28][29] The House of Representatives voted 201–37, with 51 abstentions, to pass the act.[30] Although he still objected to this denial of entry to Chinese laborers, President Arthur acceded to the compromise measure, signing the Chinese Exclusion Act into law on May 6, 1882.[28][29]
Anti-Chinese Wall cartoon in Puck
After the act was passed, most Chinese workers were faced with a dilemma: stay in the United States alone or return to China to reunite with their families.[31][6] Although widespread dislike for the Chinese persisted well after the law itself was passed, of note is that some capitalists and entrepreneurs resisted their exclusion because they accepted lower wages.[32]
When the exclusion act expired in 1892, congress extended it 10 more years in the form of the Geary Act. This extension was then made permanent in 1902 which led to every Chinese American ordered to gain a certificate of residence from the US government or face deportation. This act regulated Chinese immigration into the 20th century.[33]
Content
The Act was the first US immigration law to target a specific ethnicity or nationality.[12]:25 The earlier Page Act of 1875 had prohibited immigration of Asian forced laborers and sex workers, and the Naturalization Act of 1790 prohibited naturalization of non-white subjects. The Chinese Exclusion Act excluded Chinese laborers, meaning "skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining", from entering the country for ten years under penalty of imprisonment and deportation.[34][35]
Front page of The San Francisco Call from November 20, 1901, discussing the Chinese Exclusion Convention
The Chinese Exclusion Act required the few non-laborers who sought entry to obtain certification from the Chinese government that they were qualified to emigrate. However, this group found it increasingly difficult to prove that they were not laborers[35] because the 1882 Act defined excludables as "skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining". Thus very few Chinese could enter the country under the 1882 law. Diplomatic officials and other officers on business, along with their house servants, for the Chinese government were also allowed entry as long as they had the proper certification verifying their credentials.[36]
The Chinese Exclusion Act also affected the Chinese who had already settled in the United States. Any Chinese who left the United States had to obtain certifications for reentry, and the act made Chinese immigrants permanent aliens by excluding them from US citizenship.[34][35] After the act's passage, Chinese men in the US had little chance of ever reuniting with their wives, or of starting families in their new abodes.[34]
Amendments made in 1884 tightened the provisions that allowed previous immigrants to leave and return and clarified that the law applied to ethnic Chinese regardless of their country of origin.[37] The 1888 Scott Act expanded upon the Chinese Exclusion Act, prohibiting reentry into the US after leaving.[38] Only teachers, students, government officials, tourists, and merchants were exempt.[30]
Constitutionality of the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Scott Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889); the Supreme Court declared that "the power of exclusion of foreigners [is] an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution". The act was renewed for ten years by the 1892 Geary Act, and again with no terminal date in 1902.[35] When the act was extended in 1902, it required "each Chinese resident to register and obtain a certificate of residence. Without a certificate, he or she faced deportation."[35]
Between 1882 and 1905, about 10,000 Chinese appealed against negative immigration decisions to federal court, usually via a petition for habeas corpus.[39] In most of these cases, the courts ruled in favor of the petitioner.[39] Except in cases of bias or negligence, these petitions were barred by an act that passed Congress in 1894 and was upheld by the US Supreme Court in United States v. Lem Moon Sing (1895). In United States v. Ju Toy (1905), the US Supreme Court reaffirmed that the port inspectors and the Secretary of Commerce had final authority on who could be admitted. Ju Toy's petition was thus barred despite the fact that the district court found that he was an American citizen. The Supreme Court determined that refusing entry at a port does not require due process and is legally equivalent to refusing entry at a land crossing. All these developments, along with the extension of the act in 1902, triggered a boycott of US goods in China between 1904 and 1906.[40] There was one 1885 case in San Francisco, however, in which Treasury Department officials in Washington overturned a decision to deny entry to two Chinese students.[41]
One of the critics of the Chinese Exclusion Act was the anti-imperialist senator George Frisbie Hoar, a Republican from Massachusetts who described the act as "nothing less than the legalization of racial discrimination".[42]
A political cartoon from 1882, showing a Chinese man being barred entry to the "Golden Gate of Liberty". The caption reads, "We must draw the line somewhere, you know."
The laws were driven largely by racial concerns; immigration of persons of other races was not yet limited.[43] On the other hand, most people and unions strongly supported the Chinese Exclusion Act, including the American Federation of Labor and Knights of Labor, a labor union, who supported it because it believed that industrialists were using Chinese workers as a wedge to keep wages low.[44] Among labor and leftist organizations, the Industrial Workers of the World were the sole exception to this pattern. The IWW openly opposed the Chinese Exclusion Act from its inception in 1905.[45]
Certificate of identity issued to Yee Wee Thing certifying that he is the son of a US citizen, issued November 21, 1916. This was necessary for his immigration from China to the United States.
