Ozawa v. United States

Last updated

Takao Ozawa v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 3–4, 1922
Decided November 13, 1922
Full case nameTakao Ozawa v. United States
Citations260 U.S. 178 ( more )
43 S. Ct. 65; 67 L. Ed. 199; 1922 U.S. LEXIS 2357
Holding
Ozawa was racially "ineligible for citizenship" as he did not qualify as belonging to the Caucasian race.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William H. Taft
Associate Justices
Joseph McKenna  · Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
Willis Van Devanter  · Mahlon Pitney
James C. McReynolds  · Louis Brandeis
George Sutherland
Case opinion
MajoritySutherland, joined by unanimous

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. [1] In 1914, Ozawa filed for United States 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".

Contents

Background

Takao Ozawa was born on June 15, 1875, in Kanagawa, Japan. [2] In 1894, he moved to San Francisco, California, where he attended school. After he graduated from Berkeley High School, Ozawa attended the University of California. In 1906, after graduating, he moved to Honolulu, Hawaii. After settling down in Honolulu, Ozawa learned English fluently, practiced Christianity, and obtained a job at an American company. [2] While in Hawaii, he married a Japanese woman with whom he had two children. Ozawa's wife studied in the United States. His family spoke fluent English and focused on American culture more than they did on Japanese culture.

On October 16, 1914, Takao Ozawa decided to apply for citizenship since he had lived in America for 20 years. Despite his US education, Ozawa did not get his citizenship easily. [3] Ozawa tried to petition under the naturalization law, but he was ineligible as he was classified as Japanese. By the time Ozawa's case made it to the Supreme Court he had been living in America for 28 years. [4]

In his brief to the court, Ozawa argued for his case on the basis of his good character. Ozawa notably wrote in his brief that "The color of skin is controlled by climate", further arguing that an individual's race should not be a determining factor in their worth as a person and ultimately his worth as a citizen of The United States. [4]  An excerpt from one of Ozawa's legal briefs reads as follows: "I neither drink liquor of any kind, nor smoke, nor play cards, nor gamble, nor associate with any improper person. My honesty and my industriousness are well known among my Japanese and American acquaintances and friends; and I am always trying my best to conduct myself according to the Golden Rule." [5]

The courts' reaction

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice George Sutherland approved a line that lower court cases held, stating that "the words 'white person was only to indicate a person of what is popularly known as the Caucasian race." The courts stated that the Japanese were not considered as "free white persons" within the meaning of the law. Justice Sutherland wrote that the lower courts' conclusion that the Japanese were not "free white persons" for purposes of naturalization had “become so well established by judicial and executive concurrence and legislative acquiescence that we should not at this late day feel at liberty to disturb it, in the absence of reasons far more cogent than any that have been suggested." Justice Sutherland also wrote in the court's opinion that the court was not making “any suggestion of individual unworthiness or racial inferiority." [4] The Court declined to review the ethnological authorities relied on by the lower courts to support their conclusion or those advanced by the parties.

Ozawa's case seemingly added to the Supreme Courts ever growing list of contradictions and muddled rhetoric surrounding race and citinzsenhip. [6] Three months after Ozawa's case was heard by the Supreme Cour, the court completely altered their own reasoning during the case of United States v. Thind. Thind, an Indian man from the northern region of Punjab moved to The United States when he was young, having even joined the U.S. Army during World War I. [7]  Thind made the argument that he should be able to naturalize as a U.S. citizen because he was of the Cacausian race, the rhetoric that Ozawa's case upheld. Although the court agreed that Thind was Cacausian, the court also asserted that Thind was not white and that whiteness has to be "be interpreted in accordance with the understanding of the common man, synonymous with the word ‘Caucasian’ only as that word is popularly understood." [8]

The Supreme Court demonstrated that at the time of Ozawa and Thind's case they were concerned with maintaining and protecting white citizenship as oppose to following their own rheotric.

