The Chinese Exclusion Acts

Document Sample
The Chinese Exclusion Acts Powered By Docstoc
					     The Chinese
    Exclusion Acts

Asian Americans and the Law
        Dr. Steiner
Anson Burlingame
Burlingame Treaty Art. V (1868)
The United States of America and the
Emperor of China cordially recognize the
inherent and inalienable right of man to
change his home and allegiance, and also
the mutual advantage of the free migration
and emigration of their citizens and subjects,
respectively, from the one country to the
other, for purposes of curiosity, of trade, or
as permanent residents.
Burlingame Treaty Art. VI (1868)
Citizens of the United States visiting or
residing in China shall enjoy the same
privileges, immunities, or exemptions in
respect to travel or residence as may there
be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the
most favored nation. And, reciprocally,
Chinese subjects visiting or residing in the
United States, shall enjoy the same
privileges, immunities, and exemptions in
respect to travel or residence, as may there
be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the
most favored nation.
Burlingame Treaty Art. VI (1868)
But nothing herein contained shall be
held to confer naturalization upon citizens
of the United States in China, nor upon
the subjects of China in the United
       Toward Exclusion
California’s record of discriminatory
Court cases such as Chy Lung v. Freeman
Page Act of 1875
Chy Lung v. Freeman (1875)
The passage of laws which concern the
admission of citizens and subjects of
foreign nations to our shores belongs to
Congress, and not to the States.
 Ho Ah Kow v. Nunan (1879)
We are aware of the general feeling--
amounting to positive hostility-- prevailing
in California against the Chinese, which
would prevent their further immigration
hither and expel from the state those
already here. . . . We feel the force and
importance of these considerations; but
the remedy for the apprehended evil is to
be sought from the general government,
where, except in certain special cases, all
power over the subject lies.
Exclusion and the “California Thesis”
  Some historians say that California was
  responsible for exclusion
  – Frontier society
  – Racially prejudiced white workers
  – Economic conditions
  – Opportunistic politicians
  – National party politics meant federal
    government yielded to pressure from
       – Hune, Politics of Chinese Exclusion
 National Racist Consensus Thesis

While California was the spearhead for the
movement for exclusion, there was a
national consensus based upon widely
held stereotypes of Chinese
National labor organizations played a
particularly significant role
  National Politicians Thesis
Andrew Gyory, Closing the Gate: Race,
Politics, and the Chinese Exclusion Act
  The single most important force behind the
  Chinese Exclusion Act was national politicians
  of both parties who seized, transformed, and
  manipulated the issue of Chinese immigration
  in the quest for votes. . . . Politicians—not
  California, not workers, and not national racist
  imagery—ultimately supplied the agency for
  Chinese exclusion.
   Naturalization Act of 1870