The racial concerns the Exclusion Act drew justification from were along the lines of a perceived 'moral deficiency' of Chinese immigrants, this charge stipulated the inherent unreliability and dishonesty of the immigrants on behalf of their race.[22][20] These assumptions of character were frequently assigned on behalf of the poor communities these immigrants lived in with higher density, higher crime, saloons and opium dens.[22] This is however not an exhaustive list of charges brought against Chinese immigrants, many more assumptions were made such as them bringing leprosy to US shores.[20] Some of the main proponents of this racialism were Irish immigrants in the West,[46] the reason for this was that although granted entry under the Naturalization Act of 1790 as a free 'white' people, the large numbers of immigrants from Europe starting in the 1840s created a situation where different white ethnicities were being made out to be more or less desirable compared to Anglo-Saxons.[47] In such a way the Celtic Irish in the east faced similar racialism at the hands of nativists, being categorized as 'dirty', 'drunken', and 'animalistic papists'.[48][47] In this way, under Denis Kearney and the Workingman's Party, many Irish immigrants who had migrated westward sought to shore up their 'whiteness' and redirect stereotypes about themselves by stressing the undesirability of the Chinese, non-white immigrants.[48]
For all practical purposes, the Chinese Exclusion Act, along with the restrictions that followed it, froze the Chinese community in place in 1882. Limited immigration from China continued until the repeal of the act in 1943. From 1910 to 1940, the Angel Island Immigration Station on what is now Angel Island State Park in San Francisco Bay served as the processing center for most of the 56,113 Chinese immigrants who are recorded as immigrating or returning from China; upwards of 30% more who arrived there were returned to China.[49] The Chinese population in the US declined from approximately 105,000 in 1880, to 89,000 in 1900, and to 61,000 in 1920.[30]
Certain federal agencies were active in the 19th century to enforce the Exclusion Act. The Customs Service took the lead on this because of the maritime nature. In the 1900s the Office of the Superintendent of Immigration was established by the Department of the Treasury and given responsibility for implementing federal regulations mandated by the Chinese exclusion laws. This organization is now known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).[50]
The act exempted merchants, and restaurant owners could apply for merchant visas beginning in 1915 after a federal court ruling. This led to the rapid growth of Chinese restaurants in the 1910s and 1920s as restaurant owners could leave and reenter along with family members from China.[51]
Later, the Immigration Act of 1924 restricted immigration even further, excluding all classes of Chinese immigrants and extending restrictions to other Asian immigrant groups.[34] Until these restrictions were relaxed in the middle of the twentieth century, Chinese immigrants were forced to live a life separated from their families, and to build ethnic enclaves in which they could survive on their own (Chinatown).[34] The Chinese Exclusion Act did not address the problems that whites were facing; in fact, the Chinese were quickly and eagerly replaced by the Japanese, who assumed the role of the Chinese in society. Unlike the Chinese, some Japanese were even able to climb the rungs of society by setting up businesses or becoming truck farmers.[52] However, the Japanese were later targeted in the Immigration Act of 1924, which banned immigration from East Asia entirely. The Chinese Exclusion Act was a tool with an aim to, maintain cheap accessible labor while stopping the excess population of Chinese immigrants from taking jobs from white Americans.
In 1891, the Chinese government refused to accept US Senator Henry W. Blair as US Minister to China due to his abusive remarks regarding China during negotiations of the Chinese Exclusion Act.[53] The American Christian George F. Pentecost spoke out against Western imperialism in China, saying:[54]
I personally feel convinced that it would be a good thing for America if the embargo on Chinese immigration were removed. I think that the annual admission of 100,000 into this country would be a good thing for the country. And if the same thing were done in the Philippines those islands would be a veritable Garden of Eden in twenty-five years. The presence of Chinese workmen in this country would, in my opinion, do a very great deal toward solving our labor problems. There is no comparison between the Chinaman, even of the lowest coolie class, and the man who comes here from Southeastern Europe, from Russia, or from Southern Italy. The Chinese are thoroughly good workers. That is why the laborers here hate them. I think, too, that the emigration to America would help the Chinese. At least he would come into contact with some real Christian people in America. The Chinaman lives in squalor because he is poor. If he had some prosperity his squalor would cease.