Effects

On the same day, the Supreme Court released its ruling in Yamashita v. Hinkle , which upheld Washington state's alien land law. [9]

Within three months, Justice Sutherland authored a ruling in a Supreme Court case concerning the petition for naturalization of a Sikh immigrant from the Punjab region in British India, who identified himself as "a high caste Hindu of full Indian blood" in his petition, United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind . The upshot of this ruling was that, as with the Japanese, "high-caste Hindus, of full Indian blood" were not "free white persons" and were racially ineligible for naturalized citizenship. To support this conclusion, Justice Sutherland reiterated Ozawa's holding that the words "white person" in the naturalization act were "synonymous with the word 'Caucasian' only as that word is popularly understood". [10]

Reaction

Writing in Foreign Affairs in 1923, a social scientist named Raymond Leslie Buell said, "The Japanese are now confronted with the unpalatable fact, laid down in unmistakable terms by the highest court in the land, that we consider them unfit to become Americans." [11]

Ozawa's case did not depend on "any suggestion of individual unworthiness or racial inferiority". [12] The argument was that if Ozawa was denied citizenship based on his race, did the law consider the Japanese people an inferior race and Caucasians a superior race? Ozawa argued that his skin was the same color, if not whiter than other Caucasians. [2] The case allowed for anti-Japanese proponents to justify the passing of the Immigration Act of 1924, which prohibited the immigration of people from Asia to the United States. Some West Coast newspapers expressed satisfaction with the Ozawa decision, though the Sacramento Bee called for a constitutional amendment “which would confine citizenship by right of birth in this country to those whose parents were themselves eligible to citizenship.” [12]

Japan is a strict jus sanguinis state as opposed to jus soli state, meaning that it attributes citizenship by blood and not by location of birth. In practice, it can be by parentage and not by descent. [13] [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

The Caucasian race is an obsolete racial classification of humans based on a now-disproven theory of biological race. The Caucasian race was historically regarded as a biological taxon which, depending on which of the historical race classifications was being used, usually included ancient and modern populations from all or parts of Europe, Western Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa.

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.

Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the application of curfews against members of a minority group were constitutional when the nation was at war with the country from which that group's ancestors originated. The case arose out of the issuance of Executive Order 9066 following the attack on Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entry into World War II. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had authorized military commanders to secure areas from which "any or all persons may be excluded", and Japanese Americans living in the West Coast were subject to a curfew and other restrictions before being removed to internment camps. The plaintiff, Gordon Hirabayashi, was convicted of violating the curfew and had appealed to the Supreme Court. Yasui v. United States was a companion case decided the same day. Both convictions were overturned in coram nobis proceedings in the 1980s.

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">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 Africans, Pacific Islanders, and non-White Asians. This eliminated ambiguity on how to treat newcomers, given that free black people had been allowed citizenship at the state level in many states. In reading the Naturalization Act, 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">Naturalization Act of 1906</span> United States federal law

The Naturalization Act of 1906 was an act of the United States Congress signed into law by Theodore Roosevelt that revised the Naturalization Act of 1870 and required immigrants to learn English in order to become naturalized citizens. The bill was passed on June 29, 1906, and took effect September 27, 1906. It was repealed and replaced by the Nationality Act of 1940. It was modified by the Immigration Act of 1990.

The racial classification of Indian Americans has varied over the years and across institutions. Originally, neither the courts nor the census bureau classified Indian Americans as a race because there were only negligible numbers of Indian immigrants in the United States. Early Indian Americans were often denied their civil rights, leading to close affiliations with African Americans. For most of America's early history, the government only recognized two racial classifications, white or colored. Due to immigration laws of the time, those deemed colored were often stripped of their American citizenship or denied the ability to become citizens. For these reasons, various South Asians in America took the government to court to try to be considered white instead of colored. After advocacy from the Indian American community, the racial category of Asian Indian was finally introduced in the 1980 U.S. census.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">A. K. Mozumdar</span> Indian American spiritual writer and teacher

Akhay Kumar Mozumdar was an Indian American spiritual writer and teacher associated with the New Thought Movement in the United States. He became a naturalized American in 1913 and in 1923, following United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, Mozumdar was the first Indian after Bhagat Singh Thind to have his United States citizenship taken away.

