Examine individual changes

'{{Short description|American federal law enacted in 1882}} {{Use American English|date=November 2024}} {{Use mdy dates|date=November 2024}} {{For|Chinese Exclusion Act in Canada|Chinese Immigration Act, 1923}} {{distinguish|Immigration Act of 1924}} {{Infobox U.S. legislation | shorttitle = Chinese Exclusion Act | nickname = Chinese Exclusion Act | enacted by = 47th | effective date = May 6, 1882 | cite public law = {{uspl|47|126}} | cite statutes at large = {{usstat|22|58}}, Chap. 126 | sections created = {{usctc|8|7}} | introducedin = House | introducedbill = {{USBill|47|H.R.|5804}} | introducedby = [[Horace F. Page]] ([[Republican Party (United States)|R]]–[[California|CA]]) | introduceddate = April 12, 1882 | committees = [[United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs|House Foreign Relations]] | passedbody1 = House | passeddate1 = April 17, 1882 Votes 88R 102D Not Voting 52 | passedvote1 = [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/47-1/h83 202–37] | passedbody2 = Senate | passeddate2 = April 28, 1882 Votes 9R 22D Not Voting 29 | passedvote2 = [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/47-1/s370 32–15] | agreedbody3 = House | agreeddate3 = May 3, 1882 | agreedvote3 = Agreed | signedpresident = [[Chester A. Arthur]] | signeddate = May 6, 1882 }} [[File:Chineseexclusionact.JPG|thumb|First page of the Chinese Exclusion Act passed by Congress in 1882<ref>{{Cite web |last=Tracey |first=Liz |date=2022-05-19 |title=The Chinese Exclusion Act: Annotated |url=https://daily.jstor.org/the-chinese-exclusion-act-annotated/ |access-date=2024-04-24 |website=JSTOR Daily}}</ref>]] The '''Chinese Exclusion Act''' was a [[United States Code|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.{{sfn|Lee|2002}} 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.<ref>{{Cite encyclopedia |title=Chinese Exclusion Act |encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Chinese-Exclusion-Act |date=21 July 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ow |first=Jeffrey A. |date=October 2009 |title=Immigration at the Golden Gate: Passenger Ships, Exclusion, and Angel Island |journal=Journal of American Ethnic History |volume=29 |issue=1 |pages=72–73 |doi=10.2307/40543565 |jstor=40543565 |s2cid=254489490}}</ref> Passage of the law was preceded by growing [[Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States|anti-Chinese sentiment]] and anti-Chinese violence, as well as various policies targeting Chinese migrants.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Lew-Williams |first=Beth |title=The Chinese Must Go: Violence, Exclusion, and the Making of the Alien in America |publisher=Harvard University Press |year=2018 |isbn=978-0-674-97601-6}}{{pn|date=February 2024}}</ref> 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 American history|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.<ref name="Lee2003" /> In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled in ''[[United States v. Wong Kim Ark]]'' that the law did not prevent the children of Chinese immigrants born in the United States from acquiring [[Birthright citizenship in the United States|birthright citizenship]]. The law remained in force until the passage of the [[Magnuson Act]] in 1943, which repealed the exclusion and allowed 105 Chinese immigrants to enter the United States each year. Chinese immigration later increased with the passage of the [[Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952]], which abolished direct racial barriers, and later by the [[Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965]], which abolished the [[National Origins Formula]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Wei |first=William |title=The Chinese-American Experience: An Introduction |url=http://immigrants.harpweek.com/chineseamericans/1Introduction/BillWeiIntro.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140126021457/http://immigrants.harpweek.com/ChineseAmericans/1Introduction/BillWeiIntro.htm |archive-date=2014-01-26 |access-date=2014-02-05 |publisher=HarpWeek}}</ref> == Background == {{Further|History of Chinese Americans}} [[File:The Chinese Must Go - Magic Washer - 1886 anti-Chinese US cartoon.jpg|thumb|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.<ref>{{Cite web |date=August 9, 2022 |title=Chinese Exclusion Act: 1882 |url=https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/chinese-exclusion-act-1882 |access-date=2024-04-14 |website=HISTORY}}</ref>{{bsn|date=November 2024}} [[File:Willard B. Farwell, Official Map of Chinatown 1885, Cornell CUL PJM 1093 01.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|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".]] [[File:Chinese railroad workers in snow.jpg|thumb|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.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Norton |first=Henry K. |url=http://www.sfmuseum.net/hist6/chinhate.html |title=The Story of California From the Earliest Days to the Present |publisher=A. C. McClurg & Co. |year=1924 |location=Chicago |pages=283–296 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080509090327/http://www.sfmuseum.net/hist6/chinhate.html |archive-date=2008-05-09 |url-status=dead}}</ref> 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 Miners' Tax Act of 1850|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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=K of L. Washington, D.C. Pioneer Laundry Workers Assembly |title=China's menace to the world: from the forum: to the public |url=https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/murray:@field(DOCID+@lit(lcrbmrpt2412div1)) |access-date=11 November 2017 |publisher=The Library of Congress |archive-date=April 4, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200404230234/https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem%2Fmurray%3A%40field%28DOCID+%40lit%28lcrbmrpt2412div1%29%29 |url-status=dead }}</ref> With the [[Reconstruction era|post-Civil War]] economy in decline by the 1870s, the [[Yellow Peril|anti-Chinese animosity]] became politicized by labor leader [[Denis Kearney]] and his [[Workingmen's Party of California|Workingman's Party]]<ref>{{Cite news |last=Kearney |first=Denis |date=28 February 1878 |title=Appeal from California. The Chinese Invasion. Workingmen's Address |url=http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5046/%7C |access-date=5 May 2014 |work=[[Indianapolis Times]]}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Crean2024">{{Cite book |last=Crean |first=Jeffrey |title=The Fear of Chinese Power: an International History |publisher=Bloomsbury |year=2024 |isbn=978-1-350-23394-2 |series=New Approaches to International History series |location=London}}</ref>{{Rp|page=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 [[Supreme Court of California|State Supreme Court]],<ref>{{Cite web |title=1855 Cal. Stat. 194 Capitation Tax |url=http://libraryweb.uchastings.edu/library/research/special-collections/wong-kim-ark/1855%20Cal.%20Stat.