The two documents contain various travel rules involving Chinese immigrants and their entry into the United States. The Chinese government is presented both as a figure to fear and commanding presense¹. Chinese people became the subject of fearmongering and would not be allowed to apply for citizenship. They would have to comply for stricter rules for documentation upon their travels, as seen in the second document which has rules like needing an official government issued certificate to enter "... without producing to the proper office of customs the certificate..."_², and that Chinese laborers must have been in the country before 90 days have expired or they will be removed³.

-------------------------------------------------------

1. "The Chinese Exclusion Treaty of 1880 and the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882," 1880. Digital History, accessed May 4, 2025, https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=1099.

   
   

2. Digital History, "The Chinese Exclusion," 1.

   
   

3. Digital History, "The Chinese Exclusion," 1.

Dealing with Chinese laborers is the main focus here; themes of displacement of the white middle class are common as well as the diminishing of wealth via cheap employment. The Chinese laborers will work for quite cheap, so cheap that they will lower their demands just to obtain work, because of this, white laborers will be forced into either choosing a small wage or poverty, and they will undoubtedly choose the former¹. In order to preserve the white middle class, the Chinese Exclusion bill is a must, even despite the fact that America was built on welcoming refugees of all races and nations, but it is a necessity as it "... threatens the destruction of our democratic society and the dissolution of our republican institutions."_².

------------------------------------------------------

1. "The Exclusion of the Chinese." 1884. Digital History, accessed May 6, 2025, https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=4053

   
   

2. Digital History, "The Exclusion of the Chinese," 1.

   
   

In the document "The Chinese Exclusion Bill", the United States government argues against protestors that it is making fair judgement in its excluding of the Chinese. The barring of entry is based on "... discrimination against character...," not on race nor nations¹. Interestly enough, the mention of trade with other countries is mentioned, suggesting that there is monetary gain to this as well².

-------------------------------------------------------

1. "Chinese Exclusion Bill." 1892. Digital History, accessed May 5, 2025, https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=4047

   
   

2. Digital History, "Chinese Exclusion Bill" 1.

   
   

The magazine American Missionary proclaims undesirables have entered the nation.¹ Their proposal adds that instead of being excluding them based on race is wrong, especially since it goes against the values of the treaty. They criticize that the bill "... has all these obnoxious feature."².

-------------------------------------------------------

1. "Chinese Exclusion," 1893. Digital History, accessed May 7, 2025, https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=4048

   
   

2. Digital History, "Chinese Exclusion," 1.

   
   

Hon. Thomas J. Geary's stance is anti-Chinese; he believes the Chinese unlawfully entered the nation, therefore must face the appropriate punishment as declared by the bill which is exclusion. The bill was created to curb the entry of Chinese laborers and those illegally within the country who could not present a real certificate, thus it actually protects the rights of legal Chinese residents¹. Registration is necessary since it proves who is a legitimate, and should anyone complain, think of American citizens who are also subjected to registrations; when it comes to voting, or even in some states who deman a physical description of the person. Should the Chinese be exempt for what is "... requiring him to do that which nearly all States demand of the American citizen?"². Geary argues once more how considerate the government is being in it's treatment with the Chinese since, when compared to previous bills or laws, there was no kindness exhibited towards the Chinese should they be arrested. For example, should identification made easy, a written testimony present if in the presense of law enforcement, etc. Specifically, he states "This language is not found in any other treaty... and illustrates the superiority diplomacy in negotiating treaties."³, with the last part in reference to how the Chinese secured themselves a great outcome in regard to their outcome in the bill.

--------------------------------------------------------

1. "Should the Chinese Be Excluded?," 1893. Digital History, accessed May 9, 2025 https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=4049

   
   

2. Digital History, "Should the Chinese," 1.

   
   

3. Digital History, "Should the Chinese," 1.

   
   

   
   

The United States is no stranger to the Chinese for back in 1786 the nation traveled to China, bringing back Chinese voyagers on its ships¹. The massive influx of immigrants, at the times, was due to the massive findings of gold in California. This gold rush sent a mad frenzy around the world, and while there were certainly other races immigrating to the U.S., it was Asians which struck fear in the hearts of America. The Chinese were the main hate target since the US and China signed the Burlingame treaty to negotiate peace, with one of the sections made mention to support travel for each's citizens where they in the other's nation.

