# data[].attributes.body
Racial formation theory is an analytical tool in sociology, developed by Michael Omi and Howard Winant, which is used to look at race as a socially constructed identity--where racial categories are determined by social, economic, and political forces.

Omi & Winant believe that race is not a biological fact, but a social and historical construct that emerged through Western colonialism.

As European powers expanded globally, they encountered and categorized non-European peoples based on physical difference. This process of categorization—drew a "color line"—which was central to justifying colonization, slavery, and exploitation. Hence--race became a key organizing principle of the 'modern world', structuring and justifying social hierarchies, and economic domination of groups.

Omi & Winant help us see that Asian exclusion was not just immigration control—it was part of a larger racial formation process, where the state, through law, constructed Asians (insert other non-white groups) as an “othered” racial group to secure its white national identity and justify imperial expansion (or continued white colonial settlement through dispossession of indigenous nations). The process of racial formation in the US could therefore be seen by way of Immigration restrictions acts and the like.

(Settler colonialism)--is an analytical frame which articulates a form of colonialism where colonizers aim to replace the existing population and social order with their own--establishing a new society on the land they are occupying. In the context of the US--this process inherently involves the continued dispossession of Indigenous peoples through various means, including violence, cultural erasure, and the imposition of new social, economic, and political systems)

# data[].attributes.body
1st Congressional Statutes enacted after independence after debates over naturalization - led to enactment of Naturalization Act of 1790. This act stipulated that only "free white persons" were eligible for citizenship and that rights were held by "white men."

This statute imposed restrictions on immigration--but its supporters did not want to discourage the immigration of White Europeans

Eligibility for citizenship was not altered until 162 years after this statute's enactment. In 1952 the Walter-McCarran Act eliminated the racial basis for United States naturalization.

As shown, the importance of racial status to the colonial and post-Independence economy laid the foundation for its continued centrality during the period of widespread immigration to the United States in the 1800s. Rapid economic development and industrialization during this period provided the structural foundations upon which further economic and social opportunities were systematically granted or denied on the basis of race.

1. Coolie Trade Act (1862)

Ended U.S. participation in the coolie labor trade (exploitative labor from Asia).

Early step toward restricting Asian labor migration.

2. Page Act (1875)

Banned immigration of Asian women suspected of prostitution.

Targeted Chinese women specifically.

Reflected fears of Asian moral corruption and reinforced gendered stereotypes.

3. Chinese Exclusion Act (1882)

First large-scale U.S. immigration law targeting a specific race.

The first major U.S. law restricting immigration targeted Chinese laborers, prohibiting their entry into the country. This act reflected and amplified anti-Chinese sentiment, leading to widespread discrimination and violence against Chinese Americans. The act remained in effect until 1943, shaping Asian American racial formation for generations.

4. Scott Act (1888)

Denied reentry to Chinese laborers who left the U.S. temporarily, even those previously residing in the U.S.

5. Geary Act (1892)

Extended Chinese Exclusion Act for another 10 years.

Required Chinese residents to carry residence certificates or face deportation.

6. Chinese Exclusion Act Renewed & Made Permanent (1902–1904)

Law renewed in 1902 and made permanent in 1904.

Stayed in effect until repealed during World War II.

7. Alien Land Law (1913)

California law prohibiting “aliens ineligible for citizenship” from owning or leasing agricultural land.

Targeted Japanese immigrants and other Asians.

8. Johnson-Reed Act (1924) (Immigration Act of 1924)

Created strict racial quotas favoring immigrants from Northern and Western Europe.

Banned all immigration from Asia, except for the Philippines (then a U.S. colony).

Codified Asians as legally “aliens ineligible for citizenship.”

The act codified racial categories and reflected pseudo-scientific racial theories of the time.

Reinforced the idea of the U.S. as a “white nation.”

9. Magnuson Act Repeals Chinese Exclusion (1943)

Repealed during WWII under political pressure (China was a U.S. ally).