%20194.pdf |access-date=30 November 2017 |publisher=[[University of California, Hastings College of the Law]] |archive-date=March 7, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210307234602/http://libraryweb.uchastings.edu/library/research/special-collections/wong-kim-ark/1855%20Cal.%20Stat.%20194.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> many more [[Anti-Chinese legislation in the United States|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.<ref name="Kanazawa2005" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Wellborn |first=Mildred |title=The Events Leading to the Chinese Exclusion Acts |year=1913 |page=56}}</ref> But toward the end of the decade, the financial situation improved and state level exclusion laws were passed.<ref name="Kanazawa2005" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Text of the Chinese Exclusion Act |url=http://librarysource.uchastings.edu/library/research/special-collections/wong-kim-ark/1858%20Cal.%20Stat.%20295.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140505105756/http://librarysource.uchastings.edu/library/research/special-collections/wong-kim-ark/1858%20Cal.%20Stat.%20295.pdf |archive-date=2014-05-05 |access-date=2014-05-05 |publisher=[[University of California, Hastings College of the Law]]}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Kanazawa2005">{{Cite journal |last=Kanazawa |first=Mark |date=September 2005 |title=Immigration, Exclusion, and Taxation: Anti-Chinese Legislation in Gold Rush California |journal=The Journal of Economic History |volume=65 |issue=3 |pages=779–805 |doi=10.1017/S0022050705000288 |jstor=3875017 |s2cid=154316126}}</ref> January 1868, the Senate ratified the [[Burlingame Treaty]] with China, allowing an unrestricted flow of Chinese into the country.{{sfnm|Reeves|1975|1pp=277–278|Hoogenboom||2pp=387–389}} 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.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Batstone |first1=David |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0RDKAgAAQBAJ&dq=North+Adams+strike+chinese+immigration&pg=PA86 |title=The Good Citizen |last2=Mendieta |first2=Eduardo |publisher=Routledge |year=2014 |isbn=978-1-135-30280-1}}</ref>{{sfn|Gyory|1991|p={{pn|date=February 2024}}}} A very important part of Chinese Immigration was the backbreaking work being done on railroads across the United States. Chinese immigrants took on the jobs so brutal, no white Americans were willing to do them. [[Leland Stanford]] founder of the [[Central Pacific Railroad]] and [[Stanford University]] told Congress that the majority of railroad workers were Chinese, and that it would be impossible to complete westward expansion without them.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kennedy |first=Lesley |date=2023-04-28 |title=Building the Transcontinental Railroad: How 20,000 Chinese Immigrants Made It Happen |url=https://www.history.com/news/transcontinental-railroad-chinese-immigrants |access-date=2024-04-15 |website=history.com}}</ref>{{bsn|date=November 2024}} 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{{sfn|Sandmeyer|1939|p=41}} 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.{{sfn|Gyory|1991|p={{pn|date=February 2024}}}} Before 1876, Californian legislators had made various attempts to restrict Chinese immigration by targeting Chinese businesses, living spaces{{fact|date=February 2024}} 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 to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], or the [[Civil Rights Act of 1866]].{{sfn|Sandmeyer|1939|p=41}} In light of such failures, It became clear that the issue had to be solved by the [[Federal government of the United States|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.{{sfn|Gyory|1991|p={{pn|date=February 2024}}}} 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.<ref>{{Cite web |title=A Message to the President about Anti-Chinese Sent |url=https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=3&psid=22#:~:text=These%20great%20men%20gathered%20some,and%20resolutions%20against%20Chinese%20emigration |access-date=2024-01-24 |website=Digital History}}</ref> 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).{{sfn|Gyory|1991|p={{pn|date=February 2024}}}} 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: [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] [[Aaron 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.{{sfn|Gyory|1991|p={{pn|date=February 2024}}}}<ref name="Wellborn1912" /> 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.{{sfn|Gyory|1991|p={{pn|date=February 2024}}}} 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,{{sfn|Lee|2002}} 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.{{sfn|Sandmeyer|1939|p=41}} Numerous strikes followed the Adams strike, notably [[Beaver Falls Cutlery Company]] in Pennsylvania and others<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Rhoads |first=Edward J. M. |year=2002 |title=White Labor vs Coolie Labor: the Chinese Question in Pennsylvania in the 1870s |journal=Journal of American Ethnic History |publisher=University of Illinois Press |volume=21 |issue=2 |pages=3–32 |doi=10.2307/27502811 |jstor=27502811 |s2cid=254494076}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Rhoads |first=Edward J. M. |date=June 1999 |title=Asian Pioneers in the Eastern United States: Chinese Cutlery Workers in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, in the 1870s |journal=Journal of Asian American Studies |publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press |volume=2 |issue=2 |pages=119–155 |doi=10.1353/jaas.1999.0019 |s2cid=144303641}}</ref> After the economy soured in the [[Panic of 1873]], Chinese immigrants were blamed for depressing workmen's wages.{{sfnm|Reeves|1975|1pp=277–278|Hoogenboom||2pp=387–389}} At one point, Chinese men represented nearly a quarter of all wage-earning workers in California.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Salyer |first=L. |url=https://archive.org/details/lawsharshastiger00saly_0 |title=Law Harsh as Tigers: Chinese Immigrants and the Shaping of Modern Immigration Law |publisher=University of North Carolina Press |year=1995 |isbn=978-0-8078-4530-1 |location=Chapel Hill |url-access=registration}}{{pn|date=February 2024}}</ref> 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 [[Immigrant invasion|anti-immigration "invasion" rhetoric]].<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Zimmer |first=Ben |date=2019-08-06 |title=Where Does Trump's 'Invasion' Rhetoric Come From? |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/08/trump-immigrant-invasion-language-origins/595579/ |access-date=2019-08-12 |magazine=The Atlantic}}</ref> 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?".{{sfn|Lee|2002}} 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 of California|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.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Constitution of the State of California, 1879 |url=http://www.sos.ca.gov/archives/collections/1879/archive/1879-constitution.