Geary Act

Geary Act
Long title	An Act to prohibit the coming of Chinese persons into the United States.
Nicknames	Chinese Exclusion Act of 1892
Enacted by	the 52nd United States Congress
Effective	May 5, 1892
Citations
Public law	52-60
Statutes at Large	27 Stat. 25
Codification
Acts repealed	December 17, 1943
Legislative history
	Introduced in the House as H.R. 6185 by Thomas J. Geary (D–CA) on February 18, 1892; Committee consideration by House Foreign Affairs ; Passed the House on April 4, 1892 (179-43); Passed the Senate on April 25, 1892 (43-14); Reported by the joint conference committee on May 2, 1892; agreed to by the Senate on May 3, 1892 (30-15) and by the House on May 4, 1892 (186-27); Signed into law by President Benjamin Harrison on May 5, 1892;

Last updated February 23, 2024

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 Geary Act was challenged in the courts but was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in an opinion by Justice Horace Gray, Fong Yue Ting v. United States , 149 U.S. 698, 13 S. Ct. 1016. 37 L.Ed. 905 (1893), Justices David Josiah Brewer, Stephen J. Field, and Chief Justice Melville Fuller dissenting.

The Chinese Exclusion Acts remained in force until partly modified by the Magnuson Act in 1943, which slightly opened up Chinese immigration and permitted naturalization.

Background

Chinese immigrants came to the U.S. in large numbers during the California Gold Rush and in the 1860s when the Central Pacific Railroad recruited labor to build its portion of the Transcontinental Railroad. Once gold became more scarce and labor more competitive, white hostility to the Chinese (as well as other foreign laborers) intensified in the West.^[1] This hostility eventually led to the passage of anti-Chinese immigration laws, such as the Page Act of 1875 and the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The Act excluded Chinese "skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining" from entering the country for ten years under penalty of imprisonment and deportation, as well as denying U.S. citizenship to Chinese immigrants.^[2] The Act effectively began immigration enforcement at the border because prior to the passage of the Page Act and Chinese Exclusion Act, there existed no trained officials and interpreters, nor the bureaucratic machinery with which to enforce immigration restriction laws or an effort to document and track the movements and familial relationships of immigrants. These types of policies implemented in the Page and Chinese Exclusion Acts have largely been seen as due to what Erika Lee depicts as Government officials' deep "suspicion Chinese were attempting to enter the country under fraudulent pretenses".^[3]

The Act

The original Exclusion Act of 1882 only excluded Chinese laborers for a period of 10 years. Following the Exclusion Act of 1882 and other amendments, such as the documentary requirement changing 1884 amendment, efforts were sought to crack down on illegal entry and residence of Chinese in the U.S. When the 1882 Act expired in 1892, Californian Democratic Senator Thomas Geary sponsored the Act's renewal and so the extension provision was named after him.

The Geary Act, besides renewing the exclusion of Chinese laborers for another 10 years, also outlined provisions that required Chinese already in the U.S. to possess "certificates of residence" (as well as "certificates of identity" after the McCreary amendment was added) that served as proof that they entered the U.S. legally and had the right to remain in the country. The certificates of residence were to cost no more than $1($17.58 in today's money) and contained the name, age, local residence, occupation, and photograph of the applicant. The act placed the burden of proof of their right to be in the U.S. on the Chinese themselves, denied bail to Chinese in habeas corpus proceedings, made it the duty of all Chinese laborers in the U.S. to apply within one year for a certificate of residence, with a duplicate kept in the office of the Collector of Internal Revenue, and suitable penalties were prescribed for any falsification of certificates. Another of the Act's provisions required two white witnesses to testify to a Chinese person's immigration status. If any Chinese laborer within the United States without this certificate of residence was "deemed and adjudged to be unlawfully in the United States", they could be arrested and forced to do hard labor, and be deported after a year.^[4] This was the first time ever illegal immigration to the U.S. was made punishable by such a harsh degree.