Still imposed a small quota of 105 Chinese immigrants per year.

Also known as the Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act, this legislation finally ended the explicit ban on Chinese immigration, though it maintained a strict quota system. The change came partly due to China's status as a World War II ally, showing how international politics influenced racial formation.

10. Immigration and Nationality Act (1952)

While maintaining the national origins quota system, this act eliminated racial restrictions on naturalization, allowing Asian immigrants to become citizens for the first time. This represented a shift in how race and citizenship were legally connected.

11. 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act (Hart-Celler Act)

Ended racial quotas of the Johnson-Reed Act.

Prioritized family reunification and skilled workers instead of race-based quotas.

Allowed large-scale immigration from Asia, Africa, and Latin America for the first time in decades.

Marked the beginning of significant Asian American demographic growth.

The act marked a significant shift in official U.S. racial policy, though informal barriers persisted.

12. 2001-Present (Post 9/11 War on Terror) -Racial Formation

Following the September 11 attacks, new patterns of racial formation emerged affecting Middle Eastern, Arab, and South Asian Americans. Increased surveillance, discrimination, and the creation of new racial categories demonstrated the ongoing nature of racial formation in response to social and political events.

________________________________

Citizenship Cases:

People v. Hall (1854): Chinese barred from testifying against whites.

Wong Kim Ark v. U.S. (1898): Birthright citizenship upheld.

Wong Kim Ark Born in the U.S. in 1873 to Chinese immigrant parents, was denied reentry to the U.S. because of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.]

Was Chinese American

Went to court to fight for birthright citizenship, ultimately, the US Supreme Court ruled in his favor and ruled that all persons born in the U.S. have citizenship.

Ozawa v. U.S. (1922): Takao Ozawa was a Japanese man denied citizenship; not “white.” Fought against racism and discrimination and brought the case of naturalized citizenship to the Supreme Court. He was denied.

Baghat Singh Thind v. U.S. (1923): South Asian man denied; “common knowledge”

67 Asian Indians were stripped of their citizenship as a result of the ruling in the case.

The Supreme Court threw out the scientific method of race and relied only the common knowledge (social construct) of who was white and who was not.

Thind lost his case and was denied naturalization (citizenship).

Vaishno Das Bagai: Revoked citizenship after Thind case; committed suicide in 1928.

# data[].attributes.headline
Two Dominant Stereotypes of Asian Americans

# data[].attributes.subject
Two Dominant Stereotypes of Asian Americans

# data[].attributes.body
Model Minority Stereotype

Portrays Asian Americans as hardworking, academically and economically successful, and law-abiding.

Emerged during the 1960s:

Media Origins: 1966 New York Times Magazine and U.S. News & World Report praised Japanese and Chinese Americans.

Asians described as achieving success through hard work

Stereotype constructed to counter Civil Rights & Black Power movements of the 60s--deflect attention from racial inequality affecting African Americans & Latinos. Asians were the "racialized scapegoats--presented as proof that U.S. society is fair and open for reaching the American Dream, which negated structural racism.

Sometimes even Asian Americans view themselves through this stereotype positively--as it improves their image compared to prior negative portrayals.

*Considered the most influential and pervasive stereotype today.

Yellow Peril Stereotype

A negative stereotype depicting Asians as a threat—culturally, economically, and even militarily.

Anti-Asian sentiment--Asian's viewed as illegible due to language & cultural difference. Perceived as treacherous, unclean, "uncivilized heathens"--that would destroy societal norms & threaten white racial purity.

Used to justify exclusion laws (like the Chinese Exclusion Act) and colonization of Asia-Pacific.

World War II (Pearl Harbor, internment camps) intensified this image.

Both Stereotypes have circular relationship -

Model minority & yellow peril are dialectical: Asians are framed as almost “superhuman” for their success, calm demeanor, and work ethic. They’re praised — but not allowed to be too good or outdo white Americans; if they do, that same exceptionalism becomes abnormal or threatening.

