Thread by @KorematsuCtr

I am, today, emotionally wrought.

I'll be posting periodically throughout the day about historical roots of anti-Asian racism in US.

I know that some are deeply familiar with this history. I know that many are not.

Because people learn in different ways, here's a link to talk I gave a year ago that connected what I called "The Moment" to historical antecedents. Skip the fulsome introduction of speaker - go to minute 6:30.

2/

The former president is able to invoke, for his own political advantage, anti-Asian sentiment that takes hold and grows because of the fertile ground - a rich substate as it were - of Asians as other, as foreign, as un-American. 3/

In another talk, I advance thesis that you can't understand Trump v. Hawaii and Muslim travel ban without understanding the Chinese Exclusion Case and Korematsu v. US.

Video here:

Article here: digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/korematsu_cent… 4/

In 1853, George Hall was convicted of killing Ling Sing. In 1854, California Supreme Court overturned that conviction because it had been secured in part by testimony of Chinese witnesses.

At time, statute forbid "Blacks," "Mulattos," and "Indians" from testifying. 5/

Exercising word magic - Chinese were "Indians" because ethnographic theory at time - Indians originated in Asia and crossedland bridge between Russia and Alaska.

Or - belt & suspenders - court said Chinese were "Blacks," understood as catchall category for non-Whites. 6/

Left Chinese immigrants subject to private violence with little legal protection.

CA leg. quickly amended statute to forbid testimony from "Mongolians."

But see how all racial minorities in CA were subject to private racial violence b/c testimony of non-Whites excluded. 7/

People v. Hall, 4 Cal. 399 (1854). 8/

Capital wanted cheap labor; laborers from Asia filled that need.

To be a truly disposable labor force, you must prevent family formation.

1875 Page Act. Ostensibly sold as preventing entry of "prostitutes" and immoral women, it effectively barred entry of women from China. 9/

Legislative history, public sentiment expressed in newspapers, statements by politicians all contributed to the social construction of Asian women as sexualized, immoral, debauched.

Social construction reinforced in court decisions. 10/

Asymmetric migration (legally constructed and privately sponsored) and prevention of family formation contributed to notion that immigrants from Asia were sojourners and not immigrants.

In that way, written out official story of America. 11/

Asian immigrants as disposable labor force sets up conflict with "native American workers." I use "native American" here not to describe Indians but instead, the language used by white labor at the time to describe themselves in juxtaposition to Asian laborers. 11/

Term was used unironically even though many using that phrasing to protect and advance their interests were immigrants themselves. 12/

Discriminatory taxation was attempted. 1862 CA statute: "An Act to protect Free White Labor against competition with Chinese Coolie Labor, and to discourage the Immigration of the Chinese into the State of California." 13/

Required each person of the “Mongolian race . . . residing in this State . . . take out licenses to work in the mines, or to prosecute some kind of business, a monthly capitation tax of two dollars and fifty cents, which tax shall be known as the Chinese Police Tax.” 14/

Thankfully found unconstitutional by CA Supreme Court.

Lin Sing v. Washburn, 20 Cal. 534 (1862). 15/

New tactic:

CA law: if women determined to be “lewd, debauched and abandoned” and the Commissioner of Immigration refused to permit them to land unless a surety bond was paid for each of them or if the ship-master could come to some other agreed upon amount. 16/

Law was tested when 22 Chinese women denied entry; case went to US Supreme Court, which invoked exclusive federal power over immigration and found CA law invalid.

Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875). 17/

But note confluence:

Page Act of 1875 - enacted Mar. 3, 1875.

Chy Lung v. Freeman - decided Mar. 20, 1875.

So Chy Lung, which forbid CA regulation of immigration, did nothing, Page Act.

Federal government free to do what it wants - border. 18/

Chy Lung then wasn't really that much of a court victory, at least in terms of overall impact. Sure, stop states and local governments. But federal government was free to act in that space, which it did with a vengeance in 1882. 19/

Another confluence - two days before Page Act enacted, Congress passed 1875 Civil Rights Act which guaranteed universal access to inns, public transportation, theaters, and other places of amusement. 20/

Page Act and later Chinese Exclusion Acts would be upheld by Court.

1875 Civil Rights Act would be struck down.

Compare Chae Chan Ping, 130 U.S. 581 (1889) with The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) 21/

Court is acting consistently though to support race discrimination.

Congress has power to exclude Asians, by race.

