Introduction

The past has portrayed several obstacles for immigrants trying to achieve a better life in the United States. The fear of Americans as they believed that the mass flow of immigrants entering the U.S. would harm their opportunities towards their livelihood caused great concern which then led to the establishment of various laws and acts to maintain and prevent further possibilities. To note, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was one of the many acts and laws that created great distress for Chinese ancestry and was noted to be the first and only major federal legislation to suspend immigration for a specific nationality, however, this wasn’t the case for when Chinese immigrants first traveled to the US. “In the early fifties, the Chinese were warmly welcomed not only because of their valuable service at that period but also for the picturesque and unique element which they added to society” (O, Connor). This identified a means to an end and was later disregarded due to the developing belief of Americans that the huge quantity of the immigrating race was making an advancement towards occupying all the job opportunities and thus leaving Americans in an extremely problematic situation. After the establishment of the acts and laws, the Chinese were faced with several problems. From discrimination before and after entering to being ineligible to make entry at all into the United States of America. While being part of the lower class, it had also prevented immigrants from gaining the full extent of benefits that Americans were offered as well as many of the exempt individuals that were essential for the balance and structure of the United States. These exempt classes included those that were diplomats, students, clergymen, as well as travelers. The majority of the immigrants consisted of Chinese laborers who were simultaneously identified as part of the lower class and earned highly meager wages, however regardless of being part of the exempt classes, there were still inconsistencies in how officials treated them. Issues surrounding citizenship existed in various forms throughout history and continue to be relevant to this day.

Chinese Exclusion Act

Like many accounts of recent times for LGBTQ people, the Exclusion Act also noted the inconsistency at which cases were handled and immigrants were treated. At first, the act was meant to last for 10 years; however, it was extended due to the 1892 Geary Act, which extended it by updating the act with new requirements for another 10 years. It was once again extended for 10 more years until 1904 when the decision was made to make it permanent. In the way that it affected Chinese genders, most laws were tied with both, however, some targeted specifically towards women. The Page Act, for one, was introduced which prevented women from the opportunity to achieve a better life in the U.S., while simultaneously disapproving men of the choice to be able to marry and further their lives in creating families. In addition to this, the low wages, cost of living, discrimination against Chinese immigrants, the upbringing of children in the new environment, and support of the wives of Chinese men identified several difficulties that could not be overturned due to the position at which immigrants stood, which left the only viable option of supporting their family by sending their earnings back to their home in China.

Chinese women weren’t always treated unfairly. It became the case that the Exclusion Act largely targeted Chinese women due to an inspection back in August 1854. A municipal committee examined Chinatown and reported that most of the women were prostitutes. This, then created the image that generalized all Chinese women and led to the society perceiving all as such with the need for action to be taken against them. There were attempts from the municipal authorities to prevent prostitution, while specifically focusing the Chinese women, by shutting down brothels, however the most that they were able to accomplish was visibility in public and thus the Act for the Suppression of Chinese Houses of III Fame was passed by the California legislature in March 1866 to introduce a massive change to how Chinese women were perceived. “The statute declared Chinese prostitution a public nuisance, made leases of real property to brothel operators invalid, provided for the retaking of such premises, and charged landlords who allowed their properties to be used with a misdemeanor that carried a maximum penalty of $500 or six months in jail” (Chan 97). This was successful in preventing Chinese prostitution, but it was not able to prevent trafficking, which was managed by the Act to Prevent the Kidnapping and Importation of Mongolian, Chinese, Japanese Females, for Criminal or Demoralizing Purposes, passed by the state legislature in March 1870. The Chinese exclusion laws from over the years since its original act in 1882, such as the 1884 amendment, 1892 Geary law, 1893 McCreary amendment, 1902 law, as well as the 1904 law were revised as a means to affect the rights of the varying categories that Chinese women were placed under in the U.S. This consisted of six categories of Chinese women’s status that federal courts had power over, which were the wives of laborers, wives of merchants, women claiming to be U.S.-born citizens, wives of U.S. citizens, daughters of the U.S. citizens, as well as prostitutes. The cases for most of these categories were similar in their final decision, but there was inconsistency on how courts identified women who claimed to be U.S.-born citizens and those who were wives of U.S. citizens.

