Riding on the wave of anti-Chinese sentiment, the Chinese Exclusion Act was approved by Congress and signed by President Chester A. Arthur in 1882. The act can be considered the first significant law that restricted immigration to the US.
The Chinese Exclusion Act essentially proscribed Chinese labor immigration for ten years on the grounds that the Chinese disturbed the good order of certain localities. Even though the act technically only prevented laborers from entering, it became increasingly difficult for immigrants to prove that they were not laborers. Nonlaborers were required to obtain certification from the Chinese government proving that they were qualified to immigrate, but the definition of excludables as “skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining” made it hard for the vast majority of Chinese to obtain the necessary certification.
Not only did the act affect prospective Chinese immigrants, but it also jeopardized the situations of immigrants already living in the states. Should an immigrant leave the states, they would have to obtain a certification from the Chinese government to re-enter the country. Also, federal and state courts were not allowed to grant citizenship to resident Chinese aliens, but they did have the power to deport them.
Although the Chinese Exclusion Act was supposed to expire in 1892, Congress essentially extended it through the Geary Act, which required every Chinese resident to register and obtain a certificate of residence or deportation. In 1902, the Geary Act was made permanent and regulated Chinese immigration until the 1920s.
Around this time, postwar immigration increased, and most anti-Chinese sentiment had subsided. The government then repealed the Geary Act in 1943 and instead used quotas to limit foreign immigration. For the Chinese, the quota was 105 immigrants per year. In addition, foreign-born Chinese were granted the right to seek naturalization. This system lasted until 1965, when Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1965. This act set the total quota of non-Western-Hemisphere immigrants as 170,000 people, with a maximum of 20,000 people from each country. The selection process would be based on merit and need for political asylum. It was not until 1990 that a comprehensive change was made to immigration policy--the Immigration Act of 1990 finally established a “flexible” cap of immigrants from foreign countries.
The examination of the history of Chinese immigration policy lends itself to a few larger questions. First, it is important to note that a significant reason behind the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act was popular anti-Chinese sentiment. To what extent does our current government structure allow popular opinions to drive its agenda? Do you think this structure accomplishes what Madison envisioned in Federalist 10? Is this precisely what Hamilton and the Federalists warned against? Second, the Chinese were not the only ethnic group to be antagonized and discriminated against in this way. What do you think are some reasons behind the popular sentiment of nativism? To what extent are these reasons valid, and if much of the reasoning is grounded in misinformation, to what extent is the practice of Jacksonian populist politics responsible for spreading this misinformation?
https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=47
This post really solidified this important piece of history which the textbook didn't even cover. Although this doesn't directly answer your thoughtful questions at the end, I would like to draw some parallels between America's opinion at the time to America's opinions now, over a century later. America was founded as a nation of immigrants, and it seems like we lost touch with that view shortly after independence. Just like the recent election, the election between Rutherford Hayes and Samuel Tilden was a major turning point in our country's stance on immigration. It was an incredibly close race, with Hayes winning by a hairline. California was the main state that pushed the issue up to the top, for many Californians hated the Chinese for stealing jobs and being "sexually lecherous threats to society". Today, many Americans believe immigrants to be threatening society, even if in reality they uphold it. It is also very similar to the Muslim Ban. In fact, I was shocked to learn that in modern times, a large fraction (estimated 20%) of Chinese immigrants throughout the US actually support Trump's ban! Once again, it seems like the next generations of Americans forget the struggles that their ancestors, who were also immigrants, went through.
ReplyDeleteI think it's very interesting that you decided to write about the Chinese Exclusion Act, which wasn't really covered in class or in the textbook. Do you think that could be a representation of how this nativism is still shown today, that textbooks cover more of history centered around WASPs rather than the other nationalities that make up the diversity of America? It's interesting to think that although we perceive such discriminatory acts to be in the past, yet we haven't improved much in terms of celebrating diversity, especially seen in the recent election and events preceding it. I also thought it was compelling that the government felt that it had to limit the numbers of immigrants entering the US, especially since the backbone of American society lies on their efforts at building the railroads, working in factories, or just doing the tasks the majority of the public refused to even consider. It's only fair that their efforts are commended, but unfortunately it doesn't seem like that will happen soon.
ReplyDeleteKarina, I found your article to be particularly enlightening and personally relevant, as my parents are Chinese immigrants. And both Bennett and Julia make good points about the parallels between then and now. Clearly, there are issues of immigration today in the US, just as there were a hundred years ago. What I'd like to postulate is that sentiments towards particular issues in the US, such as immigration and African-American equality, are always fluctuating and swinging on a pendulum of support and opposition. Surely it is impossible to make an entire nation unified in a belief, as this would amount to same thing as limited freedom of thought. So, perhaps the reason there has always been controversy over these issues is that the fundamental nature of our nation and its values perpetrate different opinions. After all, people are subjective and have biases, and in America it is their right to do so. I'm not defending the beliefs of these people, but rather pointing out the reason for our country's divided nature. Perhaps we will eventually reach a point of equality in certain ideals, and the country would probably be better off for it. We will just have to wait and see.
ReplyDelete