The "Driving Out" period
Following the passing of the Chinese Exclusion Act, a period known as the "Driving Out" era was born. In this period, anti-Chinese Americans physically forced Chinese communities to flee to other areas. Large scale violence in Western states included the Rock Springs massacre (1885) and the Hells Canyon massacre (1887).[55]
The massacre was named for the town where it took place, Rock Springs, Wyoming, in Sweetwater County, where white miners were jealous of the Chinese for their employment. White miners expressed their jealous frustration by robbing, bullying, shooting, and stabbing the Chinese in Chinatown. The Chinese tried to flee but many were burned alive in their homes, starved to death in hidden refuge, or exposed to carnivorous animal predators in the mountains. Some were rescued by a passing train, but by the end of the event at least twenty-eight lives had been taken.[56] In an attempt to appease the situation, the government intervened by sending federal troops to protect the Chinese. However, only compensations for destroyed property were paid. No one was arrested nor held accountable for the atrocities committed during the riot.[56]
The massacre was named for the location where it took place, along the Snake River in Hells Canyon near the mouth of Deep Creek. The area contained many rocky cliffs and white rapids that together posed significant danger to human safety. 34 Chinese miners were killed at the site. The miners were employed by the Sam Yup company, one of the six largest Chinese companies at the time, which worked in this area since October 1886. The actual events are still unclear due to unreliable law enforcement at the time, biased news reporting, and lack of serious official investigations. However, it is speculated that the dead Chinese miners were not victims of natural causes, but rather victims of gun shot wounds during a robbery committed by a gang of seven armed horse thieves.[57] Gold worth $4,000–$5,000 was thought to have been stolen from the miners. The gold was never recovered nor further investigated.
Aftermath
Shortly following the incident, the Sam Yup company of San Francisco hired Lee Loi who later hired Joseph K. Vincent, then US Commissioner, to lead an investigation. Vincent submitted his investigative report to the Chinese consulate who tried unsuccessfully to obtain justice for the Chinese miners. At around the same time, other compensation reports were also unsuccessfully filed for earlier crimes inflicted on the Chinese. In the end, on October 19, 1888, Congress agreed to greatly under-compensate for the massacre and ignore the claims for the earlier crimes. Even though the amount was greatly underpaid, it was still a small victory to the Chinese who had low expectations for relief or acknowledgement.[57]
Issues of the act
The Chinese Exclusion Act created fear and violence within Chinese communities as a result of immigration raids made legal through the Chinese Exclusion Act. During these raids they were at risk of being questioned, detained, or physically or verbally assaulted.[58] Targeting the Chinese was a day-to-day risk due to the anti-Chinese sentiment generated through the Chinese Exclusion Act their community was in danger.
An issue with the Chinese Exclusion act is that it established 'gatekeeping ideologies' within the US. Demonstrated through the act's mythological approach to restrict, exclude, and deport those believed to be 'undesirable'. The qualities associated with being 'undesirable' were categorized through individuals' race, gender, and class.[2] Purposely excluding those who worked to build America, contribute to their economy, and build a home. This was the first American law 'gatekeeping' the country based on those who were not seen as worthy enough to enter based on race.
Another issue was there were many workarounds that people quickly created to bypass the Chinese Exclusion Act. Chinese women would travel to Canada to get a marriage license in order to reunite with their families.[59] Men and women would walk across the American border intending to be arrested, to demand to go to court and claim they were born in America through providing a witness of their birth.[60] While the American and Canadian government did discover these workarounds and new laws were created, these methods still were accessible for several years after the exclusion act.
Impact
A 2024 study found that the legislation harmed the labor market integration of Chinese immigrants in the United States.[61] In response to the discrimination they faced, Chinese immigrants increasingly invested in education, adopted Americanized names, and enhanced their English proficiency.[61]
US–China relations
In the American effort to change many aspects of the Burlingame Treaty, the US took advantage of China's weakened position on the international stage. China was dealing with various challenging situations, such as the French government establishing a protectorate over Vietnam, which was a tributary country to China for a long time.[62] More importantly, it faced the Senkaku Islands dispute with Japan. Ex-President Ulysses S. Grant visited China in 1879, Viceroy Li Hongzhang, an important diplomat, told Grant that if the US helped China pressure the Japanese out of Senkaku Islands, he would make a concession on the Chinese immigration issue. This paved the way for the Angell Treaty of 1880, which greatly diminished Chinese immigrants' rights and interests.[63] The Angell Treaty opened the door for the complete prohibition of Chinese immigrants, as politicians realized that the immigrant question was not a priority for the Chinese government, and that China was weak, meaning that even if they had violate the treaties, China would not invade or create major problems. Overall, this shows how the US used its foreign relations with China to achieve its own domestic objectives.
