Enfleshed legal horizons* by https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig Why do we need an intersectional timeline? How does this timeline differ from immigration timelines that currently exist? This timeline will include an intersectional approach, focusing on the intersections of race, gender, sexuality, and critical disability studies. en-us 2022-03-09 02:35:59 UTC 2023-06-20 15:23:45 UTC hello@padlet.com Page Act (1875) rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2085208244 Scholars have examined the Page Act at the intersections of race, gender, and sexuality. The Page Act racialized and policed Chinese men and women and their bodies, deeming women as sex workers and undesirables.

Women were deemed inadmissible and deportable on the basis of "moral grounds". White nativists racialized Chinese women as "immoral or guilty of sexual misdeeds".

I would like to preface that some and not all Chinese women who immigrated to the U.S. during this time were trafficked and coerced into sex work as a result of transportation debt.

Those that were trafficked faced various forms of violence throughout their voyage and upon arrival. This Act stereotyped women and to an extension, further cause revictimization to victims.

Chinese men were also impacted by this Act because of the anti-Chinese sentiment that was gaining attraction in the mining, industrial, and agricultural sectors. Many were left with few labor options, therefore they began working in occupations traditionally reserved for women: the restaurant, laundry, and domestic service industries. Also, because this Act restricted women from immigrating, many Chinese families could not reunify, thus the large number of single Chinese men in the U.S. Anti-miscegenation laws were also emplaced, making it illegal for Chinese men to be in any sort of relationship with a white person.

The Page Act was the first restrictive federal immigration
law and prohibited the entry of immigrants considered “undesirable.” It set a precedent for discriminating against a specific group of immigrants. The Page Act and the Chinese Exclusion Act paved the way for other discriminatory immigration policies that placed quotas on certain ethnic groups, individuals with dis/abilities and those who may or may not identify as LGBTQ.

Sources:
Gendzel, G. (2009). It didn’t start with Proposition 187: One hundred and fifty years of nativist legislation in California. Journal of the West, 48, 76.

Lee, C. (2003). At America’s gates Chinese immigration during the exclusion era, 1882-1943. University of North Carolina Press.

Long, S. (2006). Sex and Security: A Short History of Exclusions. In Family, unvalued: Discrimination, denial, and the fate of binational same-sex couples under US law. Human Rights Watch.
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/us0506/4.htm#_ftnref24

Lopez, I. H. (1997). White by law: The legal construction of race (Vol. 21). NYU Press.

Wadhia, S., & Hu, M. (2022). Decitizenizing asian pacific american women. University of Colorado Law Review, 93(2), 325-366.

Yung, J. (1995). Unbound feet: A social history of Chinese women in San Francisco. Univ of California Press.

https://www.reproductiveaccess.org/2017/03/womens-history-month-spotlight-on-the-1875-page-act/

https://www.history.com/news/chinese-immigration-page-act-women]]> 2022-03-09 02:36:53 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2085208244 Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2085209862 The Chinese Exclusion Act became the first immigration law to bar immigrants from entry because of their race, class, sexual orientation and dis/abilities. Scholars argue that the Chinese Exclusion Act became the legal architecture of immigration law.

Scholar Erika Lee writes "the Chinese Exclusion Act barred all Chinese laborers from entering the country for ten years and prohibited Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens (Lee 2)". The Act defined illegal immigration as a criminal offense under penalty of imprisonment and deportation. The Act also made Chinese immigrants permanent aliens by excluding them from U.S. citizenship.

The Act enforced control and surveillance through the creation of immigration federal inspectors, whom presently, are known as ICE agents. The Act also implemented a tracking system that kept detailed recordkeeping of immigrants arriving to the U.S. Moreover, the Act enforced the issuance of laborer's return certificate, which are today known as passports. Lastly, the Act also enforced the issuance of certificates of residence and and certificates of identity, which are presently known as greencards.

Sources:
Lee, C. (2003). At America’s gates Chinese immigration during the exclusion era, 1882-1943. University of North Carolina Press.

Full version of the Exclusion Act:
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/5752153

Transcript to the Exclusion Act:
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/chinese-exclusion-act#transcript

]]> 2022-03-09 02:38:11 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2085209862 Bracero Program (1942) rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2085267242 The U.S. and Mexico established a foreign contract labor program during World War II known as the Bracero Program. The Bracero Program called for Mexican farm laborers to legally work in the United States.