Even though this Act seems to have granted no concessions to Chinese immigrants whatsoever, historians such as Elmer Clarence Sandmeyer have noted that many Californians were disappointed that the Act did not achieve total exclusion.^[5] Although the Act stated that these certificates – as well as similar "certificates of identity" later created by the then newly formed Bureau of Immigration to document all Chinese who were actually exempt from the Exclusion and subsequent Geary Acts (for example merchants, teachers, travelers, and students) – were supposed to serve as "indubitable proof of legal entry", the documents did not function to protect legal immigrants and residents from government harassment. As Erika Lee describes, because the Act required all Chinese to possess the certificates, the entire Chinese community in the U.S. – including immigrants and residents who were supposed to be exempt from the exclusionary laws – was exposed to the same level of constraint and inquiry governing Chinese laborers.^[6] This unprecedented level of inquiry was motivated by the prejudiced view that it was, as Senator Geary said, "impossible to identify [one] Chinaman [from another]".^[6] No other immigrant group were required to hold documents proving their lawful residence until 1928, when 'immigrant identification cards' were first issued to any new immigrant arriving for permanent residence. These were replaced by green cards, officially called Alien Registration Receipt Cards, after 1940.^[7] Such "gatekeeping" in Lee's characterization was rooted in "a western American desire to sustain white supremacy in a multiracial West".^[8]

Reaction

The Los Angeles Herald strongly supported the Act and its certification provision, stating in an editorial that "nearly all civilized nations have had until lately a very rigid system of passports in which a very exact personal description of the bearer formed a part."^[9]

Within a few months of the implementing the Act, Chinese in the U.S. began organizing to resist the enforcement of the law. The heads of the Six Companies, the San Francisco branch of The Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, proclaimed that the Chinese in the U.S. ought not register, but rather contribute to a fund for hiring of lawyers to fight the law on the ground of unconstitutionality. The effort was overwhelmingly successful (only 3,169 of the estimated 110,000 Chinese in the country had registered by the April 1893 deadline),^[10] yet newspaper coverage of the protest reported Chinese as being slaves to doing whatever The Six Companies told them to do.

Resistance came from outside the West of the country as well. The Chinese Equal Rights League in New York and Brooklyn pleaded that its members to help their fellow countrymen, and enrolled some 150 English-speaking Chinese merchants and professionals in New York. Its leaders argued that by making Chinese immigrants pay the "illegal costs and expenses" of enforcing the law, the bill imposed taxation without representation.^[11] The Chinese Equal Rights League was able to gain much support from whites on the East Coast, as on September 22, 1892, more than one thousand U.S. citizens joined some two hundred Chinese merchants and laborers at Cooper Union in Manhattan to protest the Geary Act.

Several Chinese that refused to register for their certificate of residence brought suit that, upon appeal, was brought before the Supreme Court in Fong Yue Ting v. United States in 1893. Among some of the questions brought before the Court was whether the Act violated the 1868 Burlingame Treaty with China, whether hard labor and deportation constituted cruel and unusual punishment and thus violated the Eighth Amendment, whether the Act violated Fifth and Sixth Amendments protections by permitting imprisonment with hard labor without prior indictment or jury trial, whether the act violated the Fourteenth Amendment's prohibition against the taking of property or liberty without due process, among other issues. The Court's 5 to 3 decision, delivered by Justice Horace Gray, ruled that the if the U.S. as a sovereign nation had the power to exclude any person or any race it wished, it also must be able to deport any person or race it wished, and thus upheld the Geary Act.

The Geary Act provisions for imprisonment and forced labor were invalidated by Wong Wing v. United States in 1896. The Supreme Court ruled that with respect to criminal penalties non-citizens have rights to courts and due process under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. However the government could still detain people pending deportation.^[12]

Upon hearing the decision, the Chinese Consulate, the Six Companies, and many Chinese in the U.S. stated that they refused to pay their way back to China if deported, thus leaving the U.S. government financially responsible. The Chinese Government also informed the U.S. that if it acted on the law, it would end all relations – diplomatic and economic – with the U.S. Additionally, since Congress did not write any provisions granting money to pay for, and thus enforce, deportations, the Act as was rendered moot until it was amended through the McCreary amendment (named after the senator who proposed it) to appease the Chinese government, but did so only by providing an additional six months for Chinese to register for the residency certificates. Even with the amendment, Congress only appropriated several hundred thousand dollars to the law's enforcement.