On July 4, 1870
Senator Charles
Sumner tried to
strike the word
“white” from the
naturalization law.
Charles Sumner (July 4, 1870)
It is “all men” and not a race or color that are
placed under the protection of the Declaration
[of Independence, which said famously that “all
men are created equal”], and such was the voice
of our fathers on the fourth day of July, 1776….
Now, Sir, what better thing can you do on this
anniversary than to expunge from the statutes
that unworthy limitation that dishonors and
defiles the original Declaration? … The word
“white” wherever it occurs as a limitation of
rights, must disappear. Only in this way can you
be consistent with the Declaration.
Democratic Party Platform of 1876
Reform is necessary to correct the
omissions of a Republican Congress and
the errors of our treaties and our
diplomacy, which has . . . exposed our
brethren of the Pacific coast to the
incursions of a race not sprung from the
same great parent stock, and in fact now
by law denied citizenship through
naturalization as being unaccustomed to
the traditions of a progressive civilization,
one exercised in liberty under equal laws;
Democratic Party Platform of 1876
and we denounce the policy which thus
discards the liberty-loving German and
tolerates the revival of the coolie-trade in
Mongolian women for immoral purposes, and
Mongolian men held to perform servile labor
contracts, and demand such modification of
the treaty with the Chinese Empire, or such
legislation within constitutional limitations, as
shall prevent further importation or
immigration of the Mongolian race.
Republican Party Platform 1876
 It is the immediate duty of congress fully to
 investigate the effects of the immigration
 and importation of Mongolians on the
 moral and material interests of the country.
James Blaine
Senator, Maine
We have this day to
choose…whether our
legislation shall be in the
interest of the American free
laborer or the servile laborer
from China…You cannot
work a man who must have
beef and bread and would
prefer beer, alongside a man
who can live on rice. It
cannot be done.
– On Fifteen Passenger Bill, 1879
Fifteen Passenger Bill (1879)
No master of a vessel would be permitted
to bring more than fifteen Chinese
passengers into the United States on any
one voyage
Upon arrival, ship masters would be
required to present sworn list of all
Chinese passengers
Violators could be fined $100 for each
passenger and six months in prison
Fifteen Passenger Bill (1879)
Passed House on January 28, 1879
– 155 in favor; 72 opposed
– Democrats voted 104-16 in favor
– Republicans voted 51-56 against
Passed Senate on February 15, 1879
– 39 in favor; 27 opposed; 9 absent
– Democrats 25-8 in favor
– Republicans voted 14-19 against
       Rutherford B. Hayes
          Diary (1879)
I am satisfied the present Chinese labor
invasion (it is not any proper sense
immigration--women and children do not
come) is pernicious and should be
discouraged. Our experience in dealing with
weaker races--the Negroes and Indians, for
example--is not encouraging. We shall
oppress the Chinamen, and their presence
will make hoodlums or vagabonds of their
        Rutherford B. Hayes
I therefore would consider with favor
measures to discourage the Chinese from
coming to our shores. But I suspect that
this bill is inconsistent with our treaty
obligations. . . . If it violates the national
faith I must decline to approve it.
Hayes’s Veto Message (March 1, 1879)
Up to this time our uncovenanted
hospitality to immigration, our
fearless liberality of citizenship,
our equal and comprehensive
justice to all inhabitants, whether
they abjured their foreign
nationality or not, our civil
freedom, and our religious
toleration had made all comers
welcome, and under these
protections the Chinese in
considerable numbers had made
their lodgment upon our soil.
     Hayes’s Veto Message
I regard the very grave discontents of the people
of the Pacific States with the present working of
the Chinese immigration, and their still graver
apprehensions therefrom in the future, as
deserving the most serious attention of the
people of the whole country and a solicitous
interest on the part of Congress and the
Executive. If this were not my own judgment, the
passage of this bill by both Houses of Congress
would impress upon me the seriousness of the
situation, when a majority of the representatives
of the people of the whole country had thought fit
to justify so serious a measure of relief.
     Hayes’s Veto Message
 The authority of Congress to terminate a treaty
with a foreign power by expressing the will of the
nation no longer to adhere to it is as free from
controversy under our Constitution as is the
further proposition that the power of making new
treaties or modifying existing treaties is not
lodged by the Constitution in Congress, but in
the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, as shown by the
concurrence of two-thirds of that body. A
denunciation of a treaty by any government is
confessedly justifiable only upon some reason
both of the highest justice and of the highest
    Hayes’s Veto Message
 I am convinced that, whatever urgency
might in any quarter or by any interest be
supposed to require an instant
suppression of further immigration from
China, no reasons can require the
immediate withdrawal of our treaty
protection of the Chinese already in this
country, and no circumstances can
tolerate an exposure of our citizens in
China, merchants or missionaries, to the
consequences of so sudden an abrogation
of their treaty protection.
Treaty Regulating Immigration from China
            (Nov. 17, 1880)
Whereas the Government of the United
States, because of the constantly
increasing immigration of Chinese laborers
to the territory of the United States, and
the embarrassments consequent upon
such immigration, now desires to negotiate
a modification of the existing Treaties
which shall not be in direct contravention
of their spirit:
Treaty Regulating Immigration from China,
          Art. I (Nov. 17, 1880)

Whenever in the opinion of the Government of
the United States, the coming of Chinese
laborers to the United States, or their residence
therein, affects or threatens to affect the
interests of that country, or to endanger the
good order of the said country or of any locality
within the territory thereof, the Government of
China agrees that the Government of the United
States may regulate, limit, or suspend such
coming or residence, but may not absolutely
prohibit it.
Treaty Regulating Immigration from China,
          Art. I (Nov. 17, 1880)

