107. See also Him Mark Lai, Genny Lim, and Judy Yung, eds., Island:
Poetry and History of Chinese Immigrants on Angel Island, 1910–1940, 2nd ed.
(Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2014).
82. R. David Arkush and Leo O. Lee, trans. and eds., Land without Ghosts:
Chinese Impressions of Amer i ca from the Mid- Nineteenth Century to the
Pres ent (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 64–65.
83. Chang- fang Chen, “Barbarian Paradise: Chinese Views of the United
States, 1784–1911” (Ph.D. diss., Indiana University, 1985), 221.
84. Lum May, “Affidavit in the Matter of the Expulsion of Chinese from
Tacoma,” in Watson Squire to Thomas Bayard (and enclosed documents),
July 17, 1886, USDS / ML; Sam Hing, “Affidavit in the Matter of the
Expulsion of Chinese from Tacoma,” in Watson Squire to Thomas Bayard
(and enclosed documents), July 17, 1886, USDS / ML; Thomas Minor,
“Affidavit in the Matter of the Expulsion of Chinese from Tacoma,” in
Watson Squire to Thomas Bayard (and enclosed documents), July 17, 1886,
USDS / ML; Kwok Sue, “Affidavit in the Matter of the Expulsion of
328
NOTES TO PAGES 227–230
Chinese from Tacoma,” in Watson Squire to Thomas Bayard (and enclosed
documents), July 17, 1886, USDS / ML.
85. For a con temporary example of variegated forms of alienage and
citizenship, see Kamal Sadiq, Paper Citizens: How Illegal Immigrants
Acquire Citizenship in Developing Countries (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2009), 3–23.
86. Mae M. Ngai, Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of
Modern Amer i ca (Prince ton, NJ: Prince ton University Press, 2005), 2–6;
Estelle T. Lau, Paper Families: Identity, Immigration Administration, and
Chinese Exclusion (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006);
Xiaojian Zhao, Remaking Chinese Amer i ca: Immigration, Family, and
Community, 1940–1965 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press,
2002).
87. Unlike today, marriage to a U.S. citizen did not provide an alternative path
to citizenship. If a Chinese man married a woman with U.S. citizenship,
she adopted his legal status, not the reverse. George Anthony Peffer, If They
Don’t Bring Their Women Here: Chinese Female Immigration before
Exclusion (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1999), 9.
88. For “alien citizens,” see Ngai, Impossible Subjects, 2, 8. For the related
concept of “blurred membership,” see Sadiq, Paper Citizens, 8.
89. Lee, At Amer i ca’s Gates, 226–235.
90. Herbert F. Beecher to C. S. Fairchild, July 7, 1887, box 9, USCS / EI; Zhang
Yinhuan to Imperial Court, memorial, March 30, 1889, pt. 3, item 34, ZS,
127–134.
91. Salyer, Laws Harsh as Tigers, xvi; Lee, At Amer i ca’s Gates, 6; Ettinger, Imaginary Lines, 6–7; Young, Alien Nation, 4, 156.
92. For a modern example, see John Salt, “Trafficking and Human Smuggling:
A Eu ro pean Perspective,” International Migration 38, no. 3 (2000): 31–56.
For trafficking of Chinese women in the nineteenth century, see Sinn,
Pacific Crossing, 226–261.
93. Yong Chen, Chinese San Francisco, 1850–1943: A Transpacific Community
(Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 2002), 45–47, 125–141; McKeown,
Chinese Mi grant Networks, 178–180, 209–212.
94. Brooks, Alien Neighbors, Foreign Friends, 11–38; Natalia Molina, Fit to Be
Citizens?: Public Health and Race in Los Angeles, 1879–1939 (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2006), 15–45; Nayan Shah, Contagious
Divides: Epidemics and Race in San Francisco’s Chinatown (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2001).
NOTES TO PAGES 230–232
329
95. For “toleration,” see Martha Hodes, White Women, Black Men: Illicit Sex in
the 19th- Century South (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997), 3.
96. Woo Gen, interview by C. H. Burnett, August 12, 1924, box 27, no. 183,
SRR.