Despite the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutionality of the law, there were practical problems with implementation. Nationally, only 13,242 Chinese laborers registered, about 14 percent of those subject to the law.^[13] The cost of arresting and deporting as many as 85,000 unregistered Chinese was estimated at more than $7 million, but Congress had authorized only $60,000 and failed to provide a mechanism for deportation within the Geary Act.^[14] When Ny Look, a Chinese Civil War veteran was arrested in New York for failure to register, Judge Emile Henry Lacombe of the U.S. Circuit Court in the Southern District of New York, ruled in In re Ny Look that there were no deportation provisions in the law and Look could not be detained indefinitely therefore he should be released.^[15]

McCreary Amendment

These problems led to the passage of an amendment, known as the McCreary Amendment, which provided an additional six months for Chinese to register, as well as additional restrictions such as photographs on the registration certificates.^[16] The McCreary Amendment is notable for containing the first statutory requirement of photographic identification on immigration documentation, laying the foundation for photographic identification statutory requirements in immigration policy ever since.^[17]

Related Research Articles

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. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first major U.S. 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.

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 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 zone. 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of Chinese Americans</span> History of ethnic Chinese in the United States

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 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".

During the 18th and most of the 19th centuries, the United States had limited regulation of immigration and naturalization at a national level. Under a mostly prevailing "open border" policy, immigration was generally welcomed, although citizenship was limited to “white persons” as of 1790, and naturalization subject to five year residency requirement as of 1802. Passports and visas were not required for entry to America, rules and procedures for arriving immigrants were determined by local ports of entry or state laws, and processes for naturalization were determined by local county courts.

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.

Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 U.S. 47 (1892), was a United States Supreme Court case. Occurring at the beginning of the era of Chinese Exclusion as well as the formation of the United States courts of appeals, the case set precedents for the interpretation of the rights of Chinese merchants as well as the jurisdiction of the new courts. The ruling relied heavily the Burlingame Treaty of 1868, the Angell Treaty of 1880, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the amendments to the Act in 1884, as well as the Evarts Act of 1891. The case helped to establish not only the rights of the Chinese merchant class, but also informed future cases about the power of the Circuit Court of Appeals as well as the perception of Chinese immigrants.

United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (1905), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court conceded its right to judicial review over immigration matters. The case held that "a citizen of Chinese parentage seeking admission to the United States" could be excluded by the administrative immigration authorities, even when being denied a hearing before a judicial body on the question whether they were indeed a citizen. The Court determined that refusing entry at a port does not deny due process and held that findings by immigration officials are conclusive and not subject to judicial review unless there is evidence of bias or negligence. This case marked a shift in the court in respect to habeas corpus petitions and altered the judicial landscape for citizens applying for admission into the United States as well as for those facing deportation.

Deportation and removal from the United States occurs when the U.S. government orders a person to leave the country. In fiscal year 2014, Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted 315,943 removals. Criteria for deportations are set out in 8 U.S.C. § 1227.

Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903), popularly known as the Japanese Immigrant Case, is a Supreme Court of the United States case about the federal government's power to exclude and deport certain classes of alien immigrants under the Immigration Act of 1891. The Supreme Court held that the courts may not interfere with a pending deportation unless the administrative hearing was unfair. However, deportation procedures are subject to constitutional scrutiny, under the Due Process Clause.

Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581 (1889), better known as the Chinese Exclusion Case, was a case decided by the US Supreme Court on May 13, 1889, that challenged the Scott Act of 1888, an addendum to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876), was a US Supreme Court case that ruled that the powers to set rules surrounding immigration and to manage foreign relations rest with the US federal government, rather than that of the states. The case has been cited in other Supreme Court cases related to government authority on matters relating to immigration policy and immigration enforcement, most recently in Arizona v. United States (2012).

Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893), decided by the United States Supreme Court on May 15, 1893, was a case challenging provisions in Section 6 of the Geary Act of 1892 that extended and amended the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The provisions in question required Chinese in the United States to obtain certificates of residency and allowed for the arrest and the deportation of Chinese who had failed to obtain these certificates, even if they had not violated any other laws. The case involved writs of habeas corpus from Fong Yue Ting and two other Chinese citizens residing in New York City who were arrested and detained for not having certificates. The Supreme Court decision was in favor of the United States government, upholding the Geary Act and denying the writs of habeas corpus.

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.

The Immigration Act of 1891, also known as the 1891 Immigration Act, was a modification of the Immigration Act of 1882, focusing on immigration rules and enforcement mechanisms for foreigners arriving from countries other than China. It was the second major federal legislation related to the mechanisms and authority of immigration enforcement, the first being the Immigration Act of 1882. The law was passed on March 3, 1891, at the end of the term of the 51st United States Congress, and signed into law by then United States President Benjamin Harrison.

Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651 (1892), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality of some provisions of the Immigration Act of 1891. The case was decided against the litigant and in favor of the government, upholding the law. The case is one of two major cases that involved challenges to the Immigration Act of 1891 by Japanese immigrants, the other case being Yamataya v. Fisher.

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.

References

↑ The Story of California From the Earliest Days to the Present. Chicago: A.C. McClurg & Co.. pp. 283–296
↑ Chinese immigration to the United States, 1851–1900 at Library of Congress site
↑ Lee, Erika. At America's Gates, pg. 41
↑ Geary Act (27 Stat. 25), sec. 7, and McCreary Amendment (28 Stat. 7), sec. 2
↑ Sandmeyer, Elmer Clarence. The Anti-Chinese Movement in California, pg 104
1 2 Lee, Erika. At America's Gates, pg. 42
↑ Alien Registration Act of 1940
↑ Lee, Erika. At America's Gates, pg. 46
↑ "Editorials". Los Angeles Herald. Vol. 38, no. 25. 6 May 1892. Retrieved 14 November 2016. The president yesterday signed the Chinese exclusion bill. It was not what the people of California wanted. That was embodied in the Geary bill. This last measure, however, was by no means without its effect. It compelled the conservative senate to insert a provision compelling all Chinamen in the United States to take out certificates. This provision seems to have attracted the special wrath of Congressman Hitt. He says that it is the first time in the history of civilized nations that it has been found necessary to tag men like dogs. This sapient individual seems to have forgotten that nearly all civilized nations have had until lately a very rigid system of passports in which a very exact personal description of the bearer formed a part. This certificate feature of the new bill is the only gain over its predecessor, and we may thank Congressman Geary for forcing the concession.
↑ Pfaelzer, Jean. Driven Out, pg. 299
↑ Pfaelzer, Jean. Driven Out: The Forgotten War Against Chinese Americans, pg. 293
↑ "Wong Wing v. United States". Oyez.org. Retrieved 2016-02-28.
↑ Lucy Salyer, Laws Harsh as Tigers: Chinese Immigrants and the Shaping of Modern Immigration Law, 46–48
↑ Notes on Recent Decisions, Minnesota Law Journal vol. 1, no. 4 (August 1893), 86.
↑ In re Ny Look, C.C. New York (1893), 56 Fed. 81; "Notes on Recent Decisions," Minnesota Law Journal vol. 1, no. 4 (August 1893), 86; "The Ny Look Case" , Washington Post , p. 4, May 28, 1893, ProQuest 139024306 ; "The Ny Look Test Case" , New York Times , p. 4, May 26, 1893
↑ Anna Pegler-Gordon, In Sight of America: Photography and the Development of U.S. Immigration Policy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009)
↑ Pegler-Gordon, Anna (2006). "Chinese Exclusion, Photography, and the Development of U.S. Immigration Policy". American Quarterly. 58 (1): 51–77. doi:10.1353/aq.2006.0032. ISSN 0003-0678. JSTOR 40068348. S2CID 144711101.

v t e Benjamin Harrison
23rd President of the United States (1889–1893) Senator from Indiana (1881–1887)
Life	Berkeley Plantation 70th Indiana Infantry Regiment Benjamin Harrison Presidential Site 1880 Republican National Convention 1888 United States presidential election 1888 Republican National Convention Front porch campaign Crown Hill Cemetery
Presidency	Inauguration of Benjamin Harrison Foreign policy Dependent and Disability Pension Act 51st United States Congress Sherman Antitrust Act Sherman Silver Purchase Act Lodge Bill General Revision Act McKinley Tariff Immigration Act of 1891 Geary Act First International Conference of American States Baltimore crisis List of federal judges appointed by Benjamin Harrison 1892 United States presidential election 1892 Republican National Convention
Public image	Benjamin Harrison (Niehaus) Fort Benjamin Harrison Fort Harrison State Park Harrison Hall
Family	Caroline Harrison (first wife) Mary Dimmick Harrison (second wife) Russell Benjamin Harrison (son) Mary Harrison McKee (daughter) Elizabeth Harrison Walker (daughter) William Henry Harrison III (grandson) John Scott Harrison (father) William Henry Harrison (grandfather) Anna Harrison (grandmother) Benjamin Harrison V (great-grandfather) John Cleves Symmes (great-grandfather) Benjamin Harrison IV (great-great-grandfather) Benjamin Harrison III (great-great-great grandfather) Robert Carter I (great-great-great grandfather)
← Grover Cleveland Grover Cleveland → Category