The Exclusion Act of 1882 created a barrier for the Chinese within and outside of the United States of America. The act was, in specific, a prevention of the immigration of Chinese nationality, which prohibited Chinese laborers from entering the United States. It was meant to last for 10 years; however, it was extended due to the 1892 Geary Act for 10 years further. It was then extended for another 10 years, and in 1904, it became permanent. Immigration became difficult, and for many, it was impossible. It differed in the way it affected the Chinese male and female as well as what issues both had to confront during the exclusion act. It viewed the genders in differing forms and disapproved of certain options over the other gender, while simultaneously being separate from that of American citizens.
“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). Overtime, due to the increasing number of workers and fear of immigrants taking over all the jobs, laws were introduced. Most laws affected both the Chinese male and female equally, however there were some that were targeted specifically towards the women. The Page Act, for example, prevented women from the opportunity of achieving a better life in the United States. It also affected the men who wanted to stay in America by disapproving their choice of being able to marry and furthering their lives in creating families. In the book, “Entry Denied: Exclusion and the Chinese Community in America,” by Sucheng Chan, it highlighted various encounters with Chinese male interviewees that provided their input on the matter after the exclusion act had been far established. Their overall interviews noted the low wages for their labor, which were very tough to sustain their own lives in America. To add to that, trying to support their wives and other family members in the United States was impossible, which meant that they had to send their earnings back home to support them in another way.
The Chinese male interviewees also noted the discrimination that Chinese immigrants had to receive:
“My wife come over here, and you Americans cause her a lot of trouble. You pen her up in the immigration office and then have doctors come and say she has liver trouble, hookworm, and the doctor does not know anything about it, to tell the truth” (Chan 96).
“When my little boy came to this country, he was kept in the immigration office for over two months. Poor little fellow, he was so homesick. That is the reason my wife hates to come over here” (Chan 96).
Overall, the cost of living, the discrimination against Chinese immigrants, as well as upbringing of children in the new environment identified several difficulties that could not be overturned due to the position at which immigrants stood. However, those that were exempt classes, otherwise essential for the balance of the structure of America, such as merchants, diplomats, students, clergymen, and travelers were able to have the female members of their family join them in the states. These classes were not part of the vast majority of the Chinese living in the states, who were in specific laborers, for whom family life was impossible to achieve.
Image of Chinese Women
The exclusion act largely targeted Chinese women. To date, in August 1854, a municipal committee examined Chinatown and reported that most of the women were noted to be prostitutes. This inspection, then became the image that generalized all Chinese women as prostitutes and so led to the society perceiving all as such as well with need for action to be taken against them. Prostitution existed amongst other races in America as well, however, the municipal authorities attempted to prevent prostitution while specifically focusing Chinese women. The police also tried to shut down mainly Mexican and Chinese brothels, however, in the efforts to remove Chinese prostitution, the most they were able to manage was its visibility in public.
The Act for the Suppression of Chinese Houses of III Fame passed by the California legislature in March 1866 was what made a big change in how Chinese women were identified in California. “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 clearly noted the discrimination against the Chinese as well as Chinese prostitutes. Although it was successful in preventing Chinese prostitutes, it was not able to accomplish the trafficking of Chinese women.
The trafficking of Chinese women was managed by passing, “An Act to Prevent the Kidnapping and Importation of Mongolian, Chinese, Japanese Females, for Criminal or Demoralizing Purposes,” by the state legislature in March 1870. This made it illegal to bring any Asian women from any ship or vessel unless they had proof available which noted that they had instead arrived voluntarily while representing correct habits and good character. If it was found that any ship captain violated this statute, they would have been charged with a misdemeanor and fined from $1,000 to $5,000 and/or be placed in prison from two to twelve months at most.
Categorization of Chinese Women
There were many Chinese exclusion laws over the years since its original act that was passed in 1882. Upon these laws, which consisted of the 1884 amendment, 1892 Geary law, 1893 McCreary amendment, 1902 law, as well as the 1904 law, none of them mentioned women within these acts. Due to the problem surrounding Chinese women, the federal courts had to rewrite how it came to affect the rights of the varying categories that Chinese women were placed under in the United States.