Prior to the approval of the act, relations between China and the United States were generally positive. This was mainly because of the Burlingame Treaty, a treaty which included the right of Chinese people to free immigration and travel within the US, and protection of Chinese citizens residing in the United States.[64] Moreover, the treaty gave the two countries reciprocal access to education and schooling when living in the other country. Although the US viewed China as an inferior partner, nevertheless the relationship was positive. American politicians and presidents continued to maintain and uphold the treaty, for example, President Rutherford B. Hayes vetoed bills that contrasted the Burlingame Treaty.[65] As tensions grew domestically in the US however, Hayes began a revision of the Treaty and China agreed to limit immigration to the US However, once discussions began to enforce the Chinese Exclusion Act, and the law was then passed, "the Chinese Government considered this a direct insult".[66] Furthermore, when the US extended the law to Hawaii and the Philippines in 1902, this was greatly objected by the Chinese government and people, who viewed America as a bullish and imperial power who undermined China.[66]
Chinese women
The Chinese Exclusion Act had many impacts on Chinese women. As such, unique categories were created in the act to prevent their entry, so that the main way they immigrated was through marrying Chinese or native men. The interrogation was similar to male workers, except they had specific questions regarding bound feet in the early period: women with feet that had been bound tended to be from wealthy families, unbound feet were a sign of being from a low class and so were seen as less desirable by US border officers.[60]
Many women were forced to find alternative immigration methods to be able to reunify with loved ones after the Chinese Exclusion Act. Women would marry or even remarry their partners in Canada so that they were approved for immigration to join their merchant husbands in America. These women navigated and successfully overcame the US government in their many workarounds of the Chinese Exclusion Act. The Chinese Exclusion Act significantly impacted single women. Married women had better chances of immigration due to their merchant husbands. However, for single women it was nearly impossible to immigrate. Often the presumption was if they were single Chinese women they were prostitutes or were to be sold into prostitution.[60]
US education
Recruitment of foreign students to US colleges and universities was an important component in the expansion of American influence. International education programs allowed students to learn from the examples provided at elite universities and to bring their newfound skill sets back to their home countries. As such, international education has historically been seen as a vehicle for improving diplomatic relations and promoting trade. However, the Chinese Exclusion Act forced Chinese students attempting to enter the country to provide proof that they were not trying to bypass regulations.[48] Laws and regulations that stemmed from the act made for less than ideal situations for Chinese students, leading to criticisms of American society.[48] Policies and attitudes toward Chinese Americans in the US worked against foreign policy interests by limiting the ability of the US to participate in international education initiatives.[67]
US economy
The departure of many skilled and unskilled Chinese workers led to an across-the-board decline. Mines and manufacturers in California, where the majority of Chinese immigrants resided, closed and wages did not climb as anticipated. Furthering this, the value of agricultural produce declined due to falling demand reflective of the diminished population.[68] Joaquin Miller remarked in 1901 that since the Chinese departure, property value in Californian cities had remained at a standstill and capital investment had been hesitant.[32]
Race-based US legislation
The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first legislation that prohibited entry to an immigrant based on race and class. In this way, it facilitated further restriction by both being the model by which future groups could be radicalized as unassimilable aliens, and by also marking a moment where such discrimination could be justifiable.[2] The Chinese Exclusion Act's method of "radicalizing" the Chinese as a threat to America's values and working class, "containing" the danger by limiting their social and geographic mobility, and "defending" America through expulsion became the foundation of America's "gatekeeping" ideology.[2] The Immigration Act of 1924 placed quotas on all nationalities apart from Northwestern Europe, this could be seen as building off the gatekeeping ideology established with the Chinese Exclusion Act. Public perceptions of many immigrant groups such as Southern and Eastern Europeans in the late 19th and early 20th century had become one of "undesirability" when compared to those with Anglo-Saxon heritage, this was due largely to popular nativity attitudes and accepted racialism.[2][47] In this way, the restriction of these groups by 1924 compared to their Northwestern "desirable" counterparts could be seen to be carrying on the discrimination by perceived racial inferiority of immigrants that started with the Chinese Exclusion Act.[2]
Repeal and status
The Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed by the 1943 Magnuson Act when China had become an ally of the US against Japan in World War II, as the US needed to embody an image of fairness and justice. The Magnuson Act permitted Chinese nationals already residing in the country to become naturalized citizens and stop hiding from the threat of deportation. The act also allowed Chinese people to send remittances to people of Chinese descent living in mainland China, Macau, Hong Kong, and Taiwan and other countries or territories, especially if the funding is not tied to criminal activity. However, the Magnuson Act only allowed a national quota of 105 Chinese immigrants per year and did not repeal the restrictions on immigration from the other Asian countries. The crackdown on Chinese immigrants reached a new level in its last decade, from 1956 to 1965, with the Chinese Confession Program launched by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, that encouraged Chinese who had committed immigration fraud to confess, so as to be eligible for some leniency in treatment.[citation needed] Large-scale Chinese immigration did not occur until the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
The first Chinese immigrants who entered the United States under the Magnuson Act were college students who sought to escape the warfare in China during World War II and study in the US. The establishment of the People's Republic of China and its entry into the Korean War against the US, however, created a new threat in the minds of some American politicians: American-educated Chinese students bringing American knowledge back to "Red China". Many Chinese college students were almost forcibly naturalized, even though they continued to face significant prejudice, discrimination, and bullying. One of the most prolific of these students was Tsou Tang, who would go on to become the leading expert on China and Sino-American relations during the Cold War.[69]
Although the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed in 1943, the law in California prohibiting non-whites from marrying whites was not struck down until 1948, in which the California Supreme Court ruled the ban of interracial marriage within the state unconstitutional in Perez v. Sharp.[70][71] Some other states had such laws until 1967, when the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws across the nation are unconstitutional.