 The limitation or suspension shall be
 reasonable and shall apply only to
 Chinese who may go to the United
 States as laborers, other classes not
 being included in the limitations.
Treaty Regulating Immigration from China,
         Art. II (Nov. 17, 1880)
Chinese subjects, whether proceeding to the
United States as teachers, students, merchants,
or from curiosity, together with their body and
household servants, and Chinese laborers who
are now in the United States, shall be allowed to
go and come of their own free will and accord,
and shall be accorded all the rights, privileges,
immunities and exemptions which are accorded
to the citizens and subjects of the most favored
Treaty Regulating Immigration from China,
         Art. II (Nov. 17, 1880)
 If Chinese laborers, or Chinese of any other
 class, now either permanently or temporarily
 residing in the territory of the United States,
 meet with ill treatment at the hands of any other
 persons, the Government of the United States
 will exert all its power to devise measures for
 their protection and to secure to them the same
 rights, privileges, immunities and exemptions as
 may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of
 the most favored nation, and to which they are
 entitled by treaty . . .
   First Exclusion Act of 1882
Twenty-year exclusion
Vetoed by President
Chester A. Arthur
– Convinced of necessity
  of legislation
– But twenty-year term
  violated treaty
“It would be unreasonable to destroy it, and
would reflect upon the honor of the country.”
Harper’s Weekly, April 15, 1882
, In a temperate and excellent message the President
has vetoed the Chinese bill. He states in detail the
existing treaty relations between the countries, and
the express understanding between the
Commissioners upon both sides in the late
negotiations. It was stipulated that the free
immigration of Chinese should not be prohibited, and
that any regulation of their coming should be
reasonable. But an exclusion of twenty years is a
practical prohibition, and therefore unreasonable. The
President adopts this view, and regarding the twenty
years clause as a breach of the national faith, he
returns the bill.
Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
WHEREAS, in the opinion of the
Government of the United States the
coming of Chinese laborers to this country
endangers the good order of certain
localities within the territory thereof:
Therefore, . . .
Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
Be it enacted, That from and after the expiration
of ninety days next after the passage of this act,
and until the expiration of ten years next after
the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese
laborers to the United States be, . . . suspended;
and during such suspension it shall not be lawful
for any Chinese laborer to come, or, having so
come after the expiration of said ninety days, to
remain within the United States.
Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
That the master of any vessel who shall
knowingly bring within the United States on such
vessel, and land or permit to be landed, any
Chinese laborer, from any foreign port or place,
shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and
on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine
of not more than five hundred dollars for each
and every such Chinese laborer so brought, and
may be also imprisoned for a term not
exceeding one year.
Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
That any Chinese laborer mentioned in section four
of this act being in the United States, and desiring
to depart from the United States by land, shall have
the right to demand and receive, free of charge or
cost, a certificate of identification . . .and it is hereby
made the duty of the collector of customs of the
district next adjoining the foreign country to which
said Chinese laborer desires to go to issue such
certificate, free of charge or cost, upon application
by such Chinese laborer, and to enter the same
upon registry-books to be kept by him for the
purpose, as provided for in section four of this act.
   Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
[E]very Chinese person other than a laborer who
may be entitled by said treaty and this act to come
within the United States, and who shall be about to
come to the United States, shall be identified as so
entitled by the Chinese Government in each case,
such identity to be evidenced by a certificate issued
under the authority of said government, which
certificate . . . stating such right to come, and which
certificate shall state the name, title, or official rank,
if any, the age, height, and all physical peculiarities
former and present occupation or profession and
place of residence in China of the person to whom
the certificate is issued and that such person is
entitled conformably to the treaty in this act
mentioned to come within the United States. . .
Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
That the words “Chinese laborers,”
whenever used in this act, shall be
construed to mean both skilled and
unskilled laborers and Chinese
employed in mining.
         Exclusion Act 1882
In the opening sentence, Congress announced the
purpose of the Exclusion Act. What is its purpose?
What “localities” was Congress referring to?
The Act excludes “Chinese laborers”? What is
meant by “Chinese”? Does it apply to all ethnic
Chinese or is it limited to subjects of the Chinese
Which Chinese laborers are exempted by the Act?
How would such laborers prove their exemption?
Who else could enter the United States from
China? How would those persons prove they could
Who is a laborer under the Act under section 15?
    Effect of Exclusion Act
In 1882, before the Act went into effect,
39,000 Chinese came to the United States
In 1887, Chinese immigration totaled 10!
While American population doubled
between 1880 and 1920, the population of
those of Chinese descent declined by one-
– Chin, Chae Chan Pong and Fong Yue Ting
Act of July 5, 1884, ch. 220, 23 Stat. 115

