American Immigration Issues - Literature review Example

19 February American Immigration (Terms) Definition and relevance of terms Indian Citizenship Act 1924 This Act was formed to grant citizenship to all the Indians born within the boundaries of the United States. It was passed by the Congress in 1924 where nearly 125,000 Native Americans who were non-citizens were granted citizenship. Before this Act was passed, Indians joined the military or married a white person, giving up tribal relations in order to become citizens. The relevance of this Act was to protect the identity of the Indians and make it easy for immigrants to become US citizens (Seelye and Littleton 796). Dawes Act of 1887 Also known as the “General Allotment Act”, it was named after its author from Massachusetts, Senator Henry Dawes (The National Archive 122). It was passed by the Congress on 8th February 1887 allowing for the allotment of land held in common by members of the Indian tribe on various reservations, and ensured that Indians were protected of the laws of United States (The National Archive 122). Its purpose was to provide protection of property rights to the Indians, especially when it came to the allotment of the land amongst them (The National Archive 122). Dow v. U.S. (1915) This is a case in the United States Court of Appeals in which an immigrant from Syria known as George Dow appealed two decisions in the lower courts in South Carolina, which denied his application for naturalization as a citizen of the United States. Dow v. United States then turned to the affirmation of the Circuit Court. The judge in Dow’s final appeal accepted the Dillingham Report of the Immigration Commission, which found out that belonging to the Semitic branch of the Caucasian race were the Syrians and mixed Arabian, Syrian and Jewish blood. His conclusion was that the “Syrians are ‘white persons’ and the court granted George Dow his citizenship” (Kayyali 177). Its relevance is to impress the significance of naturalization. Petition of Easurk Emsem Charr (1921) According to Zhao, Easurk Emsem Charr was a Korean immigrant who petitioned for the United States citizenship, but the Federal district court denied it (147). Charr trusted that because of his involvement in United States Army during the First World War, he was qualified for citizenship. But the declaration of the court was that the Koreans were seen as part of the Mongol family and as a result, could not be eligible for citizenship. Ozawa v. U.S. (1922) Ozawa was a Japanese immigrant who was denied U.S. citizenship. He moved in to the United States when he was young. Berkeley, California was where he attended both his high school and college. Later, he settled in Honolulu and worked for an American company. In court, he informed them that he had never taken drugs or drank liquor and that he was a man of good character with a wife who was educated in America, and their children attended an American school. Ozawa said he did not feel connected with Japan and was only loyal to the United States. Unfortunately, his appeal for naturalization was rejected on account that he was not Caucasian (Zhao 147). U.S. v. Thind (1923) Thind was an immigrant from India and a veteran in World War I (Zhao 147). Among others, Thind was one of the Asian Indians who were naturalized in the United States. His support for the independence of the Indians from the empire of the British brought the U.S. government as well as the immigration authorities to attention and therefore challenged his naturalization in court. The U.S Supreme Court concluded that although Asian Indians might be Aryans, they were not the same as “white persons”. It went ahead and declared that the Indians should be treated the same as with other Asians on issues relating to naturalization, and that since the skin color of the Indians was not white, they were not entitled to naturalization rights (Zhao 147). California Alien Land Act of 1913 California and other western states enacted the Alien Land Laws that made Japanese (and other Asians) immigrants ineligible to citizenship, from owning agricultural land, and restricted them from leasing land for three years. In the Act, they were described as “Aliens ineligible to Citizenship” (Niiya 100). They were barred from becoming naturalized citizens (Niiya 100). Magnuson Act of 1943 Also known as the Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act of 1943, it allowed the Chinese nationals already living in the United States to become naturalized citizens. It also allowed for the “enactment of the War Bribes Act in 1914 (amended in 1947) which allowed for the reunification of Chinese wives and children with husbands and fathers who served in the U.S. military” (Eng 16). McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 It is also known as the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act; it was passed by the Congress. The Act expanded quotas