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130516131106/http://www.sos.ca.gov/archives/collections/1879/archive/1879-constitution.pdf |archive-date=2013-05-16}}</ref> Three years later, after China had agreed to treaty revisions, Congress tried again to exclude working-class Chinese laborers; Senator [[John Franklin Miller (senator)|John F. Miller]] of California introduced another Chinese Exclusion Act that blocked entry of Chinese laborers for a twenty-year period.{{sfnm|Reeves|1975|1pp=278–279|Doenecke||2pp=81–84}} 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.{{sfnm|Reeves|1975|1pp=278–279|Doenecke||2pp=81–84}}<ref name="Anderson1978" /> The [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] voted 201–37, with 51 abstentions, to pass the act.{{sfn|Takaki|1998|pp=111–112}} 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.{{sfnm|Reeves|1975|1pp=278–279|Doenecke||2pp=81–84}}<ref name="Anderson1978">{{Cite journal |last=David L. Anderson |year=1978 |title=The Diplomacy of Discrimination: Chinese Exclusion, 1876–1882 |journal=California History |volume=57 |issue=1 |pages=32–45 |doi=10.2307/25157814 |jstor=25157814}}</ref> [[File:Anti-Chinese Wall cartoon Puck 1882.jpg|thumb|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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Chew |first1=Kenneth |last2=Liu |first2=John |date=March 2004 |title=Hidden in Plain Sight: Global Labor Force Exchange in the Chinese American Population, 1880–1940 |journal=Population and Development Review |publisher=Population Council |volume=30 |pages=57–78 |doi=10.1111/j.1728-4457.2004.00003.x |jstor=3401498 |number=1}}</ref><ref name="Lee2003">{{Cite book |last=Erika Lee |title=At America's Gates: Chinese Immigration During the Exclusion Era, 1882–1943 |publisher=University of North Carolina Press |year=2003}}</ref> 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.{{sfn|Miller|1901}} 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.<ref>{{Cite web |date=January 17, 2023 |title=Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) |url=https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/chinese-exclusion-act |access-date=2024-04-11 |website=archives.gov}}</ref> == Content == The Act was the first US immigration law to target a specific ethnicity or nationality.<ref name="Crean2024" />{{Rp|page=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.<ref name="LOC2003">{{Cite web |date=2003-09-01 |title=Exclusion |url=https://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/immigration/chinese6.html |access-date=2010-01-25 |publisher=[[Library of Congress]]}}</ref><ref name="U.S. News & World Report">{{Cite news |title=The People's Vote: Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) |url=https://www.usnews.com/usnews/documents/docpages/document_page47.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070328223654/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/documents/docpages/document_page47.htm |archive-date=28 March 2007 |access-date=5 May 2014 |work=U.S. News & World Report}}</ref> [[File:Chinese exclusion article 1901.jpg|thumb|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<ref name="U.S. News & World Report" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web |date=9 April 2021 |title=Welcome to OurDocuments.gov |url=https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=47&page=transcript |website=ourdocuments.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name="LOC2003" /><ref name="U.S. News & World Report" /> 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.<ref name="LOC2003" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Chinese Exclusion Act, 1884 Amendments |url=https://immigrants.harpweek.com/chineseamericans/2keyissues/ChineseExclusionAct1884.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20000930123212/https://immigrants.harpweek.com/chineseamericans/2keyissues/ChineseExclusionAct1884.htm |archive-date=September 30, 2000 |access-date=July 13, 2021 |publisher=HarpWeek}}</ref> The 1888 [[Scott Act (1888)|Scott Act]] expanded upon the Chinese Exclusion Act, prohibiting reentry into the US after leaving.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Chinese Immigration and the Chinese Exclusion Acts |url=https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/chinese-immigration |access-date=July 13, 2021 |publisher=U.S. Department of State}}</ref> Only teachers, students, government officials, tourists, and merchants were exempt.{{sfn|Takaki|1998|pp=111–112}} 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.<ref name="U.S. News & World Report" /> 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."<ref name="U.S. News & World Report" /> Between 1882 and 1905, about 10,000 Chinese appealed against negative immigration decisions to federal court, usually via a petition for [[Habeas corpus in the United States|habeas corpus]].<ref name="Daniels1999">{{Cite journal |last=Daniels |first=Roger |date=Spring 1999 |title=Book Review: Laws Harsh as Tigers: Chinese Immigrants and the Shaping of Modern Immigration Law – Lucy E. Salyer |url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/17.1/br_11.html |url-status=dead |journal=Law and History Review |volume=17 |issue=1 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120925185318/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/17.1/br_11.html |archive-date=September 25, 2012}}</ref> In most of these cases, the courts ruled in favor of the petitioner.<ref name="Daniels1999" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Lee |first=Jonathan H. X. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=pcLQCgAAQBAJ&pg=PR26 |title=Chinese Americans: The History and Culture of a People |publisher=ABC-CLIO |year=2015 |isbn=978-1-61069-549-7 |page=26}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Lee |first=Erika |title=At America's Gates: Chinese Immigration during the Exclusion Era, 1882–1943 |publisher=University of North Carolina Press |year=2003 |isbn=978-0-8078-2775-8 |page=51}}</ref> One of the critics of the Chinese Exclusion Act was the anti-imperialist senator [[George Frisbie Hoar]], a [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] from [[Massachusetts]] who described the act as "nothing less than the legalization of racial discrimination".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Daniels |first=Roger |title=Coming to America: A History of Immigration and Ethnicity in American Life |publisher=Harper Perennial |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-06-050577-6 |page=271}}</ref> [[File:The only one barred out cph.3b48680.jpg|thumb|left|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 <em>somewhere</em>, you know."]]The laws were driven largely by racial concerns; immigration of persons of other races was not yet limited.