  Section fifteen of said act is hereby amended so
  as to read as follows:
  That the provisions of this act shall apply to all
  subjects of China and Chinese, whether subjects
  of China or any other foreign power; and the
  words Chinese laborers, wherever used in this
  Act shall be construed to mean both skilled and
  unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in
Act of July 5, 1884, ch. 220, 23 Stat. 115

  The certificate herein provided for shall
  entitle the Chinese laborer to whom the
  same is issued to return to and re-enter
  the United States upon producing and
  delivering the same to the collector of
  customs of the district at which such
  Chinese laborers shall seek to re-enter,
  and said certificates shall be the only
  evidence permissible to establish his right
  of re-entry. . .
 Chew Heong v. United States,
     112 U.S. 536 (1884)
The entire argument in support of the judgment
below proceeds upon the erroneous
assumption that congress intended to exclude
all Chinese laborers of every class who were
not in the United States at the time of the
passage of the act of 1882, including those
who, like the plaintiff in error, were here when
the last treaty was concluded, but were absent
at the date of the passage of that act. . . . [T]he
courts uniformly refuse to give to statutes a
retrospective operation, whereby rights
previously vested are injuriously affected,
unless compelled to do so by language so clear
and positive as to leave no room to doubt that
such was the intention of the legislature.
Lorenzo Sawyer to Matthew P. Deady,
          Dec. 22, 1884
   [I]t is some consolation, after all the lying,
   abuse, threatening of impeachment etc.
   as to our construction of the Chinese
   restriction act, and the grand glorification
   of brother Field for coming out here and
   so easily, promptly and thoroughly sitting
   down on us and setting us right on that
   subject to find that we are not so widely
   out of our senses after all.
Act of Oct. 1, 1888, 25 Stat. 504, ch. 1064

  That from and after the passage of this
  act, it shall be unlawful for any chinese
  laborers who shall at any time heretofore
  have been, or who may now or hereafter
  be, a resident within the United States and
  who shall have departed, or shall depart,
  therefrom, and shall not have returned
  before the passage of this act, to return to,
  or remain in, the United States.
Act of Oct. 1, 1888, 25 Stat. 504, ch. 1064