Originally, the Chinese immigrants were viewed favorably by the general public, with even then Governor John McDougall referring to the group as "... most desirable of our adopted citizens."². Essentially, they were important to the economy, but this sentiment of excitement for the Chinese would change as the years came. By 1854, 40,000 Chinese immigrants were in America³. To cope with the onslaught, a head tax was placed on those that mined. It failed to stop the migration since many more Chinese would come over.

-----------------------------------------------------------

1. "The Farce of the Chinese Exclusion Laws." 1898. Digital History, accessed May 11, 2025, https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=4055

2. Digital History, "The Farce," 1.

3. Digital History, "The Farce," 1.

James D. Phelan argues for the exclusion of the Chinese citing multiples reasons as to why it's a good idea, such as disruption of the peace via jobless men, the pacific coast vote, and the Chinese being destructive because they go against the natural order of society. Phelan opens with that the Chinese have not changed their ways, evident in the way that poor "unemployeed men, hungry from want of work, marched the streets of the cities, inaugurated political parties, disturbed the peace of communities by riotous outbreaks which threatened at times the foundations of law and order."¹ The Chinese are at fault for causing the men to turn to riots, effectively harming the peace.

Phelan as well states that in response to the accusations of unfairness against the Chinese, that the Legislature held a vote with outcomes showing favorability for exclusion; 883 for Chinese immigration , and 154,638 votes against it.²

Oncemore to reenforce the negativity that a Chinese population would have, he ends the article by stating that the Chinese disturb society because of the way they only crave to work; they have no interest to settle down, to eat, to take holiday time off, etc., and that "but they breed the germs of a national disease, which spreads as they spread, and grows as they grow."³

-----------------------------------------------------

1. James D. Phelan, “Why the Chinese Should Be Excluded” (1901). American Yawp Reader. https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/19-american-empire/james-d-phelan-why-the-chinese-should-be-excluded-1901/ 1.

   
   

2. Phelan, "Why the Chinese," 1.

   
   

3. Phelan, "Why the Chinese," 1.

Mary Tape was a Chinese immigrant and mother. In the Court case Tape v. Hurley (1885), the court sided with Mary Tape and her daughter Mamie Tape, but despite this the San Francisco Board of Education built a segregated Chinese school, forcing Mamie to attend.¹ In this letter, Tape argues for her daughters right to attend public school.

Tape questions why must her daughter be kept out of public schools, and what is the difference between Mamie and the other children.² She ponders if it must be because Mamie is Chinese, then remarks that there is no reason that being Chinese should exclude her daughter. Again, she reiterates that Mamie is just like the white, Caucasian children since she does not dress Chinese, that she stands out among them even.³ Tape wonders why they hold a grudge "against this Eight-year-old Mamie Tape." She ends her letter by saying that Mamie is more American than any of them, and nothing will stop her education.⁴

--------------------------------------------------------

1. Chinese Immigrants Confront Anti-Chinese Prejudice (1885, 1903). American Yawp Reader. https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/19-american-empire/chinese-immigrants-confront-anti-chinese-prejudice-1885-1903/

   
   

2. American Yawp Reader, "Chinese Immigrants," 1.

   
   

3. American Yawp Reader, "Chinese Immigrants," 1.

   
   

4. American Yawp Reader, "Chinese Immigrants," 1.

Author Erika Lee's deep understanding of the exclusion era and the intense racism experienced by the Chinese population is well documented in her book "At America's Gates". Topics like immigration, racism, Mexicans and other races, even 9/11 are addressed well. With multiple quotes, names of important officials mentioned, this book is one that highlights the roughness of such a time that, while may seem forever ago, has lasting consequences which can be seen out modern day immigration policies.

Lee goes over several points which show off the common attitudes held during the Exclusion era. Harmful sentiments where the norm at the time, with no mercy cast on the Chinese nor Asians in general. The original mindset was that the Chinese were good for labor due to their numbers being short, but as numbers skyrocketed, the hatred grew. California is an example of this, where it was reported to be known as the toughest in terms of entry, with "members of the latter group (Chinese residents) were required to deposit their statements and register their certificates forty-eight hours prior to their departure from the United States, for example."¹ This noted to only be required of the San Francisco port; no other port did such. This was the result of racism, of course, since it was obvious the fear of the Chinese made San Francisco become tougher in immigration office.