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Chin |first=Gabriel J. |year=1998 |title=Segregation's Last Stronghold: Race Discrimination and the Constitutional Law of Immigration |journal=UCLA Law Review |volume=46 |ssrn=1121119 |number=1}}</ref> 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 [[Trade union|labor union]], who supported it because it believed that industrialists were using Chinese workers as a wedge to keep wages low.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Kennedy |first1=David M. |url=https://archive.org/details/americanpageanth00kenn |title=The American Pageant |last2=Cohen |first2=Lizabeth |last3=Bailey |first3=Thomas A. |publisher=Houghton Mifflin |year=2002 |edition=12th |location=New York |url-access=registration}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Choi |first=Jennifer Jung Hee |year=1999 |title=The Rhetoric of Inclusion: The I.W.W. and Asian Workers |url=http://userwww.sfsu.edu/epf/journal_archive/volume_VIII,_1999/choi_j.pdf |url-status=dead |journal=Ex Post Facto: Journal of the History Students at San Francisco State University |volume=8 |page=9 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121016142634/http://userwww.sfsu.edu/epf/journal_archive/volume_VIII,_1999/choi_j.pdf |archive-date=2012-10-16 |access-date=2015-05-06}}</ref> [[File:Paperson.jpg|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.|thumb|upright=0.8]] 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.<ref name="Wellborn1912">{{Cite journal |last=Wellborn |first=Mildred |year=1912 |title=The Events Leading to the Chinese Exclusion Acts |journal=Annual Publication of the Historical Society of Southern California |volume=9 |issue=1/2 |pages=49–58 |doi=10.2307/41168895 |jstor=41168895}}</ref>{{sfn|Sandmeyer|1939|p=41}} 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.<ref name="Wellborn1912" /> 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.{{sfn|Sandmeyer|1939|p=41}} Some of the main proponents of this racialism were Irish immigrants in the West,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bozich III |first=Frank A. |title=The unwanted immigrant |url=https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1194&context=honors201019#:~:text=From%201849%2D1880%2C%20Irish%20immigrants,to%20be%20considered%20white%20themselves |access-date=24 January 2024 |website=JMU Scholarly Commons |page=98}}</ref> 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 1840's created a situation where different white ethnicities were being made out to be more or less desirable compared to Anglo-Saxons.<ref name="Jacobson1998">{{Cite book |last=Jacobson |first=Matthew Frye |title=Whitness of a Different Color, European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race |publisher=Harvard University Press |year=1998 |isbn=978-0-674-95191-4 |location=Cambridge, MA |pages=39–91}}</ref> In such a way the Celtic Irish in the east faced similar racialism at the hands of [[Nativism (politics)|nativists]], being categorized as 'dirty', 'drunken', and 'animalistic papists'.<ref name="Moon2018" /><ref name="Jacobson1998" /> 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.<ref name="Moon2018" /> 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 (California)|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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Dunigan |first=Grace |year=2017 |title=The Chinese Exclusion Act: Why It Matters Today |url=https://scholarlycommons.susqu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=supr |url-status=dead |journal=Susquehanna University Political Review |volume=8 |pages=82–89 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210920212012/https://scholarlycommons.susqu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=supr |archive-date=September 20, 2021 |access-date=December 7, 2017}}</ref> The Chinese population in the US declined from approximately 105,000 in 1880, to 89,000 in 1900, and to 61,000 in 1920.{{sfn|Takaki|1998|pp=111–112}} Certain federal agencies were active in the 19th century to enforce the Exclusion Act. The [[United States Customs Service|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 [[United States Department of the Treasury|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).<ref>{{Cite web |date=15 August 2016 |title=Chinese Immigration and the Chinese in the United States |url=https://www.archives.gov/research/chinese-americans/guide |access-date=2024-04-25 |website=National Archives}}</ref> 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 restaurant]]s in the 1910s and 1920s as restaurant owners could leave and reenter along with family members from China.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Godoy |first=Maria |date=22 February 2016 |title=Lo Mein Loophole: How U.S. Immigration Law Fueled A Chinese Restaurant Boom |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/02/22/467113401/lo-mein-loophole-how-u-s-immigration-law-fueled-a-chinese-restaurant-boom |access-date=2020-12-01 |publisher=NPR}}</ref> Later, the [[Immigration Act of 1924]] restricted immigration even further, excluding all classes of Chinese immigrants and extending restrictions to other Asian immigrant groups.<ref name="LOC2003" /> 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]]).<ref name="LOC2003" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Brinkley |first=Alan |title=American History: A Survey |publisher=McGraw-Hill |year=2005 |isbn=978-0-07-328047-9 |edition=12th}}{{pn|date=February 2024}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Denza |first=Eileen |title=Commentary to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-19-921685-7 |edition=3rd |page=51}}</ref> The American Christian [[George F. Pentecost]] spoke out against Western imperialism in China, saying:<ref>{{Cite news |date=February 11, 1912 |title=America Not A Christian Nation, Says Dr. Pentecost |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1912/02/11/archives/america-not-a-christian-nation-says-dr-pentecost.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181125114036/https://www.nytimes.com/1912/02/11/archives/america-not-a-christian-nation-says-dr-pentecost.html |archive-date=25 November 2018 |access-date=24 November 2018 |work=The New York Times}}</ref> <blockquote>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.</blockquote> == 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 sentiment in the United States|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).{{sfnb|Pfaelzer|2007}} === Rock Springs massacre of 1885 === {{Main|Rock Springs massacre}} The massacre was named for the town where it took place, [[Rock Springs, Wyoming]], in [[Sweetwater County, Wyoming|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.<ref name="Iris2004">{{Cite book |last=Iris |first=Chang |title=The Chinese in America: a narrative history |publisher=Penguin |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-14-200417-3 |location=New York |orig-year=2003}}{{pn|date=February 2024}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Iris2004" /> === Hells Canyon massacre of 1887 === {{Main|Hells Canyon massacre}} 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 [[Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association#San Francisco|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.