In order to be admitted into the U.S., many of the workers were subjected to invasive and dangerous medical examinations and starvation.

The Bracero program did not intend for a surplus of workers to apply/immigrate. Only a certain amount of workers was needed but more than 15,000 men were showing up.

Mexican workers provided the human labor power for the agricultural revolution, laid the infrastructure for the modern southwest's economy, laid railroad tracks, cleared ranch lands, and dug irrigation canals.

Braceros were also stereotyped into racial scripts that were used by the agriculture owners as a means to keep their Mexican farm laborers on the premise that they migrated back and forth to Mexico. Male Mexican farmers were seen as cheaper labor when compared to landowners having to provide for slave families.

I would like to point out that much of the literature written about Braceros is male-centered. The histories and experiences of women and the conditions during the Bracero Program history have largely neglected them.

Sources:
Calavita, K. (2010). Inside the state: The Bracero Program, immigration, and the INS. Quid Pro Books.

Ngai, M. (2014). Impossible subjects : illegal aliens and the making of modern America (Updated edition / with a new forward by the author.). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400850235

https://guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/bracero-program#s-lib-ctab-24941684-0

]]> 2022-03-09 03:25:25 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2085267242 Operation Wetback (1954) rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2085267420
Operation Wetback includes a derogatory slur in its immigration policy as a way to racialize Mexican laborers as “misery, crime and many other evils”.

As servicemen returned from war and the Bracero program began attracting undocumented workers, the U.S. felt the urgency to address "the Mexican problem", paradoxically similar to the "Chinese problem" in the late 1880s.

The U.S. believed that this was supposed to be the solution to illegal immigration. This repatriation project deported about 1.4 million Mexicans. While some were forcibly removed, others voluntarily repatriated back to Mexico.

Some of the tactics used to profile immigrants was through the usage of "ID checkpoints".

Sources:

Hernandez, K.L. (2006). The Crimes and Consequences of Illegal Immigration: A Cross-Border Examination of Operation Wetback, 1943 to 1954. The Western Historical Quarterly, 37(4), 421–444. https://doi.org/10.2307/25443415

Ngai, M. (2014). Impossible subjects : illegal aliens and the making of modern America (Updated edition / with a new forward by the author.). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400850235

]]> 2022-03-09 03:25:33 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2085267420 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2085281769 The signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe de Hidalgo ended the war between Mexico and the U.S. As a result, Mexico lost half of its territory (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, and parts of Idaho and Wyoming).

There were two articles that were later ratified by the U.S. Senate: Article VIII and Article IX. Article VIII granted Mexicans the right to either remain in United States territory and be granted U.S. citizenship or move to Mexico and retain Mexican citizenship.

Article VIII racialized Mexicans as Whites and granted them all the privileges of citizenship reserved only for the other “white” residents of the country at the time. This article will be referenced in later Civil Rights legal cases such as the Hernandez V. Texas and Independent School District v. Salvatierra for equitable social change in the legal sphere and in education.

Article IX "protected" the land rights of Mexicans. Contesting land ownership was an expensive and discriminatory process for Mexicans. In addition, archivist scholars such as Karen Roybal have also contributed to Southwest history by including the experiences of Mexican women who fought their respective "herencias" in a patriarchal legal system, from the courts to their homes/families. Roybal's work is important to Chicanx and Latinx history as it recognizes the importance of women's testimonios in socio-political movements.

Indigenous peoples have also utilized the Treaty to claim legal rights to land and indigenous sovereignty.

The significance of this Treaty to immigration history is that it set legal precedent to the racialization of Latinxs being "white". While other legal cases attempted to prove their "American identity" through moral, ethical, and scientific bases, this Treaty did provide leverage to discriminatory laws and policies that will continue to target the Latinx community.

Sources:
Chávez-García, M. (2004). Negotiating conquest: gender and power in California, 1770s to 1880s. University of Arizona Press.

Griswold del Castillo, R. (1990). The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo : a legacy of conflict (1st ed.). University of Oklahoma Press.

Klein, C. A. (1996). Treaties of conquest: Property rights, Indian treaties, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. NML rev., 26, 201.

Roybal, K. R. (2022). The Alternative Archive and Gendered Dispossession. In The Routledge Companion to Gender and the American West (pp. 363-374). Routledge.