The federal courts had power over the status of a total of six different categories of Chinese women:
Wives of Laborers
One case involved a Chinese woman who had gotten married to a Chinese laborer upon his return to China for a visit. It was noted that the husband did have a certificate as per Section 4 of the 1882 act, which stated that any Chinese laborer traveling to and from the United States, have a certificate stating their name, age, occupation, last place of residence, personal description, and information of the identification of the Chinese laborer. However, based on the certificate, only the husband was allowed into the states, while his wife was not. The wife would have had to have her husband’s certificate listing her information or if she had an independent document of her own. Since neither were true, she was returned to China.
Wives of Merchants
Merchants were part of the exempt classes, which indicated any wives of merchants as exempt as well. However, as with laborer’s wives, merchant’s wives also had to go to court to explain their right to enter the United States.
One case involved a merchant’s wife, Chung Toy Ho, who brought her eight-year-old daughter along with her husband, Wong Ham. Even though Wong Ham had a Section 6 certificate, which stated that every Chinese person other than a laborer who may be entitled to come within the U.S. and about to come to the U.S., be entitled by the Chinese Government in each case, his wife and his daughter were denied entry as they did not hold their own separate certificates.
Women Claiming to be U.S.-born Citizens
This category proved to be difficult to manage as women in this section were treated inconsistently. The exclusion acts were primarily placed to focus on Chinese immigrants. This made it tough to handle each case with the same form of perspective as the Chinese were identified as citizens of the United States.
One case was upon the American-born women of Chinese ancestry. Born in San Francisco in 1868, Chin King, and her sister, Chan San Hee, in Portland 1878, went to China with their mother for a visit in 1881. It was noted by their father, Chung Yip Gen, a merchant, that there would be no issue, and they could return when they wished. However, when they tried to re-enter in 1888, they were refused entry by the collector of customs. Taking this case into court, the judge stated that the collector’s decision to deny them entry conflicted and was in violation of the constitution which is to ensure the right to every citizen.
Wives of U.S. Citizens
As noted in the previous category, this category of women married to American-born citizens of Chinese ancestry were also treated with inconsistency. The cases of Tsoi Sim and Ho Ah Keau for example were a good note of the possible outcomes. Tsoi Sim was born in China and came to the U.S. in 1882 before the exclusion act. She was arrested by a commissioner as she was believed to be a manual laborer, even though she wasn’t working in the following year after her marriage to Yee Yuck Lum in 1900. The judge ruled in her favor as she had married in 1900 and acquired her right to remain based on the benefits of her husband as per his birth in the United States.
The case of Ho Ah Keau is quite different. Her husband, Lau Ah Leong, married Fung Dai Kim from China in 1884, but without a license. They had thirteen children which helped Lau expand his business. Afterwards, following the practice of Chinese men of that period, he acquired a concubine. This was a mistress named Ho Ah Keau, who also had several children with him, for whom he acquired a license. In 1907, he was charged with unlawful cohabitation upon which he pleaded guilty to bigamy, paid a fine, and spent time in jail. Ho Ah Keau went to China with several of her children and arrived back with her youngest son, where she was admitted into being Lau’s wife as a license existed for their marriage. However, the first wife was discarded by her husband, who then tried to sue him, but failed to do so as no form of documentation, such as a license existed, which led to the removal of the case altogether.
Daughters of the U.S. Citizens
Daughters that the courts dealt with were born in China of Chinese American male citizens. It was noted under section 1993 of the U.S. Revised Statutes that children only of native-born citizen fathers were considered derivative or statutory U.S. citizens. This did not include mothers as fathers were identified to represent their own family.
One of the first cases involved a boy born in China of an American citizen of Chinese ancestry, after which, there was an increase in the number of people that claimed they were children of U.S. citizens in an attempt to gain admission to the United States. Majority of the cases in 1920 were of young men claiming to be sons of U.S. citizens of which some reports were true while others were false.
The first case that involved a daughter was not until 1925, and it was around the same time that the Supreme Court ruled that wives of U.S. citizens could no longer be admitted. This was the case as someone believed that this was a new way to bring women into the country.