<ref name="Nokes2006">{{Cite journal |last=Nokes |first=R. Gregory |date=Fall 2006 |title=A Most Daring Outrage: Murders at Chinese Massacre Cove, 1887 |url=http://www.ohs.org/research-and-library/oregon-historical-quarterly/upload/Nokes_A-Most-Daring-Outrage_OHQ-Fall-2006_107_3.pdf |url-status=live |journal=Oregon Historical Quarterly |volume=107 |pages=326–353 |doi=10.1353/ohq.2006.0081 |s2cid=159862696 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070128140548/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ohq/107.3/nokes.html |archive-date=28 January 2007 |access-date=20 March 2007 |number=3}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Nokes2006" /> ==== 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.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Latourette |first=Kenneth Scott |title=A History of Christian Missions in China |publisher=Macmillan |year=1929 |volume=1 |page=464 |hdl=2027/mdp.39015013161263?urlappend=%3Bseq=484%3Bownerid=13510798893552263-490 |oclc=644675050}}</ref> 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.{{sfn|Lee|2002}} 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.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Israel |first=Jerry |title=America Views China: American Images of China Then and Now |publisher=Lehigh University Press |year=1991 |isbn=978-0-934223-13-3 |editor-last=Goldstein |editor-first=Jonathan |pages=148–168 |chapter=Carl Crow, Edgar Snow, and Shifting American Journalistic Perceptions of China |editor-last2=Israel |editor-first2=Jerry |editor-last3=Conroy |editor-first3=Hilary |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KuLCCXVebuEC&pg=PA148}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Lo2008">{{Cite journal |last=Lo |first=Shauna |year=2008 |title=Chinese Women Entering New England: Chinese Exclusion Act Case Files, Boston, 1911–1925 |journal=The New England Quarterly |volume=81 |issue=3 |pages=383–409 |doi=10.1162/tneq.2008.81.3.383 |jstor=20474653 |s2cid=57569937}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Chen2024">{{Cite journal |last1=Chen |first1=Shuo |last2=Xie |first2=Bin |year=2024 |title=Institutional discrimination and assimilation: Evidence from the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001449832400041X |journal=Explorations in Economic History |volume=94 |doi=10.1016/j.eeh.2024.101615 |issn=0014-4983}}</ref> In response to the discrimination they faced, Chinese immigrants increasingly invested in education, adopted Americanized names, and enhanced their English proficiency.<ref name="Chen2024" /> === 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 state|tributary country]] to China for a long time.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Taylor |first=K. W. |title=A History of the Vietnamese |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2013 |isbn=978-0-521-87586-8 |chapter=The French conquest}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Wickberg |first=Edgar |date=August 1985 |title=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. |journal=The Journal of Asian Studies |volume=44 |issue=4 |pages=829–830 |doi=10.2307/2056473 |jstor=2056473 |s2cid=147093748}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Office of the Historian |date=n.d. |title=The Burlingame-Seward Treaty, 1868 |url=https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/burlingame-seward-treaty}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Office of the Historian |title=Chinese Immigration and the Chinese Exclusion Acts |url=https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/chinese-immigration}}</ref> 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".<ref name="Milestones">{{Cite web |last=Office of the Historian |title=Milestones: 1866–1898 |url=https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/chinese-immigration}}</ref> Furthermore, when the US extended the law to [[Territory of Hawaii|Hawaii]] and the [[Insular Government of the Philippine Islands|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.<ref name="Milestones" /> === 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 [[Foot binding|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.<ref name="Lo2008" /> 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 re-marry 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.<ref name="Lo2008" /> === 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.<ref name="Moon2018">{{Cite journal |last=Moon |first=Krystyn R. |date=May 2018 |title=Immigration Restrictions and International Education: Early Tensions in the Pacific Northwest, 1890s-1910s |journal=History of Education Quarterly |volume=58 |issue=2 |pages=261–294 |doi=10.1017/heq.2018.2 |s2cid=150233388}}</ref> Laws and regulations that stemmed from the act made for less than ideal situations for Chinese students, leading to criticisms of American society.<ref name="Moon2018" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Leong |first=K. J. |year=2003 |title=Foreign Policy, National Identity, and Citizenship: The Roosevelt White House and the Expediency of Repeal |journal=Journal of American Ethic History |volume=22 |issue=4 |pages=3–30 |jstor=27501347}}</ref> === 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.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Long |first1=Joe |last2=Medici |first2=Carlo |last3=Qian |first3=Nancy |last4=Tabellini |first4=Marco |title=The Impact of the Chinese Exclusion Act on the U.S. Economy |url=https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/23-008_ff452f33-bb64-4e13-82a0-89dce7acfeca.pdf}}</ref> 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.{{sfn|Miller|1901}} === 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.{{sfn|Lee|2002}} 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.{{sfn|Lee|2002}} 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.{{sfn|Lee|2002}}<ref name="Jacobson1998" /> 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.{{sfn|Lee|2002}} == 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 Origins Formula|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|date=January 2023}} 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 [[China|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 [[China–United States relations|Sino-American relations]] during the Cold War.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Liu |first=Qing |date=May 2020 |title=To Be an Apolitical Political Scientist: A Chinese Immigrant Scholar and (Geo)politicized American Higher Education |journal=History of Education Quarterly |volume=60 |issue=2 |pages=138–139 |doi=10.1017/heq.2020.10 |doi-access=free}}</ref> 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 [[Supreme Court of California|California Supreme Court]] ruled the ban of interracial marriage within the state unconstitutional in ''[[Perez v. Sharp]]''.