97. Chin Cheung, interview by C. H. Burnett, August 12, 1924, box 27,
no. 187, SRR. On opportunities for Chinese elites in the Exclusion Period,
see Kenneth H. Marcus and Yong Chen, “Inside and Outside
Chinatown: Chinese Elites in Exclusion Era California,” Pacific Historical
Review 80, no. 3 (August 2011): 369–400; Beth Lew- Williams, “ ‘Chinamen’
and ‘Delinquent Girls’: Intimacy, Exclusion and a Search for California’s
Color Line,” Journal of American History 104 no. 3 (December 2017): 632–655.
98. In the Gentleman’s Agreement, Japan agreed to halt the migration of
Japa nese workers from Hawai‘i, Canada, Mexico, and Japan to the
continental United States. It was not a formal treaty and was never ratified.
It was enacted entirely through informal diplomatic agreements and
executive action. The Gentleman’s Agreement drew from the pre ce dent of
de cades of Sino- America negotiations over Chinese exclusion but came
after the United States had abandoned this diplomatic approach with
China. Japan’s geopo liti cal strength by the early twentieth century made it
a very diff er ent case from China. David FitzGerald and David Cook-
Martin, Culling the Masses: The Demo cratic Origins of Racist Immigration
Policy in the Amer i cas (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014),
98. See also Andrea Geiger, Subverting Exclusion: Transpacific Encounters
with Race, Caste, and Borders, 1885–1928 (New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 2011).
99. “An Act to regulate the immigration of aliens to, and residence of aliens in,
the United States,” (Immigration Act of 1917; Barred Zone Act), Pub. L.
65 – 301, 39 Stat. 874, 8 U.S.C.0 (February 5, 1917); Immigration Act of 1924
(National Origins Act; Johnson – Reed Act), Pub. L. 68 – 139, 43 Stat. 153
(May 26, 1924); Rick Baldoz, The Third Asiatic Invasion: Migration and
Empire in Filipino Amer i ca, 1898–1946 (New York: New York University
Press, 2011).
100. Jane H. Hong, “The Repeal of Asian Exclusion,” in American History:
Oxford Research Encyclopedias, accessed June 29, 2016, http:// americanhistory
.oxfordre .com / view / 10 . 1093 / acrefore / 9780199329175 .001 .0001 / acrefore
- 9780199329175 - e - 16; K. Scott Wong, Americans First: Chinese Americans and the Second World War (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2005), 109–124.
330
NOTES TO PAGES 232–234
101. “To authorize the admission into the United States of persons of races
indigenous to India, and persons of races indigenous to the Philippine
Islands, to make them racially eligible for naturalization, and for other
purposes,” (Luce– Celler Act), Pub. L. 79 – 483, 60 Stat. 416 (July 2,
1946); Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran– Walter
Act), Pub. L. 82–414, 66 Stat. 163 (June 27, 1952); Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart– Celler Act), Pub. L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911
(October 3, 1965); Bill Ong Hing, Making and Remaking Asian Amer i ca
through Immigration Policy, 1850–1990 (Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press, 1993), 1–47; “The Rise of Asian Americans,” Pew
Research Center: Social and Demographic Trends (Washington, DC
:
Pew Research Center, 2012).
102. Lee, At Amer i ca’s Gates, 191.
103. Elizabeth M. Hoeffel, Sonya Rastogi, Myoung Ouk Kim, and Hasan
Shahid, “The Asian Population, 2010,” U.S. Department of Commerce,
(March 2012), https:// www.census .gov / prod / cen2010 / briefs / c2010br - 11 .pdf;
Min Zhou, Con temporary Chinese Amer i ca: Immigration, Ethnicity, and
Community Transformation (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2009),
xi, 43–44.
104. H.R. Res. 683, 158th Cong. (2012); S. Res. 201, 157th Cong. (2011).
105. 158 Cong. Rec., H 3715 (June 18, 2012); 157 Cong. Rec., H 3809 (June 1,
2011); 157 Cong. Rec., S6352 (October 6, 2011).
106. As Gabriel Chin states, “The power to select immigrants on the basis of
race is said to remain at the ready. Chae Chan Ping and Fong Yue Ting
continue to be cited in modern decisions of the Supreme Court; because
all constitutional immigration law flows from these cases, even decisions
that do not cite them must rely on cases that do.” See Gabriel J.