Furthermore, official documents reveal the casual racism in which government officials would refer to the Chinese by racial slurs, On various forms and in correspondence

and internal memoranda, immigration officials often referred to Chinese in derogatory terms such as ‘‘Chinaman,’’ ‘‘c**lie,’’ or ‘‘Ch*nk.’’ The attitudes behind the use of these terms often translated into the physical mistreatment of Chinese immigrants.. ²

^{-------------------------------------------------------------------------------}

1. Lee, Erika, and Emily Woo Zeller. At America’s gates. Chinese immigration during the Exclusion Era, 1882-1943. United States: Tantor Media, Inc, 2018. 

2. Lee, Erika "At America's Gates," 57.

Colonel Ingersoll's stance is that the bill is violating the Chinese's rights. He implies that racism is the reason why the bill went into affect, citing that man feels "inferior" when confronted with "difference"¹. Further more, he argues that both China and the U.S. have agreed that their respective citizens should be able to freely travel to and from each others nations without violation of rights.² The Geary law bans the Chinese if they are not lawfully in the country. The law is cruel since it does not provide the immigrants with habeas corpus, and they have 1 year to obtain a certificate lest they be thrown into prison, facing deportation. Once more, he states that the Chinese are peaceful, friendly people who have never sought war against the U.S. so why be so hostile towards them?

------------------------------------------------------

1. "Should the Chinese Be Excluded?," 1893. Digital History, accessed May 9, 2025, https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=4049

   
   

2. Digital History, "Should the Chinese," 1.

   
   

3. Digital History, "Should the Chinese," 1.

   
   

The first expressed opinion about Chinese exclusion was by Governor Leland Stanford in 1862, who earnestly said "It will afford me great pleasure to concur with the Legislature in any constitutional action having for its object the repression of the immigration of the Asiatic races."¹. Stanford's main issue with the Chinese was the fear that they will ruin profits for the United States. This particular idea that the Chinese would either steal or would plummet America's economy is mentioned many times in the document.

The fear of the Chinese immigrant grew to extraordinary heights, societies that once loved turned to height, and this extended into the governments laws. " the queue ordinance, the capitation tax, the basket-ordinance, the landing tax, the cubic air law, all of which were aimed at the Chinese,"² were some that were aimed to limit Asian immigration. Numerous other attempts were made but were considered to be in poor taste; Chy Lung vs Commissioner of Immigration of California was a court case that ended with the Supreme court deciding it was unconstitutional for California to make decisions removing any immigrant, especially regardless if they were a criminal or vagrant³.

----------------------------------------------------------

1. "The Farce of the Chinese Exclusion Laws." 1898. Digital History, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=4055

   
   

2. Digital History, "The Farce," 1.

   
   

3. Digital History, "The Farce," 1.

   
   

Finally, The Chinese Exclusion Act was passed. It prohibited the entry of Chinese laborers for 10 years, then 20 years¹. The law was a failure, though, since it did not completely halt the passage of Chinese arriving into the country. Many ways did the Chinese arrive into the country. Arriving into the country via ships was one way, and so was claiming to be a relative, in this case a son, of another existing Chinese man in order to enter "Another mode of securing admission is for “sons” to claim birth in San Francisco, and prove it by the testimony of alleged “fathers” who perjure themselves for a consideration."².

Referring back to earlier, the act was a failure since it could not stop the immigration. Notable figures like Judge Hagar referred to the act as "... a complete failure...,"³, as well as U.S. attorney Win. A. Poucher, who remarked on April 30, 1897 "“attended examinations at Malone and at Plattsburg, . . . and has reported that it was absolutely useless..." on spending more money to investigate the Chinese⁴.

---------------------------------------------------------

1. "The Farce of the Chinese Exclusion Laws." 1898. Digital History, accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=4055

   
   

2. Digital History, "The Farce," 1.

   
   

3. Digital History, "The Farce," 1.

   
   

4. Digital History, "The Farce," 1.