Currently (as of December 2024), although all its constituent sections have long been repealed, Chapter 7 of Title 8 of the United States Code is headed "Exclusion of Chinese".[72] It is the only chapter of the 15 chapters in Title 8 (Aliens and Nationality) that is completely focused on a specific nationality or ethnic group. Like the following Chapter 8, "The Cooly Trade", it consists entirely of statutes that are noted as "Repealed" or "Omitted".
On June 18, 2012, the US House of Representatives passed H.Res.683, a resolution introduced by Congresswoman Judy Chu which formally expresses the regret of the House of Representatives for the Chinese Exclusion Act.[73]S.Res.201, a similar resolution, had been approved by the US Senate in October 2011.[74]
In 2014, the California Legislature took formal action to pass measures that formally recognize the accomplishments of Chinese Americans in California and to call upon Congress to formally apologize for the 1882 adoption of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Senate Republican leader Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar) and incoming Senate president pro-Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) served as joint authors for Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 23[75] and Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 122,[76] respectively.[77]
Both SJR 23 and SCR 122 acknowledge and celebrate the history and contributions of Chinese Americans in California. The resolutions also formally call on Congress to apologize for laws that resulted in the persecution of Chinese Americans, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act.[75][76]
Perhaps most important are the sociological implications for understanding ethnic/race relations in the context of American history; minorities tend to be punished in times of economic, political, and/or geopolitical crises. However, times of social and systemic stability tend to mute any underlying tensions between different groups. In times of societal crisis—whether perceived or real—patterns of retractability of American identities have erupted to the forefront of America's political landscape, often generating institutional and civil society backlash against workers from other nations, a pattern documented by Fong's research into how crises drastically alter social relationships.[78]
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that the Chinese Exclusion Act could not overrule the citizenship of those born in the U.S. to Chinese parents
The Gentlemen's Agreement of 1907 was an informal agreement between the United States of America and the Empire of Japan whereby Japan would not allow laborers further emigration to the United States and the United States would not impose restrictions on Japanese immigrants already present in the country. The goal was to reduce tensions between the two Pacific nations such as those that followed the Pacific Coast race riots of 1907 and the segregation of Japanese students in public schools. The agreement was not a treaty and so was not voted on by the United States Congress. It was superseded by the Immigration Act of 1924.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart–Celler Act and more recently as the 1965 Immigration Act, was a federal law passed by the 89th United States Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The law abolished the National Origins Formula, which had been the basis of U.S. immigration policy since the 1920s. The act formally removed de facto discrimination against Southern and Eastern Europeans as well as Asians, in addition to other non-Western and Northern European ethnicities from the immigration policy of the United States.
The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the Asian Exclusion Act and National Origins Act, was a United States federal law that prevented immigration from Asia and set quotas on the number of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe. It also authorized the creation of the country's first formal border control service, the U.S. Border Patrol, and established a "consular control system" that allowed entry only to those who first obtained a visa from a U.S. consulate abroad.
The Asiatic Exclusion League was an organization formed in the early 20th century in the United States and Canada that aimed to prevent immigration of people of Asian origin.
The Geary Act was a United States law that extended the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 by adding onerous new requirements. It was written by California Representative Thomas J. Geary and was passed by Congress on May 5, 1892. The law required all Chinese residents of the United States to carry a resident permit, a sort of internal passport. Failure to carry the permit at all times was punishable by deportation or a year of hard labor. In addition, Chinese were not allowed to bear witness in court, and could not receive bail in habeas corpus proceedings.
The Immigration Act of 1917 was a United States Act that aimed to restrict immigration by imposing literacy tests on immigrants, creating new categories of inadmissible persons, and barring immigration from the Asia–Pacific region. The most sweeping immigration act the United States had passed until that time it followed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 in marking a turn toward nativism. The 1917 act governed immigration policy until it was amended by the Immigration Act of 1924; both acts were revised by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
Asian immigration to the United States refers to immigration to the United States from part of the continent of Asia, which includes East Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. Asian-origin populations have historically been in the territory that would eventually become the United States since the 16th century. The first major wave of Asian immigration occurred in the late 19th century, primarily in Hawaii and the West Coast. Asian Americans experienced exclusion, and limitations to immigration, by the United States law between 1875 and 1965, and were largely prohibited from naturalization until the 1940s. Since the elimination of Asian exclusion laws and the reform of the immigration system in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, there has been a large increase in the number of immigrants to the United States from Asia.