Chin, “Segregation’s Last Stronghold: Race Discrimination and the
Constitutional Law of Immigration,” UCLA Law Review 46, no. 1 (1998):
15; David C. Brotherton and Philip Kretsedemas, eds., Keeping Out the
Other: A Critical Introduction to Immigration Enforcement Today (New
York: Columbia University Press, 2008), 12–13; Michael A. Scaperlanda,
Immigration Law: A Primer (Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center,
2009); Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010); Michael J. Wishnie,
“Laboratories of Bigotry? Devolution of the Immigration Power, Equal
Protection, and Federalism,” New York University Law Review 76 (2001):
493–531.
NOTES TO PAGES 235–237
331
EPILOGUE
1.
NYT, July 20, 1890.
2. “An Act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and
furnish the means of their vindication,” (Civil Rights Act of 1866), chap.
31, 14 Stat. 27–30 (April 9, 1866); U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Eric Foner,
Reconstruction: Amer i ca’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877 (New York:
Harper and Row, 1988); Elliott West, “Reconstruction Race,” Western
Historical Quarterly 34, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 7–26; Najia Aarim- Heriot,
Chinese Immigrants, African Americans, and Racial Anxiety in the United
States, 1848–82 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2006), 194–195;
Joshua Paddison, American Heathens: Religion, Race, and Reconstruction
in California (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012), 114–117;
Cathleen D. Cahill, Federal Fathers and Mothers: A Social History of the
United States Indian Ser vice, 1869–1933 (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 2011), 18–20, 26–29; Gregory P. Downs and Kate Masur,
eds., The World the Civil War Made (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 2015), 8; Sarah H. Cleveland, “Powers Inherent in
Sovereignty: Indians, Aliens, Territories and the Nineteenth Century
Origins of Plenary Power Over Foreign Affairs,” Texas Law Review 81, no. 1
(2002): 1–284; Steven Hahn, “Slave Emancipation, Indian Peoples, and the
Proj ects of a New American Nation- State,” Journal of the Civil War Era 3,
no. 3 (September 2013): 307–330. Mexican Americans had already been
granted U.S. citizenship (and legal whiteness) at the close of the Mexican-
American War as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848). This was
confirmed in an 1897 case, In Re: Rodriguez.
3. William J. Novak, “The Legal Transformation of Citizenship in
Nineteenth- Century Amer ica,” in The Demo cratic Experiment: New
Directions in American Po liti cal History, ed. Meg Jacobs, William J. Novak,
and Julian E. Zelizer (Prince ton, NJ: Prince ton University Press, 2003),
85–119. See also Kunal M. Parker, Making Foreigners: Immigration and
Citizenship Law in Amer i ca, 1600–2000 (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2015), 23–70, 77–85.
4. On slavery as an obstacle to the federalization of immigration control, see
Karin Anderson Ponzer, “Inventing the Border: Law and Immigration in
the United States: 1882–1891” (Ph.D. diss., The New School, 2012), 14–21,
64; Parker, Making Foreigners, 85–99, 104, 121.
5. Cleveland, “Powers Inherent in Sovereignty,” 89–98.
332
NOTES TO PAGES 238–240
6. On variations of status, rights, and privileges within U.S. citizenship, see
Barbara Young Welke, Law and the Borders of Belonging in the Long
Nineteenth Century United States (New York: Cambridge University Press,
2010); Nancy F. Cott, “Marriage and Women’s Citizenship in the United
States, 1830–1934,” American Historical Review 103, no. 5 (December 1998):
1440–1474; Linda K. Kerber, “The Meanings of Citizenship,” Journal of
American History 84, no. 3 (December 1997): 833–854; Margot Canaday,
The Straight State: Sexuality and Citizenship in Twentieth- Century
Amer i ca (Prince ton, NJ: Prince ton University Press, 2009); Parker, Making
Foreigners, 117, 143; Stephen Kantrowitz, More Than Freedom: Fighting for
Black Citizenship in a White Republic, 1829–1889 (New York: Penguin,
2012); Eric Foner, The Story of American Freedom (New York: W. W.
