In re Ah Yup

Last updated

In re Ah Yup was an 1878 landmark court decision in the United States that deemed residents of Asian descent ineligible for naturalization. Since the existing laws allowed only for the naturalization of white people and black people, the Chinese plaintiff Ah Yup attempted to argue that Chinese people were white. A federal court in California dismissed this contention with reference to then current pseudoscientific and popular ideas about race, emphasizing that "Orientals" were unfit for participation in republican government because of the unsatisfactory political culture which existed in Asia at the time.

Contents

Case classification

Prerequisite cases were cases based on racial restrictions on naturalization. The first reported prerequisite case was handed down in 1878. From 1878 until the end of racial restrictions on naturalization in 1952, fifty-one more prerequisite cases were decided in jurisdictions around the country, all the way from California to Washington D.C. All of these had to do with applicants from a variety of countries including, Canada, Mexico, Japan, the Philippines, India, and Syria. Almost all of these cases were instances where the applicants presented claims of white racial identity. [1]

Ah Yup was the first prerequisite case. This case gave a sense of what to expect in future cases, as well as the reasoning that reflected almost every other prerequisite case that would be presented in the United States. [2]

History

Ah Yup was an ethnically Chinese immigrant who applied for naturalization. The petition stated that all of the qualifications required by the statute to entitle the petitioner to be naturalized were present, as long as the statute authorized the naturalization of a native of China of the "Mongolian race" (a term used at the time to include people from most Asian ethnic groups). The question then being posed by this case was, 'is a person of the Mongolian race a "white person" within the meaning of the statute?' [3]

On April 29, 1878, the Ninth Circuit Court in California denied Ah Yup the right to naturalize. The court did this by citing the 1802 naturalization laws and all revised statutes that had been passed since. At the time of Ah Yup's petition, the laws granted all "free white persons" as well as all "aliens of African nativity, and persons of African descent" the right to naturalize. The court ruled that Mongolians could not be classified as "white", and made it clear that the existing provisions prevented all except "whites" and those of African descent from naturalizing to the United States. [4]

Decision

Circuit Judge Lorenzo Sawyer presided over this case. He noted that this case constituted the first naturalization application by a person from China. Sawyer turned to evidence coming from science and that of amici curiae to assist the court in a decision. The evidence coming from science was based on contemporary anthropological thought on racial classifications. [5] Judge Sawyer diligently reviewed the legislative history of the naturalization statute. He not only wanted to rely on the opinions of the amici, but also the scientific evidence as he searched for a clue to the meaning of the question of Chinese naturalization.

The judge carefully examined congressional debates that came about because of Senator Charles Sumner's opposition to racial restrictions. These debates directly dealt with and questioned Chinese naturalization. After careful consideration, Sawyer decided that he was "of the opinion that a native of China, of the Mongolian race, is not a white person" and due to this Ah Yup was denied citizenship to the United States of America. [6]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chinese Exclusion Act</span> Act of US Congress in 1882 that prohibited all immigration of Chinese laborers

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 excluded merchants, teachers, students, travelers, and diplomats. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first and only major U.S. law ever implemented to prevent all members of a specific national group from immigrating to the United States.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but equal". Notably the court ruled the existence of laws based upon race was not inherently racial discrimination. The decision legitimized the many state laws re-establishing racial segregation that had been passed in the American South after the end of the Reconstruction era (1865–1877).

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case involved Mildred Loving, a woman of color, and her white husband Richard Loving, who in 1958 were sentenced to a year in prison for marrying each other. Their marriage violated Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which criminalized marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored". The Lovings appealed their conviction to the Supreme Court of Virginia, which upheld it. They then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear their case.

<i>Tape v. Hurley</i> 1885 California Supreme Court case

Tape v. Hurley, 66 Cal. 473, (1885) was a landmark court case in the California Supreme Court in which the Court found the exclusion of a Chinese American student from public school based on her ancestry unlawful. The case effectively ruled that minority children were entitled to attend public school in California. After the Court's decision, San Francisco Superintendent of Schools, Andrew J. Moulder, urged the California state assembly to pass new state legislation which enabled the establishment of segregated schools under the separate but equal doctrine, like the contemporaneous Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). The establishment of the new school marked the continued segregation in the education system in California.

Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78 (1927), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the exclusion on account of race of a child of Chinese ancestry from a public school did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The decision effectively approved the exclusion of any minority children from schools reserved for whites.

Takao Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 178 (1922), was a US legal proceeding. The United States Supreme Court found Takao Ozawa, a Japanese American who was born in Japan but had lived in the United States for 20 years, ineligible for naturalization. In 1914, Ozawa filed for US citizenship under the Naturalization Act of 1906. This act allowed only "free white persons" and "persons of African nativity or persons of African descent" to naturalize. Ozawa did not challenge the constitutionality of the racial restrictions. Instead, he claimed that Japanese people should be properly classified as "free white persons".