The history of Chinese Americans or the history of ethnic Chinese in the United States includes three major waves of Chinese immigration to the United States, beginning in the 19th century. Chinese immigrants in the 19th century worked in the California Gold Rush of the 1850s and the Central Pacific Railroad in the 1860s. They also worked as laborers in Western mines. They suffered racial discrimination at every level of White society. Many Americans were stirred to anger by the "Yellow Peril" rhetoric. Despite provisions for equal treatment of Chinese immigrants in the 1868 Burlingame Treaty between the U.S. and China, political and labor organizations rallied against "cheap Chinese labor".
The Page Act of 1875 was the first restrictive federal immigration law in the United States, which effectively prohibited the entry of Chinese women, marking the end of open borders. Seven years later, the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act banned immigration by Chinese men as well.
On February 19, 1862, the 37th United States Congress passed An Act to Prohibit the "Coolie Trade" by American Citizens in American Vessels. The act, which would be called the Anti-Coolie Act of 1862 in short, was passed by the California State Legislature in an attempt to appease rising anger among white laborers about salary competition created by the influx of Chinese immigrants at the height of the California Gold Rush. The act sought to protect white laborers by imposing a monthly tax on Chinese immigrants seeking to do business in the state of California.
The Seattle riot of 1886 occurred on February 6–9, 1886, in Seattle, Washington, amidst rising anti-Chinese sentiment caused by intense labor competition and in the context of an ongoing struggle between labor and capital in the Western United States. The dispute arose when a mob affiliated with a local Knights of Labor chapter formed small committees to carry out a forcible expulsion of all Chinese from the city. Violence erupted between the Knights of Labor rioters and federal troops ordered in by President Grover Cleveland. The incident resulted in the removal of over 200 Chinese civilians from Seattle and left two militia men and five rioters seriously injured, with one later dying from his injuries.
The Scott Act was a United States law that prohibited U.S. resident Chinese laborers from returning to the United States. Its main author was William Lawrence Scott of Pennsylvania, and it was signed into law by U.S. President Grover Cleveland on October 1, 1888. It was introduced to expand upon the Chinese Exclusion Act passed in 1882 and left an estimated 20,000-30,000 Chinese outside the United States at the time of its passage stranded, with no option to return to their U.S. residence.
The padrone system was a contract labor system utilized by many immigrant groups to find employment in the United States, most notably Italian, but also Greeks, Chinese, Japanese, and Mexican Americans. The word 'padrone' is an Italian word meaning 'boss', 'manager' or 'owner' when translated into English. The system was a complex network of business relationships formed to meet a growing need for skilled and unskilled workers. Padrones were labor brokers, usually immigrants or first-generation Americans themselves, who acted as middlemen between immigrant workers and employers.
The Angell Treaty of 1880, formally known as the Treaty Regulating Immigration from China, was a modification of the 1868 Burlingame Treaty between the United States and China, passed in Beijing, China, on November 17, 1880.
Chinese Americans in the Pacific Northwest have been around since as early as the 1850s. Chinese Americans arrived in the Greater Seattle area in as early as 1851. Oregon had also seen an influx of Chinese Immigrants as early as 1851, because of mining opportunities. Idaho saw an influx of Chinese Immigrants in the late-19th century, and by 1870 saw a population of around 4,000 Chinese immigrants. The influx of Chinese immigrants in the Pacific Northwest and the rest of the Western United States led to retaliation by whites, leading to anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States. These sentiment then led to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which expelled many Chinese Americans in the Pacific Northwest. Chinese exclusion is also driven by the failure of restriction. The United States had passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 to slow immigration, and mend Sinophobia in the west. However, the enforcement of the exclusion act was lackluster. The United States Department of Treasury had found itself with no money to enforce this law. Thus, nullifying the purpose of the exclusion act. Additionally, under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, Chinese people could migrate to the United States if they were return immigrants. Consequently, Chinese immigrants began claiming that they were return immigrants so that they could work in the United States. This also made the Chinese Exclusion Act 1882 useless. This led the United States government to pass the Scott Act of 1888. This excluded all Chinese immigration because it was cheaper, and it appeased the racial tensions in the west.
Asian American activism broadly refers to the political movements and social justice activities involving Asian Americans. Since the first wave of Asian immigration to the United States, Asians have been actively engaged in social and political organizing. The early Asian American activism was mainly organized in response to the anti-Asian racism and Asian exclusion laws in the late-nineteenth century, but during this period, there was no sense of collective Asian American identity. Different ethnic groups organized in their own ways to address the discrimination and exclusion laws separately. It was not until the 1960s when the collective identity was developed from the civil rights movements and different Asian ethnic groups started to come together to fight against anti-Asian racism as a whole.
