Yee Won v. White, 256 U.S. 399 (1921), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court affirmed the prior Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Yee Won, a Chinese laundryman in San Francisco, was considered a laborer and not a merchant, thus denying his wife and children entry into the United States from China.
The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first major law that significantly restricted immigration to the United States. The act was intended to stop all Chinese immigration into the United States, with exceptions for diplomats, teachers, students, merchants, and travelers. [1] The act explicitly prohibited Chinese laborers, both skilled and unskilled, from entering the United States. [2] While the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act was only a ten-year ban, Congress voted to extend the ban another ten years in 1892 with the Geary Act. [2] In 1902, the ban was made permanent. [3] This resulted in decades of exclusion of Chinese people until the act was repealed in 1943.
Despite exclusionary laws and practices, San Francisco was a hub of Chinese immigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. By 1900, there were approximately 25,000 Chinese immigrants or people of Chinese descent living in San Francisco. [4] The core of this immigration was Angel Island, an immigration station in the San Francisco Bay. [5] Chinese immigrants who entered San Francisco through Angel Island were often treated as the enemy and subject to detentions. [6] This unfair treatment did not end for Chinese immigrants after passing through Angel Island. Upon entering the city of San Francisco, Chinese people were subject to xenophobia and racism in several ways, including through attitudinal racism and legal exclusion. [7] Scholars have identified San Francisco as a crux of Chinese exclusionary practices with anti-Chinese sentiments being widespread. [8]
A prominent occupation for Chinese immigrants and people of Chinese descent in San Francisco was laundry work. This work had distinct implications regarding gender dynamics, with "white power laundrymen" making gendered claims about laundry work to delegitimize Chinese laundrymen. [9] This included claiming that those who did laundry work and owned laundromats were classified as "laborers" and not "merchants" despite owning property and running successful laundry businesses. [9]
Due to the targeted policies towards Chinese immigrants and Chinese Americans such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, many Chinese people pursued legal action to fight discriminatory laws and practices. [10] Chinese litigation in U.S. courts was common during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with approximately 9,600 corpus cases brought by Chinese petitioners between 1880 and 1990. [10] Laundry litigation was one prominent type of case brought about by Chinese litigants. [10] Out of these thousands of cases, only twenty were elevated to the Supreme Court. [11] Yee Won v. White was one of them.
Yee Won, the plaintiff, was a Chinese-born immigrant who resided in San Francisco. In 1901, a 20-year-old Yee Won arrived to the United States from China. [12] Yee Won lawfully entered through Angel Island and was granted residence due to his status as the son of a resident merchant. [12]
Edward White, the defendant, was the San Francisco Commissioner of Immigration in the early 20th century. White's role as commissioner was to enforce immigration law in San Francisco. White and his staff acted in cooperation with the Department of Justice to investigate, interrogate, and detain immigrants trying to enter the United States at Angel Island. [6] In his role as commissioner, White had legal action taken against him several times in the 1920s. Many of these cases were similar to Yee Won v. White in that they were brought about by Chinese litigants against White and dealt with issues concerning entry to the United States. Three cases against White besides the Yee Won case were also elevated to the Supreme Court: Kwock Jan Fat v. White (1920), [13] Ng Fung Ho et al. v. White (1922), [14] and Chung Fook v. White (1924). [15]
Yee Won entered the United States through Angel Island in 1901 as the son of a Chinese merchant. [12] Yee Won's father died in 1908. [12] In 1910, Yee Won applied for an identification of status through the port of San Francisco. This was because Yee Won was leaving for China and such identification would secure Yee Won's admission to the country upon his return. [12] In this application, Yee Won did not claim to be a merchant but rather a "capitalist and property owner." [16] Yee Won secured a certificate to be able to return to China and then legally re-enter the United States. [16] Yee Won departed for China in 1911. [12]
Yee Won returned to the United States in 1914. Upon his return, he brought his wife, Chin Shee, who he married in 1911, and his two children, born in 1912 and 1913. [16] Yee Won's wife and children were applicants to enter the United States, having been born in China and never previously entering the United States. [12] In United States v. Mrs. Gue Lim, it was established that the wives and minor children of Chinese merchants wer able to enter United States without certificates. [17] In support of having his wife and children gain entry under this holding, Yee Won again testified that he was a "property owner and a capitalist," providing evidence such as bank books and other documents to show he was a person of significant means. [16] Yee Won testified that he exported fruit and provided information for a property lease under his name. [18]
While the application for Yee Won's family was pending, the commissioner received anonymous evidence that testified that Yee Won was a laundryman, thus classifying him as a "laborer" and not a "merchant" and unable to bring his family into the United States. [16] The Commissioner of Immigration denied the admission of Yee Won's family members on the grounds that Yee Won's status as exempt from the Chinese Exclusion Act had not been satisfactorily established. [18]
The legal issue at hand was whether or not Yee Won was considered a "merchant" and could thus be considered a member of the exempt class under the Chinese Exclusion Act, resulting in his wife and children being able to gain entry to the United States.
Following the denial of his wife and children's applications, Yee Won filed a petition in the District Court for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging an unfair hearing and abuse of discretion by immigration officials. [18] The District Court dismissed Yee Won's petition. [18] Yee Won appealed this decision, elevating the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the judgement of the District Court in dismissing the petition was correct. [18] Yee Won filed a writ of certiorari, elevating the case to the Supreme Court, which accepted the case for review. [12]
In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the prior Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which ruled in favor of the defendant, White. Justice James Clark McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court. The court cited the Chinese Exclusion Act as the basis for justification that Yee Won's wife and children could not enter the United States. The court's opinion was that the Chinese Exclusion Act's purpose would be impeded by permitting the entry of wives and minor children of Chinese residents who came as members of the exempt class and later assumed the status of laborers. [12] Thus, the court ruled there was "no such exemption of a resident laborer's wife and minor children." [12]
The sole dissenter of the case was Justice John Hessin Clarke. Clarke was progressive and reform-minded, with deep convictions about the role of the Supreme Court and constitutional interpretations. [19] This resulted in him dissenting in many cases, often being the sole dissenter. [19] Clarke resigned from the Supreme Court one year after Yee Won v. White, in 1922, having served six years since being sworn into the court in 1916. [20]
The Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed in 1943, 22 years after the Yee Won case. [21] While the act was repealed, an immigration quota for Chinese people was established, allowing only 105 visas per year. [22] The Chinese immigration quota was abolished with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, going into effect in 1968. [23] Since then, Chinese immigration has grown immensely, going from just over 800,000 in 1980 to over 4 million in 2020. [24] Despite blatant exclusionary practices ending and Chinese immigration increasing, systemic racism against Chinese immigrants is still present in the legal system, reflecting the long-term impacts of this exclusion. [22] Ultimately, Yee Won v. White leaves a legacy as an example of the real-world impact of the Chinese Exclusion Act and a significant example of Chinese litigation fighting this exclusion.
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 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.
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.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
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 later Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). The establishment of the new school marked the continued segregation in the education system in California.
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.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that a prima facie race-neutral law administered in a prejudicial manner infringed upon the right to equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
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 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.
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.
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.
Paper sons or paper daughters are Chinese people who were born in China and illegally immigrated to the United States and Canada by purchasing documentation which stated that they were blood relatives to Chinese people who had already received U.S. or Canadian citizenship or residency. Typically it would be relation by being a son or a daughter. Several historical events such as the Chinese Exclusion Act and 1906 San Francisco earthquake caused the illegal documents to be produced.
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.
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.
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.
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.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link){{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)