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Chin, Gabriel |last2=Karthikeyan, Hrishi |year=2002 |title=Preserving Racial Identity: Population Patterns and the Application of Anti-Miscegenation Statutes to Asian Americans, 1910–1950 |journal=Asian Law Journal |publisher=Social Science Research Network |volume=9 |ssrn=283998}}</ref><ref>See ''[[Perez v. Sharp]]'', [http://online.ceb.com/CalCases/C2/32C2d711.htm 32 Cal. 2d 711] (1948).</ref> Some other states had such laws until 1967, when the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled in ''[[Loving v. Virginia]]'' that [[Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States|anti-miscegenation laws across the nation]] are unconstitutional. Even today,{{when|date=May 2022}} although all its constituent sections have long been repealed, Chapter 7 of [[Title 8 of the United States Code]] is headed "Exclusion of Chinese".<ref>{{Cite web |title=United States Code, Title 8, Chapter 7 |url=https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title8/chapter7&edition=prelim |access-date=1 January 2021 |publisher=[[Office of the Law Revision Counsel]]}}</ref> 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 [[Coolie|Cooly]] Trade", it consists entirely of statutes that are noted as "Repealed" or "Omitted". On June 18, 2012, the [[United States House of Representatives|US House of Representatives]] passed {{USBill|112|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.<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 8, 2012 |title=H.Res. 683 (112th) |url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hres683 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120912094248/http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hres683 |archive-date=September 12, 2012 |access-date=August 9, 2012 |website=GovTrack.us |quote=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.}}</ref> {{USBill|112|S.Res.|201}}, a similar resolution, had been approved by the [[United States Senate|US Senate]] in October 2011.<ref>{{Cite news |date=19 June 2012 |title=US apologizes for Chinese Exclusion Act |url=http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2012-06/19/content_15512469.htm |work=[[China Daily]]}}</ref> 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<ref name="CA-SJR-23">{{cite California statute |year=2014 |chapter=134 |page= |title=Senate Joint Resolution No. 23 – Relative to Chinese Americans in California |ex= |res=true |HR= |direct-url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SJR23}}</ref> and Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 122,<ref name="CA-SCR-122">{{cite California statute |year=2014 |chapter=132 |page= |title=Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 122 – Relative to Chinese Americans in California |ex= |res=true |HR= |direct-url=http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SCR122}}</ref> respectively.<ref>{{Cite web |date=August 19, 2014 |title=Legislature Recognizes the Contributions of Chinese-Americans & Apologizes for Past Discriminatory Laws |url=http://huff.cssrc.us/content/legislature-recognizes-contributions-chinese-americans-apologizes-past-discriminatory-laws |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160726085122/http://huff.cssrc.us/content/legislature-recognizes-contributions-chinese-americans-apologizes-past-discriminatory-laws |archive-date=2016-07-26 |publisher=California State Senate Republican Caucus}}</ref> 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.<ref name="CA-SJR-23" /><ref name="CA-SCR-122" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fong |first=Jack |date=April 2008 |title=American Social 'Reminders' of Citizenship after September 11, 2001: Nativisms in the Ethnocratic Retractability of American Identity |url=http://www.qualitativesociologyreview.org/ENG/Volume9/QSR_4_1_Fong.pdf |journal=Qualitative Sociology Review |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=69–91 |doi=10.18778/1733-8077.4.1.04 |s2cid=142233949}}</ref> == See also == * [[Anti-Chinese legislation in the United States]] * [[Chinese Confession Program]] * ''[[The Chinese Exclusion Act (film)|The Chinese Exclusion Act]]'', a 2018 television documentary film from [[PBS]] * [[Anti-Chinese sentiment]] * [[Los Angeles Chinese massacre of 1871]] * ''[[Lau Ow Bew v. United States]]'', which held that returning merchants did not need paperwork from China. * [[List of United States immigration laws]] * [[Naturalization Act of 1798]] * [[Paper sons]] * [[Rock Springs massacre]] * [[Stop Asian Hate]] * [[Stop AAPI Hate]] * ''[[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 * [[Yellow Peril]] * [[Chinese Immigration Act, 1885]], Canada * [[Chinese Americans]] * [[Executive Order 13769]] == References == {{Reflist|30em}} === Works cited === {{Refbegin|30em}} * {{Cite book |last=Doenecke |first=Justus D. |url=https://archive.org/details/presidenciesofja00doen |title=The Presidencies of James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur |publisher=University Press of Kansas |year=1981 |isbn=978-0-7006-0208-7 |location=Lawrence |ref={{sfnref|Doenecke}}}} * {{Cite thesis |last=Gyory |first=Andrew |title=Rolling in the dirt: The origins of the Chinese Exclusion Act and the politics of racism, 1870–1882 |year=1991 |id={{ProQuest|303976843}} |degree=PhD}} * {{Cite book |last=Hoogenboom |first=Ari |author-link=Ari Hoogenboom |title=Rutherford Hayes: Warrior and President |publisher=University Press of Kansas |year=1995 |isbn=978-0-7006-0641-2 |location=Lawrence |ref={{sfnref|Hoogenboom}}}} * {{Cite journal |last=Lee |first=Erika |year=2002 |title=The Chinese Exclusion Example: Race, Immigration, and American Gatekeeping, 1882–1924 |journal=Journal of American Ethnic History |volume=21 |issue=3 |pages=36–62 |doi=10.2307/27502847 |jstor=27502847 |s2cid=157999472}} * {{Cite journal |last=Miller |first=Joaquin |date=December 1901 |title=The Chinese and the Exclusion Act |journal=The North American Review |publisher=University of Northern Iowa |volume=173 |pages=782–789 |jstor=25105257 |jstor-access=free |number=541}} * {{Cite book |last=Pfaelzer |first=Jean |url=https://archive.org/details/drivenoutforgott00pfae |title=Driven Out: The Forgotten War against Chinese Americans |publisher=Random House |year=2007 |isbn=978-1-4000-6134-1 |location=New York |url-access=registration}} * {{Cite book |last=Reeves |first=Thomas C. |author-link=Thomas C. Reeves |url=https://archive.org/details/gentlemanbosslif00reev |title=Gentleman Boss: The Life of Chester A. Arthur |publisher=Alfred A. Knopf |year=1975 |isbn=978-0-394-46095-6 |location=New York |url-access=registration}} * {{Cite book |last=Sandmeyer |first=Elmer Clarence |title=The Anti-Chinese Movement In California |publisher=Illini |year=1939 |isbn=978-0-252-00338-7}} * {{Cite book |last=Takaki |first=Ronald |title=Strangers from a Different Shore: A History of Asian Americans |publisher=Back Bay |year=1998 |isbn=978-0-316-83130-7 |edition=2nd |location=New York |orig-year=1989}} {{Refend}} == Further reading == {{Refbegin}} * {{Cite journal |last=Anderson |first=David L. |year=1978 |title=The Diplomacy of Discrimination: Chinese Exclusion, 1876–1882 |journal=California History |volume=57 |issue=1 |pages=32–45 |doi=10.2307/25157814 |jstor=25157814}} * {{Cite book |title=Entry Denied: Exclusion and the Chinese Community in America, 1882–1943 |publisher=Temple University Press |year=1991 |isbn=978-0-87722-798-4 |editor-last=Chan |editor-first=Sucheng |location=Philadelphia}} * {{Cite book |last=Gold |first=Martin |title=Forbidden Citizens: Chinese Exclusion and the U.S. Congress: A Legislative History |publisher=TheCapitol.Net |year=2012 |isbn=978-1-58733-235-7}} * {{Cite book |last=Gyory |first=Andrew |title=Closing the Gate: Race, politics, and the Chinese Exclusion Act |publisher=The University of North Carolina Press |year=1998 |isbn=978-0-8078-4739-8 |location=Chapel Hill}} * 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) [https://escholarship.org/content/qt0x10737w/qt0x10737w.pdf online] * {{Cite book |last=Hong |first=Jane H. |url=http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=54910 |title=Opening the Gates to Asia: A Transpacific History of How America Repealed Asian Exclusion |publisher=University of North Carolina Press |year=2019 |format=online review}} * {{Cite book |last=Hsu |first=Madeline Y. |author-link=Madeline Y. Hsu |title=The Good Immigrants: How the Yellow Peril Became the Model Minority |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=2015 |isbn=978-0-691-17621-5}} * {{Cite journal |last=Kil |first=Sang Hea |year=2012 |title=Fearing yellow, imagining white: media analysis of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 |journal=Social Identities |volume=18 |issue=6 |pages=663–677 |doi=10.1080/13504630.2012.708995 |s2cid=143449924}} * Lau, Estelle T. ''Paper families: Identity, immigration administration, and Chinese exclusion'' (Duke University Press, 2006) [https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=hwPA6GJ5SCEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA10&dq=Paper+families:+Identity,+immigration+administration+and+Chinese+exclusion&ots=oXTEMaYEWS&sig=FqNaImwUS213TogxNH8NxBvf47g online]. * {{Cite journal |last=Lee |first=Erika |year=2007 |title=The 'Yellow Peril' and Asian Exclusion in the Americas |url=http://blogs.ubc.ca/history456/files/2017/02/lee-asia-america.pdf |journal=Pacific Historical Review |volume=76 |issue=4 |pages=537–562 |doi=10.1525/phr.2007.76.4.537 |jstor=10.1525/phr.2007.76.4.537}} * {{Cite journal |last=Lew-Williams |first=Beth |year=2014 |title=Before restriction became exclusion: America's experiment in diplomatic immigration control |journal=Pacific Historical Review |volume=83 |issue=1 |pages=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. * {{Cite thesis |last=Perry |first=Jay |title=The Chinese Question: California, British Columbia, and the making of transnational immigration policy, 1847–1885 |access-date=25 June 2018 |publisher=Bowling Green State University |pages=242–276 |chapter=bibliography |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170510172428/https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/bgsu1394761542/inline |archive-date=10 May 2017 |chapter-url=https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/bgsu1394761542/inline |year=2014 |url-status=dead}} * {{Cite book |last=Risse |first=Guenter B. |url=https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/plague-fear-and-politics-san-franciscos-chinatown |title=Plague, Fear, and Politics in San Francisco's Chinatown |year=2012 |publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press |isbn=978-1-4214-0510-0 |location=Baltimore |access-date=25 June 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) [https://conservancy.umn.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/0af55b59-2a16-4ff2-b4a9-1bea2caf2548/content online]. * Wong, Edlie L. ''Racial Reconstruction: Black Inclusion, Chinese Exclusion, and the Fictions of Citizenship'' (NYU Press, 2015) [https://books.google.com/books?id=1ugWCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:Racial+intitle:Reconstruction+intitle:Black&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipvpzkkcSJAxWM4skDHR24ORUQ6AF6BAgHEAI online] {{Refend}} === Primary sources === {{Refbegin}} * {{Cite book |title=Human and Civil Rights: Essential Primary Sources |year=2006 |publisher=Thomson Gale |isbn=978-1-4144-0326-7 |editor-last=Lerner |editor-first=K. Lee |pages=378–382 |chapter=Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) |id={{Gale|CX2560000140}} |editor-last2=Lerner |editor-first2=Brenda Wilmoth |editor-last3=Lerner |editor-first3=Adrienne Wilmoth}} * Chinese Immigration Pamphlets in the California State Library. [https://archive.org/details/chineseimmigrati01slsn Vol. 1] |[https://archive.org/details/chineseimmigrati02slsn Vol. 2] |[https://archive.org/details/chineseimmigrati03slsn Vol. 3] |[https://archive.org/details/chineseimmigrati04slsn Vol. 4], *[https://web.archive.org/web/20150416034514/http://www.bittermelonbook.com/ "Bitter Melon: Inside America's Last Rural Chinese Town"] How residents of Locke, California, the last rural Chinese town in America, lived in the Sacramento Delta under the Chinese Exclusion Act {{Refend}} == External links == {{wikisourcecat|Chinese Exclusion Act}} {{Commons category|Chinese Exclusion Act}} * [http://blog.nyhistory.org/george-frederick-seward-and-the-chinese-exclusion-act/ George Frederick Seward and the Chinese Exclusion Act |"From the Stacks"], New-York Historical Society * [https://guides.loc.gov/chinese-exclusion-act Chinese Exclusion Act] from the Library of Congress * [http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=47 Chinese Exclusion Act (1882)] – Our Documents * [https://web.archive.org/web/20041204092238/http://www.paperson.com/history.htm Exclusion Act Case Files of Yee Wee Thing and Yee Bing Quai, two "Paper Sons"] * [http://www.ywproject.com/ 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. * [https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2004/spring/alleged-wife-1.html An Alleged Wife] One Immigrant in the Chinese Exclusion Era * [https://web.archive.org/web/20070711200141/http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigration/themes-exclusion.html Collection of primary source documents relating to the Chinese Exclusion Act, from Harvard University.] * [https://web.archive.org/web/20091211071519/http://ca-soc.org/wpmu284a/documents/ The Rocky Road to Liberty: A Documented History of Chinese American Immigration and Exclusion] * [http://caamedia.org/separatelivesbrokendreams Primary source documents and images related to the documentary "Separate Lives, Broken Dreams"], a saga of the Chinese Exclusion Act era, e.g. political cartoons, immigrant case files and government correspondence from the National Archives. * Li Bo. ''Beyond the Heavenly Kingdom'' is a historical novel that focuses on the politics of the Chinese Exclusion Act {{ISBN|1541232216}} * [[Lost Years: A People's Struggle for Justice]] (2011) * {{YouTube|p=PLmh4YIWteoGj3jJee5VynaKvxddGeg-AJ|Chinese Exclusion Act – American Experience