The California Joint Immigration Committee (CJIC) was a nativist lobbying organization active in the early to mid-twentieth century that advocated exclusion of Asian and Mexican immigrants to the United States.
Anti-Chinese violence in California includes a number of massacres, riots, expulsions and other violent actions that were directed at Chinese American communities in the 19th century. The attacks on Chinese were often sparked by labor disputes. In the 1880s alone, Chinese communities were attacked in 34 towns in California, often resulting in the local Chinatown being looted and burned.
The Gresham-Yang Treaty was a treaty signed between the United States of America and the Qing dynasty in 1894, in which the Qing dynasty consented to measures put in place by the United States prohibiting Chinese immigration in exchange for the readmission of previous Chinese residents, thus agreeing to the enforcement of the Geary Act. This was the first time the United States government barred an entire ethnic group from entering the mainland United States of America.
Chinese immigration to America in the 19th century is commonly referred to as the first wave of Chinese Americans, and are mainly Cantonese and Taishanese speaking people.
↑ Ow, Jeffrey A. (October 2009). "Immigration at the Golden Gate: Passenger Ships, Exclusion, and Angel Island". Journal of American Ethnic History. 29 (1): 72–73. doi:10.2307/40543565. JSTOR40543565. S2CID254489490.
↑ Lew-Williams, Beth (2018). The Chinese Must Go: Violence, Exclusion, and the Making of the Alien in America. Harvard University Press. ISBN978-0-674-97601-6.[pageneeded]
1 2 Erika Lee (2003). At America's Gates: Chinese Immigration During the Exclusion Era, 1882–1943. University of North Carolina Press.
1 2 Crean, Jeffrey (2024). The Fear of Chinese Power: an International History. New Approaches to International History series. London: Bloomsbury. ISBN978-1-350-23394-2.
1 2 3 Wellborn, Mildred (1912). "The Events Leading to the Chinese Exclusion Acts". Annual Publication of the Historical Society of Southern California. 9 (1/2): 49–58. doi:10.2307/41168895. JSTOR41168895.
↑ Rhoads, Edward J. M. (2002). "White Labor vs Coolie Labor: the Chinese Question in Pennsylvania in the 1870s". Journal of American Ethnic History. 21 (2). University of Illinois Press: 3–32. doi:10.2307/27502811. JSTOR27502811. S2CID254494076.
↑ Rhoads, Edward J. M. (June 1999). "Asian Pioneers in the Eastern United States: Chinese Cutlery Workers in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, in the 1870s". Journal of Asian American Studies. 2 (2). Johns Hopkins University Press: 119–155. doi:10.1353/jaas.1999.0019. S2CID144303641.
1 2 David L. Anderson (1978). "The Diplomacy of Discrimination: Chinese Exclusion, 1876–1882". California History. 57 (1): 32–45. doi:10.2307/25157814. JSTOR25157814.
↑ Chew, Kenneth; Liu, John (March 2004). "Hidden in Plain Sight: Global Labor Force Exchange in the Chinese American Population, 1880–1940". Population and Development Review. 30 (1). Population Council: 57–78. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2004.00003.x. JSTOR3401498.
↑ Lee, Erika (2003). At America's Gates: Chinese Immigration during the Exclusion Era, 1882–1943. University of North Carolina Press. p.51. ISBN978-0-8078-2775-8.
↑ Daniels, Roger (2002). Coming to America: A History of Immigration and Ethnicity in American Life. Harper Perennial. p.271. ISBN978-0-06-050577-6.
↑ Chin, Gabriel J. (1998). "Segregation's Last Stronghold: Race Discrimination and the Constitutional Law of Immigration". UCLA Law Review. 46 (1). SSRN1121119.
↑ Kennedy, David M.; Cohen, Lizabeth; Bailey, Thomas A. (2002). The American Pageant (12thed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin.
↑ Bozich III, Frank A. "The unwanted immigrant". JMU Scholarly Commons. p.98. Retrieved January 24, 2024.
1 2 3 Jacobson, Matthew Frye (1998). Whitness of a Different Color, European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. pp.39–91. ISBN978-0-674-95191-4.
1 2 3 4 Moon, Krystyn R. (May 2018). "Immigration Restrictions and International Education: Early Tensions in the Pacific Northwest, 1890s-1910s". History of Education Quarterly. 58 (2): 261–294. doi:10.1017/heq.2018.2. S2CID150233388.
↑ Taylor, K. W. (2013). "The French conquest". A History of the Vietnamese. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-87586-8.