Congress does not have power to put into place measures that protect rights of Black persons. 22/

Certain Californians seeking Asian exclusion, rebuffed by Court in Chy Lung, empowered by Page Act, succeed in getting Congress to enact in 1882 the first of a series of Chinese Exclusion Acts, setting the table for Asian exclusion. 23/

Then comes Chae Chan Ping. Came to US in 1875, worked as laborer in San Francisco area. Left to visit China on June 2, 1887. First visit back.

Followed rules. Obtained "certificate of return" as required for reentry. Boarded steamship Belgic in Sept. 1888. 24/

Arrived Oct 8, 1888 in San Francisco. Presents "certificate of return" but denied entry b/c Pres. Grover Cleveland signed, on Oct. 1, 1888, the Scott Act, which canceled all previously issued reentry certificates.

Took challenge to Supreme Court. Lost.

130 U.S. 581 (1889). 25/

An aside - Chinese litigants were able to pursue legal challenges because attorneys paid by support groups - Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Assoc., Chinese Six Companies. I'll admit I am not well-versed in the history of these groups.

Early mutual aid. 26/

They often hired the "best" lawyers. Op-eds during this period sometimes said the Chinese didn't fight fair because they hired the best attorneys.

I have to laugh at that. 27/

The so-called Chinese Exclusion Case enshrined plenary power doctrine - "If, therefore, the government of the United States, through its legislative department, considers the presence of foreigners of a different race in this country, ... 28/

...who will not assimilate with us, to be dangerous to its peace and security, their exclusion is not to be stayed because at the time there are no actual hostilities with the nation of which the foreigners are subjects."

29/

This determination by political branches of what is in the nation's best interests is "conclusive upon the judiciary."

Our mythos is that Court plays key role in our constitutional democracy to act as a check on improper or unlawful exercise of power by other branches. 30/

But here - Court abdicated this role so that in this arena—control over our borders and immigration—the power of the political branches became unbounded, operating largely outside of judicial oversight.

Consider the danger - political branches free to discriminate. 31/

Civics education does not teach us this.

Con Law classes often do not cover this.

Consider how pernicious broader plenary power has operated - "our" relations with Indians, the border, and our colonies. 32/

Consider language used by Court: "Oriental invasion"; "overrun by [the Chinese]"; “It matters not in what form the aggression and encroachment come, whether from a foreign nation acting in its national character, or from vast hordes of its people crowding in upon us.”

33/

The last is crucial b/c it connects up control over immigration and our borders to national security.

I'll return to this when I get to Korematsu v US. 34/

Following Chae Chan Ping, you start to see Court abdicating its responsibility to review actions by, first Treasury and then Commerce, to enforce immigration restrictions by deciding that certain immigration laws have jurisdiction stripping provisions. 35/

See Nishimura Ekiu v. US, 142 U.S. 651 (1892).

"the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law."

This proposition taken to extreme in its application against American citizen by birth. 36/

Ju Toy arrived on steamship Doric from China. Port official decided Ju Toy was not native-born US citizen as claimed. Decision upheld by Sec. of Commerce & Labor. In habeas, federal district court decided Ju Toy was in fact US citizen.

37/

THE Court said - administrative determination is conclusive on judiciary.

With that, US citizen banished. 198 U.S. 253 (1905).

Great dissent by Justice Scott Brewer. See screenshot. 38/

I expect many people are unaware that Congress passed law that required Chinese immigrants to have papers, lawful residence required proof "by at least one credible white witness[ ] that he was a resident of the United States."

Fong Yue Ting v. US, 149 U.S. 698 (1893). 39/

Once Chinese Exclusion consolidated to shut off flow of "cheap" labor, capital turned to other Asian countries. Each new wave was met by new measures, state and private.

Chinese Exclusion Leagues became Asiatic Exclusion Leagues. 40/

And throughout, there was private violence. I'm not going into that history now.

41/

Exclusion of Japanese male laborers is result of political compromise. Japan objected to Japanese children in US being placed in segregated schools.
So-called Gentlemen's Agreement of 1905-6. TR intervenes in CA schools; Japan agrees to stop issuing visas to laborers. 42/

Why was Japan able to negotiate this? B/c they had just won the Russo-Japanese War.

W.E.B. Du Bois: "For the first time in a thousand years a great white nation has measured arms with a colored nation and has been found wanting." Colliers Weekly 1906. 43/

One thing not anticipated is that though Japan stopped issuing visas to laborers, Japan issued visas for Japanese women to immigrate as so-called picture brides.