for Asian immigrants through various preferences that were revised or provisions that favored certain types of immigrants’ entrance into the United States. The Act would give preference to immigrants who had skills, either technical or professional. Its relevance was that it “provided for the end of racial quotas” (Garcia 39). Burlingame Treaty of 1868 This treaty granted favor to the U.S. and Chinese immigrants, as well as the right to permanent residency in each other’s countries that is, U.S. and China. At various ports in the US, enacted officials in trade were given the right and had equal power as American trade officials enacted in Chinese ports. The Burlingame Treaty protected the Chinese immigrants through a diplomatic channel (Crossley 4). Page Law of 1875 This marked the first direct federal regulation of immigrants entering the United States; those considered as “undesirable”. Undesirable meaning a forced laborer from Asia being forced to come to America, an individual considered as a convict in his/her own country and an Asian woman who would indulge in prostitution (Tyner 52). Chinese Exclusion Law of 1882 It banned immigrants based on race or nationality. All Chinese immigrants were prohibited entry to the United States. The Exclusion Act together with the earlier federal law that prevented Chinese from becoming American citizens by naturalization isolated a huge number of the Chinese (Notre Dame High School 2). Ah Moy Decision of 1884 This was the case of a Chinese wife Ah Moy who was not permitted entry from China to San Francisco in the United States to live with her husband who had been allowed entry (Rees 809). She was forcefully detained in the ship and put in the custody of the Marshal. She was sued out by a writ of habeas corpus in order for her to be released. There was an order by the circuit court that she be returned to the ship she was in. The Marshal executed the order and placed her in the ship she had sailed in, and in jail for safekeeping (Rees 808). The circuit court judges opposed her counsel’s application for permission to bail her out. Several days after the marshal had executed the original order given by the court of deporting the woman, a writ of error was served but she had already departed back to China and so deportation had been executed fully (Rees 810). Anti –Miscegenation Law of 1880 This was passed by individual states prohibiting the prospect of black-white intermarriages as well as interracial sex. This laws banned weddings between persons of different race from solemnized and officiated. Persons attempting to marry would faces felony charges of adultery or fornication (“Eugenics in America,” facinghistory.org). Chae Chan Ping v. U.S. (1889) Also known as the Chinese Exclusions Act, Chae Chan Ping was the first case in which the federal power of the Supreme Court was identified. This power was seen as used in “protecting the nation from the danger posed by racially different foreign nationals” (Sandoval 45). Cable Act of 1922 Also known as Married Women’s Citizenship Act, is a federal law that reversed married women status in such a way that they would retain the citizenship even after being married by persons ineligible for the citizenship of the United States (“Cable Act of 1922,” immigrationinamerica.org). San Francisco School Incident (1906) This was a case of anti-Japanese movement in California. With Japanese immigrants residing in United States, the San Francisco School Board put up separate school facilities for the Japanese and Korean children, thus segregating them ethnically. The government of Japan protested this and ensured that the Japanese had equal rights and opportunities in the United States (Krenn 175). Gentleman’s Agreement 1907 The San Francisco School Incident of 1906 prompted the Gentlemen’s Agreement of 1907. It was prompted to ease tension between Japan and the United States. The Japanese agreed not to issue passports to laborers who wanted to enter the United States, and it also agreed to the right of the United States to exclude immigrants from Japan, holding passports issued for countries other than the United States. As a result, the San Francisco School Board withdrew the order of segregation (Nakanishi and Lai 202). Immigration Act of 1924 The gentlemen’s Agreement led to the Immigration Act of 1924 also known as the “Johnson-Reed Act” (Nakanishi and Lai 51). Approved in the United States, was this immigration legislation that looked into the future relations between Japan and the United States and “internally between the Japanese immigrants and their American” counterparts (Nakanishi and Lai 51). War Brides Act 1945 This is the first immigration legislation that was not restrictive. It allowed entry to the United States foreign wives as non quota immigrants. It later allowed brides to enjoy privileges previously enjoyed by the grooms, which included entering into the United States as non-immigrants (Friedmann 2). Displaced Persons Act of 1948 This was an immigration legislation that allowed “202,000 displaced persons and 3,000 displaced orphans” to be allowed as nonquota immigrants to the United States (Konigseder and Wetzel 299). It had provisions that discriminated against Jews. Most of those allowed were to be from Baltic States that are ethnic German expellees; as a result, Jews were largely excluded (Konigseder and Wetzel 299). Immigration Act of 1965 It put the Asian and European immigration on the same level. According to Nakanishi and Lai “Asian immigration was set at twenty thousand per country with a total of 170,000 visas granted from the Eastern Hemisphere, in comparison, European immigration had no quota per country, with a total of 120,000 visas granted from the Western hemisphere” (48). The Act favored reunification of families by firstly providing visas to eighty percent of family relatives of U.S. citizens or those with permanent residence and secondly, parents of United States citizens were free from limitations that were numerical in nature that existed previously (Nakanishi and Lai 202). Family Preferences of (IA65) According to Gibney and Hansen, Quotas were replaced with preference categories based on family relationships (404). Family preference gives priority to immigrants whose relatives are in the United States. Focusing on the family shows that the provisions in policies are not separated from the broader public. It helps see how the social and political arena is shaped from a historical point of view. Economic Preferences (IA65) Economic preference on the other hand gives priority to immigrants with significant occupations or professions as seen by the United States Department of Labor (Gibney and Hansen 404). It promotes growth and development. As a result, immigrants must adopt the rights of the workers and offer protection on intellectual property rights. Non Quota immigrants A non quota immigrant means an unmarried child immigrant who is under 18 years, or wife of a citizen of the United States, “an immigrant previously lawfully admitted to the United States, who is previously returning from a temporary visit abroad,” an immigrant who continuously for at least two years immediately preceding the time of his application for administration to the United States has been and seeks to enter the U.S. solely for the purpose of, carrying on the vocation of minister, professor; and his wife and unmarried children under eighteen years of age; if accompanying or following to join him (Gibney and Hansen 992). Works Cited “Cable Act of 1922.” immigrationinamerica.org. 24 August 2011. Web. 21 February 2014. Crossley, Pamela Kyle. The Wobbling Pivot, China since 1800: An Interpretive History. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2010. Print. Eng, David L. Racial Castration: Managing Masculinity in Asian America. Durham: Duke University Press, 2001. Print. “Eugenics in America: Anti-miscegenation Laws.” facinghistory.org. 2014. Web. 21 February 2014. Friedman, B. From the Battlefront to the Bridal Suite: Media Coverage of British War. Missouri: University of Missouri Press.2007. Print. García, Alma M. The Mexican Americans. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2009. Print. Gibney, Matthew J. and Randall Hansen. Immigration and Asylum: From 1900 to the Present, Volume 1. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2005. Print. Kayyali, Randa A. The Arab Americans. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006. Print. Königseder, Angelika and Juliane Wetzel. Waiting for Hope: Jewish Displaced Persons in Post-World War II Germany. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2001. Print. Krenn Michael L. Race and U.S. Foreign Policy from 1900 through World War II. London: Taylor & Francis, 1998. Print. Nakanishi, Don T. and James S. Lai. Asian American Politics: Law, Participation, and Policy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003. Print. Niiya, Brian. Japanese American History: An A-to-Z Reference from 1868 to the Present. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 1993. Print. Notre Dame High School. Chinese Exclusion Act. 2013. PDF file. Rees, Maura L. Case of the Chinese Wife., In Re AH MOY, on Habeas Corpus. 1884. PDF file. Sandoval, Lisa. Race and Immigration Law: A Troubling Marriage. 2011. PDF file. Seelye, James E. and Steven Alden Littleton. Voices of the American Indian Experience-Volume 1. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2012. Print. The National Archives. Our Documents: 100 Milestone Documents from the National Archives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print. Tyner, James A. Oriental Bodies: Discourse and Discipline in U.S. Immigration Policy, 1875-1942. Oxford: Lexington Books. Print. Zhao. Asian American Chronology: Chronologies of the American Mosaic. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2009. Print. Read More