↑ Wickberg, Edgar (August 1985). "China and the Overseas Chinese in the United States, 1868–1911. By Shihshan Henry Tsai. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 1983. ix, 116 pp. Tables, Illustrations, Appendixes, Glossary, Bibliographical Note, Index. $17.50". The Journal of Asian Studies. 44 (4): 829–830. doi:10.2307/2056473. JSTOR2056473. S2CID147093748.
↑ Leong, K. J. (2003). "Foreign Policy, National Identity, and Citizenship: The Roosevelt White House and the Expediency of Repeal". Journal of American Ethic History. 22 (4): 3–30. JSTOR27501347.
↑ Chin, Gabriel; Karthikeyan, Hrishi (2002). "Preserving Racial Identity: Population Patterns and the Application of Anti-Miscegenation Statutes to Asian Americans, 1910–1950". Asian Law Journal. 9. Social Science Research Network. SSRN283998.
↑ "H.Res. 683 (112th)". GovTrack.us. June 8, 2012. Archived from the original on September 12, 2012. Retrieved August 9, 2012. Expressing the regret of the House of Representatives for the passage of laws that adversely affected the Chinese in the United States, including the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Gyory, Andrew (1991). Rolling in the dirt: The origins of the Chinese Exclusion Act and the politics of racism, 1870–1882 (PhD thesis). ProQuest303976843.
Lee, Erika (2002). "The Chinese Exclusion Example: Race, Immigration, and American Gatekeeping, 1882–1924". Journal of American Ethnic History. 21 (3): 36–62. doi:10.2307/27502847. JSTOR27502847. S2CID157999472.
Miller, Joaquin (December 1901). "The Chinese and the Exclusion Act". The North American Review. 173 (541). University of Northern Iowa: 782–789. JSTOR25105257.
Sandmeyer, Elmer Clarence (1939). The Anti-Chinese Movement In California. Illini. ISBN978-0-252-00338-7.
Takaki, Ronald (1998) [1989]. Strangers from a Different Shore: A History of Asian Americans (2nded.). New York: Back Bay. ISBN978-0-316-83130-7.
Further reading
Anderson, David L. (1978). "The Diplomacy of Discrimination: Chinese Exclusion, 1876–1882". California History. 57 (1): 32–45. doi:10.2307/25157814. JSTOR25157814.
Chan, Sucheng, ed. (1991). Entry Denied: Exclusion and the Chinese Community in America, 1882–1943. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ISBN978-0-87722-798-4.
Gold, Martin (2012). Forbidden Citizens: Chinese Exclusion and the U.S. Congress: A Legislative History. TheCapitol.Net. ISBN978-1-58733-235-7.
Gyory, Andrew (1998). Closing the Gate: Race, politics, and the Chinese Exclusion Act. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. ISBN978-0-8078-4739-8.
He, Fang. " 'Golden Lilies' Across the Pacific: Bodies and Paradoxes of US Inclusion in Enforcing the Chinese Exclusion Laws" (PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara, 2018) online
Kil, Sang Hea (2012). "Fearing yellow, imagining white: media analysis of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882". Social Identities. 18 (6): 663–677. doi:10.1080/13504630.2012.708995. S2CID143449924.
Lau, Estelle T. Paper families: Identity, immigration administration, and Chinese exclusion (Duke University Press, 2006) online.
Lew-Williams, Beth (2014). "Before restriction became exclusion: America's experiment in diplomatic immigration control". Pacific Historical Review. 83 (1): 24–56. doi:10.1525/phr.2014.83.1.24.
Lew-Williams, Beth. "Paper Lives of Chinese Migrants and the History of the Undocumented." Modern American History 4.2 (2021): 109–130.
Perry, Jay (2014). "bibliography". The Chinese Question: California, British Columbia, and the making of transnational immigration policy, 1847–1885 (Thesis). Bowling Green State University. pp.242–276. Archived from the original on May 10, 2017. Retrieved June 25, 2018.
Weber, Kent Joseph. "Chinese Exclusion and U.S. Empire in Hawai’i and Cuba, 1874-1943' (PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2020. 28093826) online.
Wong, Edlie L. Racial Reconstruction: Black Inclusion, Chinese Exclusion, and the Fictions of Citizenship (NYU Press, 2015) online
Primary sources
Lerner, K. Lee; Lerner, Brenda Wilmoth; Lerner, Adrienne Wilmoth, eds. (2006). "Chinese Exclusion Act (1882)". Human and Civil Rights: Essential Primary Sources. Thomson Gale. pp.378–382. ISBN978-1-4144-0326-7. GaleCX2560000140.
The Yung Wing Project hosts the memoir of one of the earliest naturalized Chinese whose citizenship was revoked forty-six years after having received it as a result of the Chinese Exclusion Act.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