  Sec. 2 That no certificate of identity
  provided for in the fourth and fifth sections
  of the act to which this is a supplement
  shall hereafter be issued; and every
  certificate heretofore issued in pursuance
  thereof, is hereby declared void and of no
  effect, and the chinese laborer claiming
  admission by virtue thereof shall not be
  permitted to enter the United States.
  Effect of 1888 Amendment
Between 20,000 and 30,000 Chinese who
had been living in the United States and
had relied upon the statute and obtained a
certificate and returned to China, were
stranded there.
Chae Chan Ping v. United States
The opinion by Justice Field provides his
explanation of why the United States
retreated from its “strong expressions of
friendship and good will” with China. What
happened according to Field?
Chae Chan Ping v. United States
Whatever modifications have since been
made to these general provisions have
been caused by a well-founded
apprehension from the experience of
years that a limitation to the immigration of
certain classes from China was essential
to the peace of the community on the
Pacific coast, and possibly to the
preservation of our civilization there.
  Chae Chan Ping v. United States
The differences of race added greatly to the
difficulties of the situation. Notwithstanding the
favorable provisions of the new articles of the
treaty of 1868, by which all the privileges,
immunities, and exemptions were extended to
subjects of China in the United States which
were accorded to citizens or subjects of the
most favored nation, they remained strangers
in the land, residing apart by themselves, and
adhering to the customs and usages of their
own country.
 Chae Chan Ping v. United States
It seemed impossible for them to assimilate
with our people, or to make any change in
their habits or modes of living. As they grew
in numbers each year the people of the coast
saw, or believed they saw, in the facility of
immigration, and in the crowded millions of
China, where population presses upon the
means of subsistence, great danger that at
no distant day that portion of our country
would be overrun by them, unless prompt
action was taken to restrict their immigration.
Chae Chan Ping v. United States
According to Field, what caused the
“irritation” between the Chinese in
California and “our people”? What’s the
significance that Field uses the term “our
people” to distinguish those other than the
 Chae Chan Ping v. United States
The competition steadily increased as the laborers
came in crowds on each steamer that arrived from
China, or Hong Kong, an adjacent English port.
They were generally industrious and frugal. Not
being accompanied by families, except in rare
instances, their expenses were small; and they
were content with the simplest fare, such as would
not suffice for our laborers and artisans. The
competition between them and our people was for
this reason altogether in their favor, and the
consequent irritation, proportionately deep and
bitter, was followed, in many cases, by open
conflicts, to the great disturbance of the public
  Chae Chan Ping v. United States
In December, 1878, the convention which framed the
present constitution of California, …[petitioned
congress], that the presence of Chinese laborers had
a baneful effect upon the material interests of the
state, and upon public morals; that their immigration
was in numbers approaching the character of an
Oriental invasion, and was a menace to our
civilization; that the discontent from this cause was not
confined to any political party, or to any class or
nationality, but was well nigh universal; that they
retained the habits and customs of their own country,
and in fact constituted a Chinese settlement within the
state, without any interest in our country or its
institutions; and praying congress to take measures to
prevent their further immigration.
Chae Chan Ping v. United States
According to Field, what necessitated the use of
The enforcement of this act with respect to
laborers who were in the United States on
November 17, 1880, was attended with great
embarrassment, from the suspicious nature, in
many instances, of the testimony offered to
establish the residence of the parties, arising
from the loose notions entertained by the
witnesses of the obligation of an oath.
Chae Chan Ping v. United States
How does Field answer the argument that
the exclusion laws are invalid because
they conflict with treaty obligations?
Chae Chan Ping v. United States
The treaties were of no greater legal
obligation than the act of congress. By the
constitution, laws made in pursuance
thereof, and treaties made under the
authority of the United States, are both
declared to be the supreme law of the
land, and no paramount authority is given
to one over the other.
Chae Chan Ping v. United States
The question whether our government is justified
in disregarding its engagements with another
nation is not one for the determination of the
This court is not a censor of the morals of other
departments of the government; it is not invested
with any authority to pass judgment upon the
motives of their conduct. When once it is
established that congress possesses the power
to pass an act, our province ends with its
construction and its application to cases as they
are presented for determination.
Chae Chan Ping v. United States
What powers are given to the national
government that would permit the
exclusion acts?
 Chae Chan Ping v. United States
While under our constitution and form of government the
great mass of local matters is controlled by local authorities,
the United States, in their relation to foreign countries and
their subjects or citizens, are one nation, invested with
powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise
of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute
independence and security throughout its entire territory.
The powers to declare war, make treaties, suppress
insurrection, repel invasion, regulate foreign commerce,
secure republican governments to the states, and admit
subjects of other nations to citizenship, are all sovereign
powers, restricted in their exercise only by the constitution
itself and considerations of public policy and justice which
control, more or less, the conduct of all civilized nations.
           Geary Act 1892
An act to prohibit the coming of Chinese persons
into the United States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled, That all laws now in
force prohibiting and regulating the coming into
this country of Chinese persons and persons of
Chinese descent are hereby continued in force
for a period of ten years from the passage of this
            Geary Act 1892
That any Chinese person or person of
Chinese descent arrested under the
provisions of this act or the acts hereby
extended shall be adjudged to be unlawfully
within the United States unless such person
shall establish, by affirmative proof, to the
satisfaction of such justice, judge, or
commissioner, his lawful right to remain in the
United States.
               Geary Act 1892
And it shall be the duty of all Chinese laborers within
the limits of the United States, . . . , to apply to the
collector of internal revenue of their respective
districts, within one year after the passage of this act,
for a certificate of residence, and any Chinese laborer,
within the limits of the United States, who shall
neglect, fail, or refuse to comply with the provisions of
this act, or who, after one year from the passage
hereof, shall be found within the jurisdiction of the
United States without such certificate of residence,
shall be deemed and adjudged to be unlawfully within
the United States, and may be arrested, by any United
States [official], and taken before a United States
judge, whose duty it shall be to order that he be
deported from the United States as hereinbefore
                Geary Act
unless he shall establish clearly to the
satisfaction of said judge, that by reason of
accident, sickness or other unavoidable
cause, he has been unable to procure his
certificate, and to the satisfaction of the
court, and by at least one credible white
witness, that he was a resident of the
United States at the time of the passage of
this act; and if upon the hearing, it shall
appear that he is so entitled to a certificate,
it shall be granted upon his paying the cost.
           Geary Act 1892
Historian Gabriel J. Chin has argued that the
1882 act admitted all except those it
specifically excluded but the 1892 act excluded
all but those it specifically admitted. What
proof exists in the language of the statute that
supports Chin’s argument?
Under section three, what presumption could
be made about any Chinese arrested in the
United States for violating the act?
Under section 6, what duty is placed on all
Chinese residing in the United States? What if
a Chinese laborer entitled to a certificate failed
to obtain one? Who could testify on behalf of
someone arrested under the Act?
To amend an act entitled An act to prohibit
the coming of Chinese persons into the
United States (1893)
 The words “laborer” or “laborers” . . . Shall be
 construed to mean both skilled and unskilled manual
 laborers, including Chinese employed in mining,
 fishing, huckstering, peddling, laundrymen, or those
 engaged in taking, drying, or otherwise preserving
 shell or other fish for home consumption or
To amend an act entitled An act to
prohibit the coming of Chinese
persons into the United States
   Senator William M. Stewart
    (Nevada), April 23, 1892
There was a time when there was great
diversity of opinion on the question of
Chinese immigration to this country, but I
think there is practically none now. The
American people are now convinced that
the Chinese can not be incorporated
among our citizens, cannot be
amalgamated, can not be absorbed, but
that they will remain a distinct element.
Fong Yue Ting v. United States
Who are the petitioners?
Where does the power to exclude
foreigners derive?
Does Congress have the power to
require the registration of Chinese
residing in the United States?
Fong Yue Ting v. United States
The right to exclude or to expel all aliens, or
any class of aliens, absolutely or upon certain
conditions, in war or in peace, being an
inherent and inalienable right of every
sovereign and independent nation, essential to
its safety, its independence, and its welfare,
the question now before the court is whether
the manner in which congress has exercised
this right in sections 6 and 7 of the act of 1892
is consistent with the constitution.
Fong Yue Ting v. United States