Roybal, K. R. (2017). Archives of Dispossession: Recovering the Testimonios of Mexican American Herederas, 1848–1960. University of North Carolina Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9781469633831_roybal

Hispanic Division Area Studies. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

https://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/ghtreaty/index.html

Reader-Friendly:
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=009/llsl009.db&recNum=975

]]> 2022-03-09 03:37:40 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2085281769 Johnson-Reed/Immigration Act of 1924 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089021080 The Johnson Reeds Act was the first numerical restriction established that limited the number of immigrants allowed entry into the United States through a national origins quota. The quota provided immigration visas to two percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States as of the 1890 national census. This restriction reduced the level of immigration to 155,000 per year which also prevented immigrants from obtaining citizenship.

This quota system contradicts the American ideal of an "open-gate" country. Once the gates were flooded with immigrants, they decided to restrict the amount allowed in.

Lopez Hayes argues that Chinese migrants found that racial qualities previously assigned to blacks quickly became "Chinese: characteristics. "... in 1882 passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which suspended the immigration of Chinese laborers for ten years." (Lopez, 27).

Sources:
Lopez, I. H. (1997). White by law: The legal construction of race (Vol. 21). NYU Press.

Ngai, M. (2014). Impossible subjects : illegal aliens and the making of modern America (Updated edition / with a new forward by the author.). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400850235

]]> 2022-03-10 19:21:55 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089021080 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089023135 Congress implemented through bipartisan agreement a multi-pronged system that provided amnesty

for established residents, increased border enforcement, enhanced requirements of employers, and expanded guestworker visa programs.

]]> 2022-03-10 19:23:11 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089023135 1889 Chae Chan Ping v. United States (The Chinese Exclusion Case) rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089080783 Chan Chae Ping was an agricultural worker who had left for his homeland prior to the amending of the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Burlingame Treaty. Before leaving, he had obtained his certificate of return.

Once he came back to the States, he was barred from re-entering. He ended up taking his case to the Supreme Court, arguing that he should not be barred from entering because he was protected under the Burlingame Treaty and that his certificate should be honored as a contractual agreement.

The Supreme Court used plenary power to rule that it had the plenary right to bar Chae Ping from entry. This case set a precedent for plenary power and the right of the Supreme Court to preside over immigration and border control.

Congress decided when one is undesirable. Chae Ping was not a citizen; therefore, he had no rights, and the government had the authority to pass laws that supersede other treaties. Ping argued that Congress has no powers under the constitution to prohibit Chinese laborers from returning.

Lopez, I. H. (1997). White by law: The legal construction of race (Vol. 21). NYU Press.]]> 2022-03-10 19:58:42 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089080783 Immigration Act of 1990 rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089126606 Before 1990, LGBTQ+ people were legally excluded from migrating to the United States. Through the restrictive language of the Page Act (1875) and the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) – which prohibited the entry of “undesirable” immigrants and “unassimilable aliens,” many individuals were barred from entry due to their race, gender, mental wellness and sexuality. The law saw sexuality as a psychological ailment, therefore placing LGBTQ+ people in the "undesirable" immigrant category. The Immigration Act of 1917 explicitly excluded LGBTQ+ people immigrating to the U.S. based on their status as “persons of constitutional psychopathic inferiority.”
The Immigration Act of 1990 was the first act that removed the initial language that barred LGBTQ+ people from legal migration into the U.S.

“Immigration; No One Is Illegal; Immigration Act of 1990.” We're Here, We're Queer, and We're in the Public Record! - Spotlight Exhibits at the UC Berkeley Library, 7 Mar. 2018, https://exhibits.lib.berkeley.edu/spotlight/queer/feature/immigration.

]]> 2022-03-10 20:31:50 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089126606 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089134665 Courtesy of Immigration History (website) and Congress.gov

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) was a federal statue that prohibit states from getting a postsecondary benefit to undocumented students if the same benefit is not granted to a U.S. citizen.
https://www.congress.gov/104/crpt/hrpt828/CRPT-104hrpt828.pdf

Guarneros, N., Bendezu, C., Huber, L. P., Vélez, V. N., & Solorzano, D. G. (2009). Still dreaming: Legislation and legal decisions affecting undocumented AB 540 students. CSRC Latino Policy and Issues Brief, (23).]]> 2022-03-10 20:38:29 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089134665 Muslim Travel Ban (2017) rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089146118 Source:
Alexander, L. E. (2022). Proposition 187 and the Travel Ban: Addressing Economy, Security, and White Christian Nationalism in US Christian Communities. Religions, 13(4), 337.]]> 2022-03-10 20:47:42 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089146118 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) (2012) rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089146602 This executive order legal protection from deportation work authorization to individuals who arrived as minor children and had lived in the United States since June 15, 2007.

]]> 2022-03-10 20:48:08 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089146602 Homeland Security Act (2002) rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089198200 2022-03-10 21:34:30 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089198200 Final Rule on Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility (2019). rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089201549 Source: National Archives

see indian boarding schools alluding to being "public charge" of the state

Source: USCIS: Long standing basic principle of U.S. immigration law: Alien must be self-sufficient when admitted to United States - Immigration Politics Georgia (immigrationpoliticsga.com)]]> 2022-03-10 21:37:17 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089201549 Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) (1996) rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089208991 Overview of NACARA 203
Section 203 of NACARA ("NACARA 203") applies to certain individuals from Guatemala, El Salvador, and the former Soviet bloc countries who entered the United States and applied for asylum by specified dates or registered for benefits under the settlement agreement in the class action lawsuit American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (ABC).
After October 2000, NACARA also applied to qualified family members and to certain individuals who have been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a permanent resident, U.S. citizen, or by certain NACARA 203 beneficiaries.·
Section 203 of NACARA allows qualified individuals to apply for suspension of deportation or for cancellation of removal (“NACARA 203 relief”) under the standards similar to those in effect before the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. (USCIS 2022)

https://www.uscis.gov/archive/nacara-203-nicaraguan-adjustment-and-central-american-relief-act]]> 2022-03-10 21:44:14 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089208991 Ozawa v the United States (1922) rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089259940
Takao Ozawa was a Japanese-American who was born in Japan but had lived in the United States for 20 years. He was ineligible for naturalization. In 1915, Takao Ozawa filed for United States citizenship under the Naturalization Act of 1906 which allowed only "free white persons" and "persons of African descent" to naturalize. He claimed that Japanese people were properly classified as "free white persons".

His case argued that his whiteness is a prerequisite for citizenship, and courts should reconsider what whiteness constitutes. The ruling resulted in the denial of citizenship because the genealogy of a white person' was meant to indicate only a person of what is from the Caucasian race.

This ruling highlighted that immigration law is a social construct that instructs us how to perform, according to its eurocentric expectations.

This case will become a precursor to other immigrants attempting to claim their whiteness through emplaced quota systems and scientific bases.

Lopez, I. H. (1997). White by law: The legal construction of race (Vol. 21). NYU Press. ]]> 2022-03-10 22:39:50 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089259940 Passenger(s) Cases (1849) rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089628955 The Supreme Court halted the attempt of states such as New York and Massachusetts to imposed taxes onto incoming immigrants and ship captains arriving through their ports. The taxes were meant for immigrants to feel financially-burdened and potentially forcing them to return to their respective countries of origin. Conversely, many male immigrants became more politically driven to join Democratic organizations in attempt to build collective resistance in the political arena.

The Supreme Court enforced plenary power doctrine to legislate and enforce immigration restrictions at the federal level rather than it being state or local power. In short, states could not impose taxes in non-citizens.

Two of the prevalent Passenger(s) Cases were Smith v. Turner; Norris v. Boston.

The Passenger(s) Cases, according to Freyer, mark a distinct parallel to the 2012 Arizona v. U.S. case, where Judge Scalia claimed that traditionally, states had legal grounds to exclude immigrants. Because of the legacy of the Passenger(s) Cases, this claim was unfounded. However, this claim ended up causing a snowball effect in Arizona, thus the re-emergence of racist policies, such as SB 1070 which make it legal to surveil and criminalize the Latinx community.

Source:
Freyer, T. A. (2014). The Passenger Cases and the Commerce Clause: Immigrants, Blacks, and States' Rights in Antebellum America. University Press of Kansas.

Freyer, T. A., & Thomas, D. (2011). The Passenger Cases Reconsidered in Transatlantic Commerce Clause History. Journal of Supreme Court History, 36(3), 216-235.]]> 2022-03-11 02:45:51 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089628955 Burlingame-Seward Treaty of 1868 rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089637058 The Burlingame Treaty was one of few legal protections Chinese immigrants had as a result of labor demand in the railroad/industrial industries. The United States and China had an "open-door policy" for Chinese laborers in terms of being able to travel to and from China and into the U.S. for familial reasons.

Post the signing of this Treaty, there was a surplus of Chinese laborers in the U.S. This Treaty will soon become under attack by white nativists who felt threatened of losing their jobs as well as the increasing number of Chinese in the U.S.

This Treaty is important to immigration history because we see similar work programs be created through diplomatic relations that create reserve and buffer roles of immigrant workers. Once these industrial projects conclude or are no in need of their work, we see vicious removal procedures take place.

Sources:
Fitzpatrick, J., & Bennett, W. M. (1995). A Lion in the Path-The Influence of International Law on the Immigration Policy of the United States. Immigr. & Nat'lity L. Rev., 17, 223.

Кайхе, А. (2019). A Trio that must go: changing us-qing relations from 1868 to 1882. Journal of Oriental Studies, 91(4), 4-15.

Zhao, G. Superficial Reciprocity: The Chinese Educational Mission and the Burlingame Treaty.

]]> 2022-03-11 02:50:35 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089637058 Foran Act of 1885 (Alien Contract Labor Law) rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089641806 The Foran Act prohibited any company or individual from bringing unskilled Chinese immigrants into the United States under contract to work for them. In short, it attempted to bar immigration of all Chinese contract laborers.

The only exceptions were foreigners who were deemed "desirable" such as skilled workers who were needed to help establish a new trade or industry, professional artists, lecturers, and actors.

This Act will serve as a precursor to similar laws such as Prop 187 and SB 1070 that will bar other immigrant groups from accessing employment opportunities, and social services, and profile individuals who "look suspicious/illegal".

Sources:
Lindsay, M. J. (2006). Preserving the Exceptional Republic: Political Economy, Race, and the Federalization of American Immigration Law. Immigr. & Nat'lity L. Rev., 27, 565.

Orth, S. P. (1907). The alien contract labor law. Political Science Quarterly, 22(1), 49-60.

Image: https://aadl.org/node/100335

]]> 2022-03-11 02:53:29 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089641806 Scott Act of 1888 rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089643599
Scholar John Jung has collected secondary sources on the impact of The Scott Act 1888. This Act "severely restricted Chinese laborers who were already residing here from returning to China for visits. They could not reenter unless they owned property or held a business investment of $1,000 or more (Jung, pp. 31)".

Congress enforced Chinese exclusionary laws by removing Certificates of Return (today known as passports) that had protected laborers from entering and leaving the U.S.

Additional information provided by Immigrationhistory.com: "About 20,000 Chinese workers with these certificates were abruptly stranded outside the United States after they had been promised an exemption to the Exclusion laws. Chinese workers challenged this law in court, in the case Chae Chan Ping v. U.S., arguing that the “Certificates of Return” should be honored as contractual agreements between the now-excluded workers and the U.S. government. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law, citing the “plenary powers” of the U.S. government over immigration matters."

Sources:
Jung, J. (2007). Chinese laundries: Tickets to survival on Gold Mountain. Lulu. com.

Schlund-Vials, Wong, K. S., & Chang, J. O. (2017). Asian America : a primary source reader. Yale University Press.

https://immigrationhistory.org/item/scott-act/

Digital collection of archival primary sources: https://chineseexclusionfiles.com/

]]> 2022-03-11 02:54:37 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089643599 Immigration Act of 1891 rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089644403 The Immigration Act of 1891 implemented national control of immigration through the establishment of the Bureau of Immigration within the Treasury Department. It restricted immigration by certain classifications such as those who could be considered a "public charge", and directed the deportation of anyone entering the United States illegally", or having crime involving moral torpitude".

Lee argues that "clauses in the 1891 Immigration Act excluded women on moral grounds. Sexual misdeeds such as adultery, fornication, and illegitimate pregnancy were all reasons for exclusion (Lee 31).

Nishimura Ekiu v. United States
Nishimura Ekiu arrived in the U.S. by boat. She told the immigration officer that her husband was living in the United States and would meet her at a hotel. The immigration officer did not believe Ekiu and denied her entry into the country on the ground that she was likely to become a public charge; that is, dependent on the government for support.
She attempted to sue over the 1891 Immigration Act. The ruling concluded that the exclusion of any immigrant who was “likely to become a public charge.”

Sources:

“Immigration Law Timeline 1891 to 2012.” The Congressional digest 97.4 (2018): 3–. Print.

Lee. (2003). At America’s gates Chinese immigration during the exclusion era, 1882-1943. University of North Carolina Press.

Maltz, E. M. (2012). The Devil Made Me Do It: The Plenary Power Doctrine and the Myth of the Chinese Exclusion Case. Available at SSRN 2033249.

]]> 2022-03-11 02:55:08 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089644403 Geary Act (1892) rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089645464 The Geary Act required Chinese immigrants in the United States to carry a Certificate of Residence, which would presently be known as a green card to prove that they had legally entered the country. Chinese residents caught without this certificate were subject to detention and deportation. Chinese residents immediately challenged these requirements as unconstitutional in singling out Chinese in the case of Fong Yue Ting v. the United States but lost in the Supreme Court.

Sources:
Lee, E. (2019). America for Americans: A history of xenophobia in the United States. Basic Books.

Maltz, E. M. (2012). The Devil Made Me Do It: The Plenary Power Doctrine and the Myth of the Chinese Exclusion Case. Available at SSRN 2033249.

Schlund-Vials, Wong, K. S., & Chang, J. O. (2017). Asian America : a primary source reader. Yale University Press.

https://immigrationhistory.org/item/geary-act/]]> 2022-03-11 02:55:45 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089645464 Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1892) rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089646067
The Geary Act required Chinese laborers to obtain certificates of residence from the local federal collector of internal revenue within one year after the passage of the statute. Any laborer who was found without the certificate was subject to arrest by local federal officials and deportation by a federal judge unless the laborer could show that his failure to procure the certificate was due to “accident, sickness, or other unavoidable cause,” and also through the testimony of a “credible white witness”.

Fong Yue Ting v. the United States challenged the Geary Act, which was burdened by Chinese laborers in America.
Fong Yue Ting and two other Chinese laborers had maintained legal residence in the United States for over a decade, but, either refusing or unable to find a white witness to verify their presence, now faced deportation.

The U.S. found it difficult to enforce the provisions of the Chinese Exclusion Act, therefore Congress passed the Geary Act in 1892.

Legal scholars have connected this case with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), and pose the question: who truly belongs in America and whose presence is merely tolerated and revocable?

Sources:
Chin, G. J. (2005). Chae chan ping and fong yue ting: The origins of plenary power.

Coleman, Mathew. “Immigrant Il-Legality: Geopolitical and Legal Borders in the US, 1882-Present.” Geopolitics 17.2 (2012): 402–422. Web.

Maltz, E. M. (2012). The Devil Made Me Do It: The Plenary Power Doctrine and the Myth of the Chinese Exclusion Case. Available at SSRN 2033249.

Romero, V. C. (2015). Elusive Equality: Reflections on Justice Field's Opinions in Chae Chan Ping and Fong Yue Ting. Okla. L. Rev., 68, 165.]]> 2022-03-11 02:56:06 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089646067 Immigration Act of 1917 (Asiatic Barred Zone Act) rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089647750 The Immigration Act of 1917 denied certain immigrants entry into the U.S. Immigrants from the countries within the "Asiatic Barred Zone" such as India, and Afghanistan, for example, were barred from entry.

The Act also issued reading tests that were culturally biased, to further deny immigrants admission into the U.S.

These immigrants were considered undesirable for political, health, or moral reasons, and for diplomatic reasons, Japanese were also denied entry.

Sources:
Ngai, M. (2014). Impossible subjects : illegal aliens and the making of modern America (Updated edition / with a new forward by the author.). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400850235

]]> 2022-03-11 02:57:04 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089647750 Thind v. United States (1923) rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089649265 Scholar Mae Ngai presents the argument that the social construct of race ultimately kept the United States as majority white (32). Lawmakers used the work of eugenicists to create an immigration policy based on one's origins or nationality. They reproduced ideas of racial inferiority and unassimilable.

Thind sought to naturalize upon the ruling of Ozawa v. the U.S. Thind was of Indian descent, which according to lawmakers recognized Indians as white. This was the basis of his argument. The courts contradicted themselves, ruling that he was not white because he does not look white. This ruling shed light on Congress' earlier assumptions of immigrants being inferior and unassimilable. congress never intended Indians like Thind to naturalize.

The Courts ignored the weight of precedent and science. Hayes Lopez quoted the following passage, "On matters of race, Thind crowned ignorance king; as a contemporary commentator remarked, now “the most ignorant man would believe that he could infallibly say who belonged to the white race.” (Lopez, 2020)

Lopez, I. H. (1997). White by law: The legal construction of race (Vol. 21). NYU Press.]]> 2022-03-11 02:58:01 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2089649265 1952 U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act or McCarran-Walter Act rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2154385683 The Immigration and Nationality Act introduced two sexual categories, homosexuality, and adultery in immigration law that determined eligibility for naturalization and citizenship.

The Act barred immigrants from entering or staying in the U.S. if suspected of being homosexual. It also explicitly listed adultery (assuming that only LGBTQ immigrants commit adultery) as a prohibited act that automatically barred immigrants from naturalizing because their behavior was not in "good moral character".

Queer scholars have interpreted these categories in the Act as threatening "the normative status of monogamous heterosexual marriage (Somerville 77)."

Sources:
Siobhan B. Somerville. (2005). Sexual Aliens and the Racialized State: A Queer Reading of the 1952 U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act. In Queer Migrations (NED - New edition, p. 75–). University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctttt4g7.8

https://exhibits.lib.berkeley.edu/spotlight/queer/feature/immigration

]]> 2022-04-23 05:39:32 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2154385683 Feedback: rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2155627280 Include a works cited

contextualize how it was covered in class. 100 words or less

how does capitalism racialize the Chinese ? Other immigrants?

Why do we need this timeline?

whiteness becomes a prerequisite for citizenship, how courts justified whiteness for some?

what are the the parallels between settler colonialism and immigration law that reproduces multi-level forms of violence on immigrants, women of color, diasporic communities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and differently-abled individuals, 2) and how have these groups demonstrated post-traumatic strength by refusing to succumb to settler-colonial forces that center whiteness and patriarchy.

]]> 2022-04-25 00:07:07 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2155627280 Disruptors rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2159483475 2022-04-27 01:06:24 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2159483475 People v. Hall (1854) rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2188291801 People V. Hall set legal precedent that Chinese and Chinese immigrants did not have the right to testify against white citizens.

George W. Hall, a white man had previously been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Chinese miner Ling Sing in California. There were three Chinese witnesses who testified against Hall.

California's Criminal Procedure (1850's) exclusion used racialized language such as "Black, Mulatto person, or Indian" as subordinate categories for people of color, therefore embedding the "illegitimacy" of their testimonies if they chose to participate in the the courtroom as witnesses. People V. Hall became ratified to include the Chinese as subordinate peoples and "unable to bear witness".

People v. Hall made it easier for white nativists to incite violent hate crimes towards the Chinese and Chinese American peoples.

This case is significant in immigration history because it will utilize a racist and ableist argument of "incompetence" toward Chinese and Chinese Americans, thus making them "inadmissible and deportable".

Sources:
Buff, R.A. (2020). Primary Source: People v. Hall, 1854. In Immigrant Rights in the Shadows of Citizenship (Vol. 15, pp. 156–158). New York University Press. https://doi.org/10.18574/9780814739358-013

Gendzel, G. (2009). It didn’t start with Proposition 187: One hundred and fifty years of nativist legislation in California. Journal of the West, 48, 76.

Traynor, M. (2017). The Infamous Case of People V. Hall (1854): An Odious Symbol of Its Time. California Supreme Court Historical Society Newsletter.

]]> 2022-05-17 20:28:19 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2188291801 Gentlemen’s Agreement of 1907-1908 rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2190822605

The Gentlemen's Agreement was an agreement made between Japan and the United States to limit the number of Japanese immigrants entering the U.S.

In part, this agreement was meant to replace excluded Chinese agricultural workers in California, thus creating a reserve role tension among workers.

Family migration was encouraged if the Japanese immigrants were already living in the U.S.

Consequently, the Japanese American population grew, which led to more pressures to end their immigration and further diminish rights for those in residence.

Sources:

Ngai, M. (2014). Impossible subjects : illegal aliens and the making of modern America (Updated edition / with a new forward by the author.). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400850235

Patterson, D. & . (2011). Japanese‐American Relations: The 1906 California Crisis, the Gentlemen’s Agreement, and the World Cruise. In A Companion to Theodore Roosevelt (pp. 391–416). Wiley‐Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444344233.ch22

Archives: https://diva.sfsu.edu/collections/ga1907

]]> 2022-05-19 06:39:32 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2190822605 Repeal of Chinese Exclusion (1943) rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2190825538 2022-05-19 06:41:22 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2190825538 H-2 Guestworker Visa Program (1952) rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2190827029 "The H-2A program allows U.S. employers or U.S. agents who meet specific regulatory requirements to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary agricultural jobs. A U.S. employer, a U.S. agent as described in the regulations, or an association of U.S. agricultural producers named as a joint employer must file Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, on a prospective worker’s behalf. "(USCIS 2022)

Historian Cindy Hahamovitch uses the term “deportable labor” to describe guestworkers as a migrant “designed to balance employers demands for contingent, less expensive, and presumably pliant foreign labor and native populations’ antipathy toward those same workers.”

Cindy Hahamovitch, No Man’s Land: Jamaican Guestworkers in America and the Global History of Deportable Labor, (Princeton University Press, 2013), 2.

]]> 2022-05-19 06:42:12 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2190827029 Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act) rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2190828619 The Hart-Celler Act, changed the racial and ethnic make-up of the United States migrating countries. In the past, European migrants dominated the migrating communities of the U.S., through this Act four of the six migrant-originating countries in 1971 were in Asia. However, this made it more difficult for migrants originating from Mexico and Central America, since they no longer had unimpeded access to the United States. The Western Hemisphere could not surpass 120,000 that was unde rthe 200,000 Mexican braceros that had been entering since 1960s through the Bracero Program. In its attempt to create equality it limited the number of Mexican and Central American migrants that had previously entered as laborers. (Hernandez 2019)

Hernández, C. C. G. (2019). Migrating to prison: America’s obsession with locking up immigrants. The New Press.]]> 2022-05-19 06:43:14 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2190828619 Plyler v. Doe (1982) rmaldo40 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2190831625 The leading case regarding the education of Latino undocumented students in the United States
The U.S. Supreme court held that K-12 students, regardless of immigration status, have the right to public school education. Therefore, the court held that children of undocumented immigrants are protected under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The ruling upheld that a state could not deny access to basic education to any child residing in the state, whether present in the United States legally or otherwise. The court explained that "denying innocent children access to public education, imposes a lifetime of hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status." Plyer, 457 U.S. at 223]]> 2022-05-19 06:45:14 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2190831625 The Border Protection, Antiterrorism,& Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005H.R. 4437- ‘Sensenbrenner Bill’ diponce09 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2193576918 2022-05-20 23:29:40 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2193576918 Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act (2002) diponce09 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2193582691 2022-05-20 23:43:07 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2193582691 Leticia A. V. Board of Regents 1985 diponce09 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2193591743 The Alameda County Superior Court ruled that undocumented immigrants that had graduated from California high schools were eligible to attend the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU)) and avoid out-of-state fees.

The decision allowed "Leticia A" students to be treated as residents for tuition and state financial aid purposes. From 1986 to 1991 UC students who met state residency requirement were able to receive state financial aid and were charged resident tuition fees.]]> 2022-05-21 00:08:20 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2193591743 1991 Bradford V. UC Regents diponce09 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2193595101
Ruling by the California Court of Appeal, Second District, that reversed Leticia A.

Guarneros, N., Bendezu, C., Huber, L. P., Vélez, V. N., & Solorzano, D. G. (2009). Still dreaming: Legislation and legal decisions affecting undocumented AB 540 students. CSRC Latino Policy and Issues Brief, (23).]]> 2022-05-21 00:16:41 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2193595101 Assembly Bill 540 (AB 540) - 2001 diponce09 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2193605756 Assembly Bill 540 bill was signed into effect on October 11, 2001 by Governor Gray Davis. AB 540 allowed qualified undocumented students to be exempt from paying out-of-state tuition at public universities in California. ]]> 2022-05-21 00:42:45 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2193605756 Obergefell v. Hodges. 2015 diponce09 https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2193615007 In 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court makes same-sex marriages legal in all 50 states. This decision was important for LGBTQ+ individuals who were now able to get married. In the immigration courts, spouses are granted second preference when applying for U.S. legal permanent residency . In turn, this would allow for a path to citizenship for undocumented LGBTQ+ individuals through marriage.

]]> 2022-05-21 01:05:09 UTC https://padlet.com/rmaldo40/tv6ii327ogybymig/wish/2193615007