PBS}} * [http://www.frederickbee.com/ Frederick A. Bee History Project] {{Anti-Chinese sentiment}} {{Chinese American|state=collapsed}} {{Immigration to the United States}} {{Discrimination}} {{Chester A. Arthur}} {{Authority control}} [[Category:1882 in international relations]] [[Category:1882 in American law]] [[Category:Anti-Chinese legislation]] [[Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States]] [[Category:Anti-immigration politics in the United States]] [[Category:Asian-American issues]] [[Category:Chinese-American history]] [[Category:History of immigration to the United States]] [[Category:History of racial segregation in the United States]] [[Category:Race legislation in the United States]] [[Category:United States federal immigration and nationality legislation]] [[Category:United States immigration and naturalization case law]] [[Category:Repealed United States legislation]] [[Category:Immigration bans]] [[Category:White supremacy in the United States]] [[Category:Chester A. Arthur administration controversies]] Chinese Exclusion Act 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 ten years. The law made exceptions for merchants, teachers, students, travelers, and diplomats. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first major U.S. law implemented to prevent the immigration of a specific ethnic or national group, shaping twentieth-century race-based immigration policy. Passage and Context Passage of the law was preceded by growing anti-Chinese sentiment and violence, as well as various policies targeting Chinese migrants. This growing hostility was fueled by economic pressures, fears of racial purity, and competition for jobs. The Act followed the Angell Treaty of 1880, which revised the 1868 Burlingame Treaty between the U.S. and China, allowing the U.S. to suspend Chinese immigration. The act was originally meant to last for ten years, but it was renewed and strengthened in 1892 with the Geary Act and made permanent in 1902, with many restrictions that effectively froze Chinese immigration into the United States. The Act was initially designed to halt the immigration of Chinese laborers but did not apply to other classes of Chinese nationals, such as diplomats, students, merchants, and tourists. In practice, however, the act led to widespread racial discrimination and exclusion of Chinese immigrants, particularly targeting Chinese workers who were often accused of taking jobs from white Americans at lower wages. Legal and Social Impact The Chinese Exclusion Act affected the lives of many Chinese immigrants already residing in the U.S. Those who had left the country were barred from re-entry unless they could obtain specific documentation from the Chinese government, proving their identity and status. Chinese women were particularly affected, as the Page Act of 1875 had already restricted the immigration of Chinese women, making family reunification nearly impossible for many Chinese men in the U.S. One significant legal outcome was the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court ruling, which confirmed that children born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrants were American citizens, despite their parents being barred from naturalization. This ruling established the principle of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, a crucial victory for Chinese Americans and their descendants. Legislative Expansion In 1892, the Geary Act extended the Exclusion Act for another ten years and introduced additional provisions, such as the requirement for all Chinese residents to register and obtain a certificate of residence. Failure to comply with these regulations could result in deportation. The Geary Act also required Chinese immigrants to carry this certificate at all times or face imprisonment. In 1902, the Chinese Exclusion Act was renewed indefinitely, and all Chinese Americans were required to register with the U.S. government and obtain certificates of residence. This effectively made Chinese Americans permanent aliens in the U.S., unable to naturalize as U.S. citizens. The exclusionary policies were strengthened by the Scott Act of 1888, which prohibited Chinese laborers who left the U.S. from reentering the country, even if they had obtained proper certificates before their departure. Changing Attitudes and Repeal The Chinese Exclusion Act was not without opposition. Some advocates, particularly among labor unions, viewed the exclusion of Chinese workers as a victory in the fight for better wages and working conditions for white workers. However, others, including anti-imperialist figures like Senator George Frisbie Hoar, argued that the act was a flagrant example of racial discrimination and imperialistic attitudes toward China. The law remained in force until its repeal in 1943 with the passage of the Magnuson Act, which allowed for the entry of 105 Chinese immigrants per year, reflecting a shift in U.S.-China relations during World War II. However, it wasn’t until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that broader restrictions on Asian immigration were completely lifted, marking a significant change in U.S. immigration policy. Legacy and Long-Term Effects While the Chinese Exclusion Act was formally repealed in the 1940s, its effects continued to be felt for decades. Chinatown became a symbol of the isolated and segregated lives that many Chinese Americans led. The laws effectively limited the growth of the Chinese population in the U.S. for over half a century, with the Chinese American population dropping from approximately 105,000 in 1880 to 61,000 by 1920. In places like Angel Island Immigration Station, located in San Francisco Bay, Chinese immigrants were often detained, interrogated, and subjected to harsh conditions before being allowed entry or deported back to China. The Chinese Exclusion Act not only changed the demographic makeup of the Chinese American community but also set the stage for later immigration policies, which targeted various Asian groups and reflected a broader racial hierarchy in U.S. immigration laws. The Immigration Act of 1924 extended restrictions to other Asian groups, particularly Japanese immigrants, and set quotas for European immigrants, further entrenching racial distinctions in U.S. immigration policy. Criticism and Reflection The act's racist undertones and its impact on Chinese families and communities are subjects of continued reflection. The exclusion laws were based largely on unfounded racial and moral fears that Chinese immigrants were a "moral threat" to American society. These laws reinforced stereotypes that portrayed Chinese immigrants as undesirable and incapable of assimilation into American society. As the U.S. looked to foster greater diplomatic ties with China in the 20th century, there was increasing recognition of the injustice perpetuated by the Chinese Exclusion Act. It became a symbol of America's failure to live up to its ideals of freedom and equality for all people, irrespective of race or ethnicity.'