United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that Bhagat Singh Thind, an Indian Sikh man who identified himself as an Aryan, was ineligible for naturalized citizenship in the United States. In 1919, Thind filed a petition for naturalization under the Naturalization Act of 1906 which allowed only "free white persons" and "aliens of African nativity and persons of African descent" to become United States citizens by naturalization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bhagat Singh Thind</span> Indian American writer and civil rights activist

Bhagat Singh Thind was an Indian American writer and lecturer on spirituality who served in the United States Army during World War I and was involved in a Supreme Court case over the right of Indian people to obtain United States citizenship.

A covenant, in its most general sense and historical sense, is a solemn promise to engage in or refrain from a specified action. Under historical English common law, a covenant was distinguished from an ordinary contract by the presence of a seal. Because the presence of a seal indicated an unusual solemnity in the promises made in a covenant, the common law would enforce a covenant even in the absence of consideration. In United States contract law, an implied covenant of good faith is presumed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Naturalization Act of 1790</span> United States federal law

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was a law of the United States Congress that set the first uniform rules for the granting of United States citizenship by naturalization. The law limited naturalization to "free White person(s) ... of good character", thus excluding Native Americans, indentured servants, enslaved people, free black people, and later Asians, although free black people were allowed citizenship at the state level in many states. The courts also associated whiteness with Christianity and thus excluded Muslim immigrants from citizenship until the decision Ex Parte Mohriez recognized citizenship for a Saudi Muslim man in 1944.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial aspects of race in the United States</span>

Legislation seeking to direct relations between racial or ethnic groups in the United States has had several historical phases, developing from the European colonization of the Americas, the triangular slave trade, and the American Indian Wars. The 1776 Declaration of Independence included the statement that "all men are created equal," which has ultimately inspired actions and legislation against slavery and racial discrimination. Such actions have led to passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

The legal and social strictures that define White Americans, and distinguish them from persons who are not considered white by the government and society, have varied throughout the history of the United States.

In the United States, there has long been competition and racial prejudice between African Americans and Latino Americans. There have also been inter-racial tensions between African Americans and Asian Americans.

<i>Dow v. United States</i>

Dow v. United States, 226 F. 145, is a United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, case in which a Syrian immigrant, George Dow, appealed two lower court decisions denying his application for naturalization as a United States citizen. Following the lower court decisions in Ex Parte Dow (1914) and In re Dow (1914), Dow v. United States resulted in the Circuit Court's affirmation of the petitioner's right to naturalize based, in the words of Circuit Judge Woods, on "the generally received opinion. .. that the inhabitants of a portion of Asia, including Syria, [are] to be classed as white persons".

Ian F. Haney López is the Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Public Law at the University of California, Berkeley. He works in the area of racism and racial justice in American law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hong Yen Chang</span> American lawyer

Hong Yen Chang was reportedly the first Chinese immigrant licensed to practice law in the United States. Though admitted to the New York State Bar, he was denied admission to the California State Bar in 1890. He remained a prominent member of the Chinese community and went on to lead a distinguished career in banking and diplomacy.

Alien land laws were a series of legislative attempts to discourage Asian and other "non-desirable" immigrants from settling permanently in U.S. states and territories by limiting their ability to own land and property. Because the Naturalization Act of 1870 had extended citizenship rights only to African Americans but not other ethnic groups, these laws relied on coded language excluding "aliens ineligible for citizenship" to prohibit primarily Chinese and Japanese immigrants from becoming landowners without explicitly naming any racial group. Various alien land laws existed in over a dozen states. Like other discriminatory measures aimed at preventing minorities from establishing homes and businesses in certain areas, such as redlining and restrictive covenants, many alien land laws remained technically in effect, forgotten or ignored, for many years after enforcement of the laws fell out of practice.

William Ah Hang was one of few veterans of Chinese heritage who served during the course of the American Civil War [1]. He was also a businessman and prominent figure in the New York Chinese community [2]. He served in the Union Navy during maritime conflicts in the states of South Carolina and Alabama. Notably, Hang was also heavily involved in legal advocacy for his citizenship status and voting rights after being denied the right to vote following a series of laws limiting the ability of Chinese immigrants to become naturalized U.S. citizens [2, 4].

References

  1. ↑ Lopez, Ian H. White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race. New York: New York UP, 1996. Print. pg. 35
  2. ↑ Lopez, Ian H. White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race. New York: New York UP, 1996. Print. pg. 38
  3. ↑ Lopez, Ian H. White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race. New York: New York UP, 1996. Print. pg.169
  4. ↑ "This Month in History: In Re Ah Yup Rules Chinese Ineligible for Naturalized Citizenship on April 29, 1878." Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Program. Web. 28 Sept. 2011. <http://apanews.si.edu/2010/04/08/this-month-in-history-in-re-ah-yup-rules-chinese-ineligible-for-naturalized-citizenship-on-april-29-1878/>.
  5. ↑ Lopez, Ian H. White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race. New York: New York UP, 1996. Print. pg. 38
  6. ↑ Lopez, Ian H. White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race. New York: New York UP, 1996. Print. pg. 38-39
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.