Wong Kim Ark vs the United States

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 allowed for legal discrimination on the basis of race. An example of this creation of difference is in the Supreme Court case of the United States vs Wong Kim Ark.

In 1866, the 14th Amendment was passed following the Civil War out of the need to create a new framework around the idea of citizenship. The 14th Amendment states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” (Constitution Center). Though the language of the Chinese Exclusion Act targeted Chinese people newly arriving in the United States, it created a legal precedent for extreme profiling. It further perpetuated the notion that Chinese people wouldn’t be able to assimilate into American culture. 

“In the year 1873, Kim Wong Ark was born in San Francisco” (Abdelfatah). At the time of his birth, Chinese women weren’t allowed to give birth in a hospital, so she had him in a room on top of their family store in Chinatown. Both of his parents were Chinese citizens and would eventually return to China after witnessing two extreme acts of terrorism in their city. In 1871 and 1877, white supremacist mobs entered the Chinatown section of San Francisco killing Chinese Americans and burning down buildings (Frost). Shortly after, his parents returned to China and chose to never again live in the United States. Wong Kim Ark would make routine trips to China to visit with family members and eventually to find a wife as there was such a limited number of Chinese women in the place where he grew up. For many years, the process of going between countries had been relatively smooth since there wasn’t yet this idea of a border for Chinese people. The Chinese Exclusion Act created the situation of coastal ports and the southern border being patrolled. “In response, when Wong Kim Ark left the country to visit family he would attain a certificate of birth, which would be signed by three white witnesses” (Abdelfatah). Despite taking these additional steps to protect his citizenship, upon return to the United States, he would be held captive for months on a steamboat in unsafe conditions. The racial difference was created through the requirement of knowing three white people to sign off on their birthright, though finally, it being the case that the certificate of birth didn’t protect his citizenship status.

“After months of being stuck on the steamboat, he was only released because a group called the Chinese Six Companies paid for his bail” (Abdelfatah). He would win his case at the local level noting that Wong Kim Ark is a citizen and his captivity based on wrongfully entering the country was illegal. However, there were members of the government who wouldn’t accept this conclusion and took the case to the national level. “In the Supreme Court, his case for birthright citizenship would win in a vote of 6 to 2 with a justice choosing not to vote” (Constitution Center). His attorneys would appeal to the justices on the basis that his right to be a citizen had implications for white children of immigrants. The opposition to his case argued that the 14th Amendment solely applied to African Americans because they didn’t have any foreign allegiance. Whereas, they asserted that Chinese people will always have ties to the Chinese emperor and foreign religious figures. Throughout the history of American immigration, there had  always been the assumption that groups of people are affiliated with political or religious institutions abroad and therefore, won’t be able to assimilate.

In the United States, the conception of citizenship has historically been built around who is thought to be able to fit into that society. Difference has always been used as a tool by the people with the most power to define ideas of who people in the society should be.