<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. Race is defined as a social and political category within society based on hierarchy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">George Sutherland</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1922 to 1938

George Alexander Sutherland was an English-born American jurist and politician. He served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court between 1922 and 1938. As a member of the Republican Party, he also represented Utah in both houses of Congress.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Valentine S. McClatchy</span> American newspaper owner and journalist

Valentine Stuart McClatchy was an American newspaper owner and journalist. As publisher of The Sacramento Bee from his father's death in 1883, McClatchy co-owned the paper with his brother Charles K. McClatchy until 1923. After leaving the newspaper business, he became a leading figure in the anti-Japanese movement in California and formed key exclusionary groups to lobby for alien land laws and race-based limits on immigration and naturalization.

<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 Charles Albert Woods, on "the generally received opinion. .. that the inhabitants of a portion of Asia, including Syria, [are] to be classed as white persons".

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sakharam Ganesh Pandit</span> Indian American civil rights lawyer

Sakharam Ganesh Pandit (1875–1959), also known as S. G. Pandit, was an Indian American lawyer and civil rights activist. Pandit immigrated to the United States in 1906 and became a citizen in 1914. In 1923, he represented Bhagat Singh Thind in the Supreme Court case United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind; the Court ruled against Thind and found that Indians were ineligible for United States citizenship. However, Pandit successfully fought against a subsequent attempt to remove his own citizenship, and the federal government thereafter gave up its efforts to denaturalize Indian Americans. Pandit died in Los Angeles in 1959.

United States v. Balsara (1910) was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided that Bhicaji Balsara, a Parsee Immigrant, was eligible for citizenship in the United States. This case served as an early racial prerequisite case that defined the definition of whiteness, where the court determined that people who were caucasian, under the racial thinking of the time, were white. In 1923, in the case of United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, the court dismissed the prior definition of "Caucasian" and, instead, adopted the standard of common understanding. The court determined that "White" referred to immigrants from Northern or Western Europe.

References

  1. ↑ Ozawa v. the United States, 260 U.S. 178 (1922).
  2. 1 2 3 "Ozawa v. United States | Densho Encyclopedia". encyclopedia.densho.org. Retrieved May 1, 2021.
  3. ↑ "TAKAO OZAWA v. UNITED STATES". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved May 1, 2021.
  4. 1 2 3 Yeatman, Nicole W. C. (November 14, 2022). "The Hill: The Supreme Court failed Asian Americans a century ago. What will it do now?". Pacific Legal Foundation. Retrieved May 6, 2024.
  5. ↑ Teel, Steven C. (1998). "Lessons on Judicial Interpretation: How Immigrants Takao Ozawa and Yick Wo Searched the Courts for a Place in America". OAH Magazine of History. 13 (1): 41–49. ISSN   0882-228X.
  6. ↑ Ito, Emma (May 19, 2021). "Whiteness on Trial: Asian Americans and the Right to Citizenship - The UncommonWealth" . Retrieved May 6, 2024.
  7. ↑ "Racial Identity and American Citizenship in the Court | lesson plan curriculum | The Asian American Education Project". asianamericanedu.org. Retrieved May 6, 2024.
  8. ↑ "United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923)". Justia Law. Retrieved May 6, 2024.
  9. ↑ Yamashita v. Hinkle , 260 U.S. 199 (1922).
  10. ↑ Race, Nation, and Refuge. www.sunypress.edu. Retrieved May 11, 2021.
  11. ↑ Buell, Raymond Leslie (December 15, 1923). "Again the Yellow Peril" . Foreign Affairs . Vol. 2, no. 2. ISSN   0015-7120.
  12. 1 2 "1922 Seventy-five Years Ago | AMERICAN HERITAGE". www.americanheritage.com. Retrieved May 1, 2021.
  13. ↑ "The Nationality Law (Law No.147 of 1950, as amended by Law No.268 of 1952, Law No.45 of 1984, Law No.89 of 1993 and Law.No.147 of 2004, Law No.88 of 2008) Article 8". 2008. Retrieved August 5, 2017.
  14. ↑ "Tokyo court upholds deportation order for Thai teenager born and raised in Japan". 2016. Retrieved December 6, 2016.
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.