Chinese+exclusion+cases

[|Chinese exclusion cases]

[|Apology for Head Tax (Canadian Exclusion)]

[|Info Please: Chinese Exclusion]Paper Sons- Chinese Exclusion

[|Digital History: The Huddled Masses]

[|Chinese Immigration and the Chinese Exclusion Act]

[|Chinese Exclusion Act: A Black Legacy]

[|National Archives]

Everybody in this group needs to read [|"Driven Out: The Forgotten War Against Chinese Americans, by Jean Pfaelzer.]

Evan (2/14) Here is the USSC case that approved the Chinese Exclusion Act: Chae Chan Ping v. US, aka The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 US 581 (1889)**
 * Here is the full text of the [|Chinese Exclusion Act.]
 * Perhaps the best explanation of the policy is found in the USSC case of US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1897). Here is the full text:**

See also Baldwin v. Franks, 120 US 678 (1886), and see how the USSC dealt with people who persecuted the Chinese

[|Open Collections Program]

 A series of disputes settled by the Supreme Court during the 1880s and 1890s: Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U.S. 536 (1884), argued 30 Oct. 1884, decided 8 Dec. 1884 by vote of 7 to 2, Harlan for the Court, Field and Bradley in dissent; United States v. Jung Ah Lung, 124 U.S. 621 (1888), argued 9 Jan. 1888, decided 13 Feb. 1888 by vote of 6 to 3, Blatchford for the Court, Harlan in dissent; Chae Chan Ping v. United States (also recorded as The Chinese Exclusion Case), 130 U.S. 581 (1889), argued 28 Mar. 1889, decided 13 May 1889 by vote of 9 to 0, Field for the Court; and Fong Yue Ting v. United States, Wong Quan v. United States, and Lee Joe v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893), argued 10 May 1893, decided 15 May 1893 by vote of 6 to 3, Gray for the Court, Brewer, Field, and Fuller in dissent. These decisions scrutinized congressional legislation designed to prevent Chinese immigration.

In 1882 Congress passed the first of a series of Chinese Exclusion Acts. It prohibited Chinese laborers and miners from entering the United States. An 1884 amendment required all Chinese laborers who lived in the United States before 1882 and who left the country with plans to return to have a reentry certificate. Six years later, the Scott Act (1888) became law. This statute prohibited Chinese laborers abroad or who planned future travels from returning. Over twenty thousand Chinese were stranded. The Scott Act did allow merchants and teachers to return if they had proper papers. This loophole began the “paper names” industry whereby Chinese created new identities to return.

Congress passed a second exclusionary act, known as the Geary Act (1892). This law continued the ban on Chinese laborers and added the denial of bail to Chinese in habeas corpus proceedings and the requirement for all Chinese to have identification certificates or face deportation. The McCreary Act (1893) further defined laborers to include merchants, laundry owners, miners, and fishers. Finally, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1902 permanently closed the door on all Chinese immigration.

The government of China, Chinese living in the United States, and Chinese ‐ Americans challenged the constitutionality of these anti ‐ Chinese laws. The first case to reach the Supreme Court was Chew Heong v. United States (1884). In this case a Chinese laborer who resided in the United States in 1880 but left in 1881 was denied reentry in 1884 because he did not have a certificate. In a habeas corpus proceeding, he was denied a writ by Justice Stephen Field ; on appeal Justice John Harlan led a divided Court in a reversal of Field's decision. Harlan determined that Chew Heong had befallen a statutory glitch, leaving before the 1882 act and returning after the 1884 amendments. Field and Justice Joseph Bradley dissented.

In 1888 the Court decided United States v. Jung Ah Lung. The defendant, a Chinese laborer, had been an American resident before 1882, and he had left to return to China in 1883 with a reentry certificate. When Jung tried to return in 1885, he did not have his certificate and was denied reentry. He sued for a writ of habeas corpus, which was issued. Once again a divided Court, this time led by Justice Samuel Blatchford, upheld the challenge of the Chinese to the enforcement of the Exclusion Act of 1882 as amended in 1884. The government argued that Chinese challenges through writs of habeas corpus were not allowed. Had the Court accepted this argument, Chinese rights would have been seriously curtailed. Once again Justice Field dissented, but he was gaining followers, including Justice Harlan.

After Jung Ah Lung, Congress passed the Scott Act, and the Supreme Court was quickly asked its interpretation in Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889). Under the Scott Act, reentry certificates were abolished. Instead, an outright prohibition of reentry was established. Chae, a San Francisco Chinese laborer, left the United States to visit China before the Scott Act was passed but after the 1884 amendment. Although he had a reentry certificate, he was prevented from reentry and denied a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court in an opinion written by Justice Field unanimously found the Scott Act constitutional.

The final Chinese attempt to challenge the Exclusion Acts came in 1893. In 1892 Congress renewed the Exclusion Act of 1882 for another ten years, and it added a new requirement that all Chinese laborers had to have certificates of residence or face deportation. Three Chinese were subsequently found guilty of not having residence papers, and they appealed. In the 1893 cases the Court completed the closing of the door to Chinese immigration and the restriction of basic freedoms of Chinese ‐ Americans by holding that Congress had the power retroactively to require Chinese to have residential certificates and allowing those without certificates to be deported.

After initially offering narrow holdings to protect Chinese reentry to the United States, the Supreme Court eventually succumbed to the anti ‐ Chinese hysteria of the era and ratified far ‐ reaching restrictions on basic rights for Chinese under American law. Bibliography Milton R. Konvitz, The Asian and the Asiatic in American Law (1946) Yuri 02/12



[|State Dept. Addresses Chinese Exclusion]

[|Google Timeline for Chinese Exclusion]

[|Treaty Regulating Immigration from China]

Megan 2/15