Asian economic success reignited both admiration and fear.

# data[].attributes.body
Though seemingly “positive,” model minority or yellow peril stereotypes contribute to racial hostility and even violence against Asian Americans:

Example: Vincent Chin’s 1982 murder (where he was targeted due to anti-Japanese sentiments).

Example: Violence against Asians during the 1992 LA riots.

Example: Atlanta Spa Killings

Example: Covid-19 anti-Asian Violence

Supports colorblind ideology by suggesting that success is due solely to hard work, ignoring structural racism.

Reminder: As the Asian Americanist Analysis video and Connie Wun, co-founder of AAPI Stop Asian Hate--reminds us is it enough to educate other on Anti-Asian hate or violence?? These scholars think that addressing structural violence in this country is important, along with anti-blackness, etc. they state that we need a systemic analysis of what is happening, because racial/gendered violence occurs relationally—it is one piece of the larger puzzle; rather than individualizing these attacks. There is a historical pattern of violence perpetrated against people of color and understand that these systems are intertwined—is it about colonialism, imperialism

# data[].attributes.body
In Chapter 12, “In Search of Refuge,” in The Making of Asian America, Erika Lee traces how refugees from Southeast Asia—once known as French Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia)—were displaced by Cold War conflicts and U.S. interventions. Wars in the region, including the Vietnam War, devastated entire societies. The US's aggressive anti-communist foreign policy many were forced to flee, suffered great instability, and from deep trauma.

--Lee emphasizes that these refugees were forced migrants. They arrived in the United States carrying physical injuries, psychological wounds, and the grief of losing their homes, families, and countries. Resettlement was not just about starting over economically—it meant rebuilding communities, languages, and cultural life from scratch in an unfamiliar place.

--Like earlier Asian immigrants, many pursued the “American Dream,” yet their story is marked by contradiction.

On one hand, U.S. military and political interventions in Southeast Asia helped create the very conditions that forced people to flee. On the other hand, U.S. humanitarian policies made large-scale refuge possible. Churches, sponsors, and local communities across the country helped newcomers resettle. Yet support often came with expectations of rapid assimilation, and not all Americans welcomed refugees. Many faced racism, poverty, surveillance, and social isolation.

---This contradiction is key: displacement was often tied to U.S. imperialism and foreign policy, even as the U.S. positioned itself as a humanitarian savior. The refugee experience cannot be separated from the global power dynamics that produced their exile.

-Legally, the Refugee Act of 1980 formalized the U.S. refugee resettlement system and aligned U.S. policy with international definitions of refugees. However, later laws reshaped the landscape. The Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 expanded grounds for detention and deportation, even for legal permanent residents. Minor criminal convictions could trigger mandatory detention and removal.

-This convergence of criminal law and immigration law—often called “crimmigration”—created what scholars describe as double punishment: individuals serve criminal sentences and then face deportation. As Mae Ngai argues, this produces the “impossible subject”—people who live in the U.S., build lives here, and yet are rendered deportable and permanently suspect.

-Tying this to racial formation, Southeast Asian refugees were racialized in shifting ways: first as victims deserving rescue, then as burdens, criminals, or threats. Their identity was shaped not just by culture, but by state power, war, and law. The refugee story in Asian America is therefore about survival and resilience—but also about how race, empire, and immigration policy work together to define who belongs and who remains vulnerable.

# data[].attributes.body
How does Omi and Winant’s theory of racial formation help us understand the ways U.S. laws targeting Asian refugees, asylum seekers, and immigrants reflect shifting ideas about race, belonging, and national identity?

Keep this question in mind as we explore how policies like the Refugee Act of 1980 and immigration laws from the 1990s both include and exclude Asian communities based on broader racial and political meanings. And how these might be tied to historical genealogy of anti-asian exclusion laws.