44/

I know this is a woefully incomplete account - but this is crucial to understand how family formation occurred in Japanese immigrant communities and not for other Asian immigrant communities.

Migration of Japanese women was cut off by 1924 Immigration Act. 45/

Immigrants from South Asia began filling void when immigration from Japan largely halted.

Met by violence - state and private.

Congress passed 1917 Asiatic Barred Zone Act - demarcation of Asia and certain Pacific islands by longitude and latitude. 46/

Though Wong Kim Ark v US (1898) established Asians were eligible for birthright citizenship, Ozawa v US (1922) and US v Thind (1923) established definitively that Asians, racially, were ineligible for naturalization.

47/

Once that's in place, Congress can discriminate against Asians without naming them - 1924 Immigration Act - forbid immigration of those ineligible for citizenship.

This provided tool for states to discriminate against Asians without naming them. 48/

In 1923, because category “aliens ineligible for citizenship” was one created by Congress, WA could rely upon federal category which “in and of itself, furnishes a reasonable basis for classification in a state law withholding from aliens the privilege of land ownership.” 49/

Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (1923).

This category, "alien ineligible for citizenship," became basis for all manner of mischief - exclusion from professions, from forming corporations, etc. 50/

Consider the 1924 Immigration Act. It set per-country quotas based a small percentage multiplier based on IIRC the 1890 Census. In other words, Congress said - what did we look like in 1890. Let's reproduce it.

Asians excluded b/c ineligible for citizenship. 51/

Eventually, things changed.

Chinese bar to naturalization lifted in 1943. Not because of beneficence. B/c Japan was going to Asian countries and saying why would you ally with US when they don't let you in or become citizen. Derrick Bell - Interest-Convergence. 52/

Oh - I forgot immigration from the Philippines.

Filipinos filled capital's thirst for cheap labor and were not subject to Asian exclusion because in 1898, the Philippines had become US colony.

As US nationals, could migrate. 53/

This loophole was closed by the 1934 Tydings-McDuffie Act, which provided for independence in 10 years. With independence granted, and reclassification, 1934 Act provided for an annual quota of, wait for it, 50 persons per fiscal year. 54/

The historical exclusion of Asians sets up the social construction of an Asian racial category, and using Neil Gotanda's phrasing, onto which meanings are mapped.

55/

We hold ourselves apart, we are mendacious, we don't understand Western values like truthful testimony, we compete unfairly.

As with other marginalized groups, we remain ever available to suit the needs of those with power. 56/

In the 1960s, earlier yellow peril becomes laundered andwe emerge as model minority.

Demographer William Petersen is credited with coining phrase. Asian Americans are model held up to punish other less deserving minorities. Look at them(us). What's wrong with you? 57/

The Ed Blum financed lawsuits against affirmative action in certain universities is just one more chapter in that vein. 58/

(I'm starting to lose my thread. I'll return to this in a few hours. Have a meeting with the newly formed WA Bar Licensure Task Force. Excited to see what we will do.)

Before I take a break, let me finish up on repeal of Asian Exclusion. Earlier, I said 1943, Chinese allowed to naturalize. 1946 for Filipinos and South Asians; 1952 - racial bar to naturalization removed.

But throughout - per country Asian quotas - typically 100/year. 59/

In 1963, here are the continent quotas for immigration:

Europe 103,036
Asia 2,256
Africa 1,010

America looks like it does today because of these racial/racist restrictions. Not an accident. Deliberate design.

60/

In this never-ending thread, I focus on Asian Americans. But the history I relate is deeply connected to story of race in America. I also feel it at a deeply personal level.

I was reflecting 2 nights ago about my relation to the N-word.

61/

I was in sixth grade when a classmate called me the N-word. It devastated me. The weeks of name-calling, the usual Asian American slurs hurt, but it was the N-word that made me lose it. I couldn't stop crying. 62/

Though I don't know what it is like to be Black in the U.S., I know what it is like to be the other. From having personally felt the corrosive power of the N-word, I know it took only one use to make me feel unwelcome and unsafe in the classroom and school. 63/

This formative experience likely led me to become a race scholar and guides my scholarship and advocacy. If also impels me to understand the differences and possible points of connection.

I invite others to think about differences and points of connection.

64/

@threadreaderapp unroll please

And obviously I don't have a comms person.

It's not about me. I expressed how I felt to signal in advance that what followed came from a place of emotion.

It's about the victims, their families, and those close to them. I grieve with them.