Equal Protections Lewiston
Moving forward in time a few decades, there is another opportunity to discuss citizenship and political differences. The main issue at hand is regarding the hostile mindset that shows itself, as the deep-rooted homophobia, in the community of Lewiston, Maine. From selecting a starting point of the 1980s, and focusing on how a right-wing extremist organization set out to manufacture citizenship through legislation. Who is allowed to exist in the open, and why was it life or death for the LGBTQ+ community? The question of citizenship and basic human rights were fought visibly over, and over, for more than nearly two decades in Maine communities. Who belongs and who will be allowed to live? Charlie Howard was a 23-year-old man who attended a potluck event, as part of an inclusion event for LGBTQ people at a Unitarian Church in 1984. Afterward, his boyfriend and he were walking across a bridge when 3 juvenile boys took chase of the couple. Howard wasn’t able to escape the three teens and he “was beaten and thrown from a bridge in Bangor” (Sun Journal,08.Nov.1984, pg. 17). The boys who committed the murder were tried and convicted, but ultimately maintained their lives and citizenship status while Howard did not. This type of treatment was common for members of the LGBTQ community all throughout Maine. Even the perception of queerness could be the reason someone was fired, evicted, shunned, or murdered without any legal resources. Being LGBTQ meant your human rights didn’t apply. This would serve as a  social flash point in Maine. By the time the Equal Protections Lewiston campaign started gaining momentum, the national opposition conversation on LGBTQ rights had also started to shift. A lobbying group associated with an up-and-coming far right-wing extremist media company called Focus on the Family, became the main offense to equal protection under the law for LGBTQ+ people.  In January of 1993, Police Chief Laurent F. Gilbert, Sr, pushed for a city ordinance that ensured people who identified as LGBTQ+ would be treated equally in regards to housing, and banking; ensuring equal access to the private and public space of Lewiston Maine. After the ordinance was sent out through local newspapers, a flock of protesters against the Lewiston ordinance gathered on the night of the city council debate. Protesters against the ordinance held signs saying, “No special right!,” “Pope John Paul votes no!,” “Protect our Children,” and, “The twin cities- Sodom & Gomorrah.” The oppositional message was quick to form and throughout the five hours, the protesters persisted in heated debate. Despite their presence, the Lewiston City Council approved a queer-inclusive non-discrimination ordinance. However, the ordinance was overturned as the next election cycle was largely funded by the Christian Civics League of Maine.

The aforementioned lobbying organization was directly related to, “Focus on the Family,” a Christian Nationalist organization that was founded by James Dobson, the same group which started the multi-million dollar organization focusing on legislating Christian moral ideals. Focus on the Family grew into a platform on which local anti-gay extremists could reach a target audience such as working-class conservative Mainers who listen to the radio. Local Republican leaders all but confirmed the multi-year plan to eradicate LGBTQ community members from their view. In 1992,  Our Paper –a queer newsletter– published an article written by Malcolm Smith: Playing the Victim, Religious Right Uses Family Values to Spread Hate. Smith highlights that “family values has become the politically correct term for gay bashing. The issue of family values was found, at the time of the Republican Convention- to be a major issue for only three percent of Americans…the republicans chose to use the…issue to help forget the [other important issues], and did so with a hate-filled vengeance.” In that same year, the Sun Journal spotlighted the Associated Press writer John King’s segment called Religion and Politics. This featured a young Republican who shared an action-based plan for Christian Nationalist revival.  “...[this] is a  year in which the Christian right’s immediate agenda is packed with state efforts to limit homosexual rights, and restrict abortion access…we can’t let a misguided army of liberals and homosexuals make…a mockery of God’s laws…Reed directs the coalition…to run campaigns and influence public policy” (Sun Journal, 1992, pg,17). The Christian Civic League of Maine echoes Reed’s sentiment. A part of their messaging included obfuscating the goal of the ordinance. “This new law isn’t about discrimination. Again, there has been no widespread discrimination against gays in this state in the areas of housing, and employment…there are many instances when people have [a] good reason for not wanting to expose themselves or their families to homosexuality. That is not discrimination and the law should not decree that it is!” Ultimately, Mainers would see this campaign for the lie that it was. However, the organized opposition to the ordinance displayed the lengths some Christian Nationalist Mainers went to present how deeply Maine wanted to remain a sanctioned state where hate crime fueled acts of violence against LGBTQ people with no recourse for the victims. The goal was to legislate queer people out of the city. In the case of Charlie Howard, his offenders spent less than two years in custody. Two of them were not able to be contacted by journalists. “Only one convicted murderer was tracked down, but he was still unwilling to talk to investigators” (Bangor Daily, 2009). After more than a decade of a grueling fight, the Equal Protection Ordinance officially passed, unopposed, in 1997. Enough community members were able to see that, between Charlie Howard and escalating attacks on the vulnerable, it was time to include LGBTQ folks in the language for Maine’s Bill of Rights. This allowed people who faced harassment in the workplace, in public, or worse, such as physical assaults, to have a place to report the crimes.  In 2011, Maine became one of the first states to include same-sex marriage in their legislation and LGBTQ+ Mainers are identified in the same protected status as other marginalized groups. Today, Maine stands relatively high on civil rights for and inclusion of LGBTQ Mainers both legislative and socially. 

Connecting to Politics of Difference

Differences in citizenship were created through legal and social systems. The government exhibited power over its people through the establishment of inconsistent punishments and benefits. The Straight State, by Margot Canaday, demonstrated how sexuality had been historically used to exclude people from citizenship. A prominent example of this is in the post-World War II era with the adoption of the G.I. Bill. Although the G.I. Bill is most well known for establishing benefits for veterans including, “home and business loans, employment services, college or vocational training, and employment compensation.” “The law simultaneously worked to punish military members for differences in sexuality” (Canaday, 137). If a man received an involuntary discharge from the military for being homosexual, they would become excluded from society upon arrival. This attack on their rights went further than denial of VA benefits and involved removing basic rights including being denied from housing, education, and employment. Thus, the state institution of the military extended its reach into the private lives of citizens by creating the designation of a dishonorable discharge. 

Connection to Current Events

The question of citizenship, of belonging, has always been dystopic for LGBTQ people in America. If their human status isn’t being questioned, their identity or their life would be. Dishonorable discharge for being identified as LGBTQ+, immigration blockades, or unmitigated violence against the marginalized people of a community. LGBTQ+ people for much of history and the present day risk losing protected status on the whim of those in power of legislation. A big warning light that is evident in Maine’s present legislative authority in the second district is of Senator Susan Collins, a resident of the very city Charlie Howard was murdered, in Bangor, Maine. In 2019, Susan Collins signed a promise to, “The Christian Civic League of Maine that she will oppose any bill that comes through the Senate calling for the inclusion of  LGBTQ people as protected citizens.” The very notion that Collins, the people's representative, would go against is concerning for the citizens she is supposed to support. Or as a Maine journalist noted, “We had reason to celebrate when Sen. Collins signed on to co-sponsor the Equality Act in 2019. She stood out for her willingness to buck her party's hateful rhetoric and support legislation that would take away the uncertainty LGBTQ+ Americans face. Now, it feels her support was just an election year plot…the Christian Civic League of Maine, an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group, threw their full support behind Sen. Collins…The Christian Civic League led the opposition to…the Equality Act, calling the bill, “an attempt to eradicate the divinely designed differences between men and women” (Portland Press Herald, Mar. 6th, 2021). Even as the language for and acceptance of LGBTQ people is much higher than it was a few decades ago, we now see a more concerted effort to strip established rights away from United States citizens using extremist talking points, mass media, and division politics as a means to obtain a Maine that looks more like 1986 than 2026.

References

“05 Sep 1993, 3 - Sun-Journal at Newspapers.Com.” Accessed December 12, 2023. https://www.newspapers.com/image/832843762/fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVl LXZpZXctaWQiOjgzMjg0Mzc2MiwiaWF0IjoxNzAyMDY5NTAwLCJleHAiOjE3MDIxNTU5MDB9.S_uUjzUtRD8Iq PR_6BXBlqZvYZribJftYVQQVocph8.

Canaday, M. (2011). The straight state: Sexuality and citizenship in Twentieth-century America. Princeton University Press.

Chan, Sucheng. Entry Denied: Exclusion and the Chinese Community in America 1882-1943. Temple University Press, 1994.

Collins' reversal on the equality act is a betrayal of our community confirming anti-LGBTQ+ judges, embracing a hate group's support and flip-flopping on federal anti-bias protections aren't the actions of an ally. 2021. Portland Press Herald, Mar 06, 2021. https://library.umaine.edu/auth/EZproxy/test/authej.aspurl=https://search.proquest.com/newspap ers/collins-reversal-on-equality-act-is-betrayal-our/docview/2497454476/se-2 (accessed December 11, 2023).

Newspapers.com. “EPA, 1980, Christian Civic League, Voice of the People,” October 30, 1980.https://www.newspapers.com/article/morning-sentinel-epa-1980-christian-ci/136488055/.

O’Connor, Teresita. The Origin of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Fordham University ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.