Prostitutes
Even with all the immigration laws passed in 1903, 1907, and 1917, a new campaign was launched against Chinese prostitutes. The new attempt was no longer in regards to preventing alleged prostitutes from arriving into the states as so in the late 19th century as per the Page law, but rather the updated laws were instead used as a means to deport them. This category affected all Chinese women as it was noted in 1854 that all were prostitutes, regardless of their social standing. There were various reasons for arrests including arrests for being a manual laborer without a certificate of registration, such as Lee Ah Ying. She was placed into deportation proceedings upon which she sued as she was an American citizen. An issue of the past arose where she had been arrested with other girls in a brothel. She informed the officer that she had been prisoned in the house and soon the court questioned their own decision. The court was then unsure whether a Chinese woman could have been a manual laborer if she was a prisoner of a brothel. The final ruling was placed in support of the initial arrest and established that prostitutes were of the same form as manual laborers. This case was then identified with other case hearings afterwards upon which it was determined that Chinese prostitutes were manual laborers and deportable under the Chinese exclusion laws.
Present Day Relevance
“The Page Act also perpetuated the mistaken but very popular nineteenth-century American notion that Asians were immoral, deviant people” (Hijar). It also assisted in the addition of the gender-based stereotypes and racism that was placed towards Asian women for decades to come. The exclusion act was the start of a whole range of issues for Chinese people at the time. From the municipal committee portraying all Chinese women as prostitutes, to mobs attacking and often killing Chinese residents in over 150 different instances. All of this resulted in Chinese and Chinese Americans leaving the United States in large numbers, and by 1920, only around 61,000 Chinese Americans remained in the states. In regards to wartime, during and after the end of the exclusion act, there were a much smaller number of citizens that were able to fight or place time in aiding America as a result. To compare, a 2012 case in Christina School District in Delaware found that, “Black students were more than twice as likely as White students to receive suspensions for violations of similar severity, and three times as likely to receive out-of-school vs. in-school suspensions” (Hope). Stereotypes still exist to this day, regardless of which race it is.
References
Bini, Amanda. “Paper Sons and Daughters: A Brief History of Chinese Exclusion in America.” International Law and Policy Brief, studentbriefs.law.gwu.edu/ilpb/2021/11/10/paper-sons-and-daughters-a-brief-history-of-chinese-exclusion-in-america/. Accessed 5 Dec. 2023.
Chan, Sucheng. Entry Denied: Exclusion and the Chinese Community in America 1882-1943. Temple University Press, 1994.
Chinese Exclusion Act; May 6, 1882 - San Diego State University, loveman.sdsu.edu/docs/1882ChineseExclusionAct.pdf. Accessed 5 Dec. 2023.
“Chinese Exclusion Act (1882).” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/chinese-exclusion-act. Accessed 5 Dec. 2023.
“Chinese Women, Immigration, and the First U.S. Exclusion Law: The Page Act of 1875.” National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, www.nps.gov/safr/blogs/chinese-women-immigration-and-the-first-u-s-exclusion-law-the-page-act-of-1875.htm. Accessed 5 Dec. 2023.
Lee, Erika. At America’s Gate: Chinese Immigration during the Exclusion Era, 1882-1943. University of North Carolina Press, 2003.
O’Connor, Teresita. The Origin of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Fordham University ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Reft, Ryan. “Before It Embraced Immigrants, California Championed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.” PBS SoCal, 21 June 2022, www.pbssocal.org/shows/lost-la/before-it-embraced-immigrants-california-championed-the-chinese-exclusion-act-of-1882.
Rewire. “How the Chinese Exclusion Act Still Impacts the U.S. Today.” WOSU Public Media How The Chinese Exclusion Act Still Impacts The US Today Comments, wosu.org/tv-manager/how-the-chinese-exclusion-act-still-impacts-the-u-s-today/. Accessed 5 Dec. 2023.
“The Chinese Exclusion Act: American Experience.” NHPBS, nhpbs.org/schedule/summary.aspx?progId=TheChineseExclusionActAmericanExperience2909. Accessed 5 Dec. 2023.