Norton, 1998), 107; Linda K. Kerber, No Constitutional Right to Be
Ladies: Women and the Obligation of Citizenship (New York: Hill & Wang,
1998); Martha Gardner, The Qualities of a Citizen: Women, Immigration
and Citizenship (Prince ton, NJ: Prince ton University Press, 2005).
7. Parker, Making Foreigners, 11; Evelyn Nakano Glenn, Unequal Freedom:
How Race and Gender Shaped American Citizenship and Labor (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), 20–24; Lisa Lowe, The Intimacies of
Four Continents (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2015), 7.
8. There were still nativist impulses in the antebellum period; see John
Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860–1925
(New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1955), 5–11; Michael Mann,
The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2005), 5.
9. Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 2d Sess. 5152 (1870).
10. Mas sa chu setts senator Charles Sumner introduced the amendment to
strike the word “white” from the statute. Cong. Globe, 41st Cong., 2d Sess.
5169 (1870). Lucy E. Salyer, Laws Harsh as Tigers: Chinese Immigrants and
the Shaping of Modern Immigration Law (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 1995), 13.
11. Cleveland, “Powers Inherent in Sovereignty,” 98; Linda Bosniak, The
Citizen and the Alien: Dilemmas of Con temporary Membership (Prince ton,
NJ: Prince ton University Press, 2006), 54; Mae Ngai, Impossible Subjects:
Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern Amer i ca (Prince ton, NJ: Prince ton
University Press, 2005), 18; Daniel Kanstroom, Deportation Nation:
Outsiders in American History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2010), 95–130; Parker, Making Foreigners, 119–130; Salyer, Laws Harsh as
NOTES TO PAGES 240–241
333
Tigers, 23. Gabrie
l J. Chin, “Is There a Plenary Power Doctrine?
A Tentative Apology and Prediction for our Strange but Unexceptional
Constitutional Immigration Law,” Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 14
(2000): 257–287; Charles J. McClain, In Search of Equality: The Chinese
Strug gle against Discrimination in Nineteenth- Century Amer i ca (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1994), 191–219. For the exclusion cases that
established the plenary power doctrine, see Chae Chan Ping, 130 U.S. 581
(1889); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893); United States v.
Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (1905); Tiaco v. Forbes, 228 U.S. 549, 557 (1913).
12. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886); Wong Wing v. U.S., 163 U.S. 228
(1896); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
13. Parker, Making Foreigners, 84, 103–110, 123; Hidetaka Hirota, “ ‘The Great
Entrepot for Mendicants’: Foreign Poverty and Immigration Control in
New York State to 1882,” Journal of American Ethnic History 33, no. 2
(Winter 2014): 5–32; Hidetaka Hirota, “Nativism, Citizenship, and the
Deportation of Paupers in Mas sa chu setts, 1837–1883” (Ph.D. diss., Boston
College, 2012); Hidetaka Hirota, “The Moment of Transition: State
Officials, the Federal Government, and the Formation of American
Immigration Policy,” Journal of American History 99, no. 4 (2013): 1092–1108;
Brendan P. O’Malley, “Protecting the Stranger: The Origins of U.S.
Immigration Regulation in Nineteenth- Century New York” (Ph.D. diss.,
City University of New York, 2015); Gerald L. Neuman, “The Lost
Century of American Immigration Law (1776–1875),” Columbia Law
Review 93, no. 8 (December 1993): 1833–1901; Kanstroom, Deportation
Nation, 49–63; Salyer, Laws Harsh as Tigers, 23–32; Ngai, Impossible
Subjects, 18; Patrick Ettinger, Imaginary Lines: Border of Enforcement and
the Origins of Undocumented Immigration, 1882–1930 (Austin: University of
Texas Press, 2009), 15–25; Hiroshi Motomura, Immigration Outside the Law
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 99. For “American gatekeeping,”
see Erika Lee, At Amer i ca’s Gates: Chinese Immigration during the Exclusion
Era, 1882–1943 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003), 7,
10–12. The Page Act of 1875 restricted the immigration of “oriental”
prostitutes and “coolies,” but it also targeted a small number of convicts
The Chinese Must Go Page 48