According to the court, is it permissible in
no-certificate proceedings that the
burden of proof isn’t on the government
but on the Chinese laborer or that
testimony must come from a “white
Fong Yue Ting v. United States
The provision which puts the burden of proof
upon him of rebutting the presumption arising
from his having no certificate, as well as the
requirement of proof ‘by at least one credible
white witness that he was a resident of the
United States at the time of the passage of this
act,’ is within the acknowledged power of every
legislature to prescribe the evidence which
shall be received, and the effect of that
evidence, in the courts of its own government.
Fong Yue Ting v. United States
Justice Brewer’s dissent makes what
three points? What is his specific
critique of the use of “sovereignty” in the
majority opinion? Are Chinese involved
in deportation proceedings entitled to
due process, according to Justice
Fong Yue Ting v. United States
Brewer, dissenting.
In view of this enactment of the highest
legislative body of the foremost Christian
nation, may not the thoughtful Chinese
disciple of Confucius fairly ask, “Why do
they send missionaries here?”
Fong Yue Ting v. United States
Justice Field was the author of Chae
Chan Ping, but dissents here. What’s
the difference in the two cases for Field?
Fong Yue Ting v. United States
Justice Fuller attacks the deference of
the majority opinion toward the Geary
Act. What is Fuller’s essential point
about the supreme court’s duty in such a
Gabriel J. Chin, Chae Chan Ping and Fong
 Yue Ting: The Origins of Plenary Power
   In Chae Chan Ping, the Court held that a
   returning resident noncitizen could be excluded
   if Congress determined his race was
   undesirable—or for any other reason. In Fong
   Yue Ting, the Court held that these noncitizens
   could be deported because of their race—or for
   any other reason. … The message from these
   cases, then, is that where the status of
   immigrants is concerned, almost anything goes.
   Congressional power to determine who may
   come and stay, and who may not, is virtually

Shared By: