This paper answers two fundamental questions in two sections. They will cover aspects of the AAS course and provide an insight into relevant issues and matters relating to the Asian American community and history.
Question 1: Race, Racialization and the Law
Asian Americans were always viewed in the context of “Asian immigrants”. This is for several reasons. First of all, the history of the United States rising as a prosperous nation happened from the east coast. And for various reasons, the first colonies created in the 1600s were made up almost exclusively of migrants from the British Isles. However, as time went on, the colonies expanded further and Africans were captured and enslaved on the farms of the United States. Although there were many Asians in the western hemisphere, large-scale migration from Asia to the United States only occurred when America had expanded to the west coast and communities like California came under American rule.
The notion of “Asian-immigrant” was a way of viewing the Asian community in the broader process of racializing America. The racialization of America primarily laid in the fact that for the first century of independence, it was believed that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights only applied to White Americans. The 1790 Naturalization Act of the United States gave citizenship to only “free white persons”.
Therefore, African slaves who were required by law not to get education, speak formal English or do anything other than abide by the wishes of their masters were not accepted as persons eligible to give evidence in court or partake in legal proceedings because they were considered chattels. They could be sold until the American civil war. This laid the foundation for the racialization of America – the Black-White distinction which was justified by dominant institutions at that time.
The Asian presence in America before 1850 was minimal. Thus, they were not seen as a threat to any aspect of America’s legal and communal structures. However, large-scale Asian migration and the establishment of large Asian communities in America started with the Californian Gold Rush of 1848 which attracted a lot of Chinese immigrants who became a symbol of Asian identity in America. When the gold got scarce in California and tensions rose, there was the Foreign Miners’ Tax which levied a mandatory monthly tax of $20 on foreign miners. This tax fundamentally targeted Chinese migrant and the tension created the basis for the concept of the “Chinaman” which in many ways shaped the idea of the Asian American identity.
The notion of the Chinaman was to create a person who was different, lower in civilization to the White man but was no direct threat to the White American. Thus, with the right leadership, the members of these Chinese communities form the Chinatowns in America and set up ways of life that were not very similar to that of White Americans. The essence of this is that the Asian communities like the Chinatowns held on to their lifestyle and their culture with pride. Unlike the African-Americans whose culture from Africa was taken away and replaced with an enforced slave identity, Asian Americans were able to keep their original identity and avoid the tags and interruptions that were naturally resultant of the Europeanization of other cultures.
The migrations from Japan, Korea and other parts of Asia that complemented the wave of Chines immigration into the United States, led to the formation of the concept of the “mongoloid” race. The conception of mongoloid race was strongly entrenched in American legal proceedings because they provided limits on Asian Americans. These ideas were meant to prevent them from taking action against White Americans who might feel threatened or believe they were under some kind of limit posed by the presence of Asian-Americans in the United States.
Asian-Americans therefore continued to build their own identity as people who were distinct. As Ancheta puts it, Asian Americans were “neither black nor white”. This means that they had to create their own unique way of doing things and their own distinct systems. This caused Asian Americans to maintain their culture and form underground economies to make a decent living in the United States of America.
Therefore, some obvious limits were placed on Asian-Americans. Since they were not committing large-scale atrocities in general and there was no reason to limit them or keep them away, there was a tag of “immigrant” that was placed upon Asian-Americans. This tag meant that they were some kind of a “foreign” people. Hence, even if an Asian-American was born in the United States, that individual was never considered an American. The tag of immigrant was extended on such a person and the lack of integration was overwhelming and affecting all aspects of the lives of Asian-Americans. This has its root in the Naturalization Act 1790 which made it impossible to extend citizenship to Asian-Americans. So they had to live as immigrants.
There were several attempts to challenge the position of US law as a tool for denying Asian Americans civil rights and citizenship. In re: Ah Yup which was heard in 1878, it was held that an Asian American man could not naturalize because of his race. This buttressed the position of the Naturalization Act 1790. The ruling remained in place throughout the 1900s until 1943 when it was repealed. This was affirmed in the case of Hirabayashi v the United States in 1943.
Concerning Asian Americans born in the United States, the position was fairly softer and less discriminatory. In 1898, in the case of United States v Wong Kim Ark, the position changed and Asians born in the United States were given rights to have citizenship. However, this was highly limited. This is because at that time in the late 1800s, the American civil war had been fought and African-American slaves were to be freed from slavery. This came with many issues and problems for the wider American legal system which had been all out racist and discriminatory.
The case of Yick Wo v Hopkins in 1886 showed that the United States respected the right of Asians living legally in the United States who were not citizens. This showed that the effect of the end of slavery had an impact on the Asian-American people. Thus, they were recognized under US law to be able to own properties and carry out business without interference that was abnormal. This gave a positive sign that Asian-Americans were seen as people with legal rights. Prior to this, cases involving an Asian-American business would not have been heard at all because they were considered to be non-existent.
However, discrimination and harsh treatment continued after the Plessey V Fergusson case of 1896 which made it legal to segregate and create “separate but equal” systems for minorities like Asian Americans as opposed to White Americans. This discrimination became serious in the wake of World War II when Asian-Americans were treated differently because they looked like the enemy (the Japanese). The end of the war led to sympathy for Asian-Americans. Their participation in the war, particularly in Europe caused America to remove the limits on naturalization in order to give them the right to become American citizens.
Finally, the Civil Rights movement came up in the 1960s which started demanding the rights of Asian-Americans and other minorities to equal treatment in the United States. This led to the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and the Immigration and Nationality Act, 1965 which shortened the time people needed to gain American citizenship as migrants. This was enjoyed by many Asian-Americans from war-torn countries in the Asia Pacific region including Vietnamese refugees and Filipinos who moved to the United States and the Pacific islands in the quest for protection and a better life.
Question 2: Immigration Debate in America Today
President Barack Obama’s proposed law – Deferred Action for Parents of American and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) shows significant evidence of the state of migration in the United States today. In the 19th Century, migrants were not granted citizenship if they were not White. In the 20th Century, America moved towards the diversification of its population and allowed in a lot of migrants and this got the country to get a lot of people from various countries. This meant that no identity could be considered dominant amongst the minorities. The White majority remained. And many minorities from different parts of the world, including different countries in Asia gained the rights to citizenship without issues.
However, from the 1970s and 1980s, there was a move to block migration and access to citizenship. This is because America naturally feared a cultural invasion by migrants. Therefore, migration was limited and prevented from certain people from various parts of the world. Currently, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 provides the legal framework within which immigration and naturalization is carried out. It abolished the national quota system which gave citizenship to predetermined numbers of people from specific countries around the world. This was naturally skewed in a negative way towards Asian Americans because they were not considered to be a popular class of people who were welcomed to the United States historically.
The collapse of the quota system by the INA meant that Asian-Americans were to be judged on merit and on what they had fulfilled as per the requirements of the legal system. This provided a system of creating a series of classes of visas and this could be used as the basis for defining the number of people to be allowed into the United States each year. Thus, a general trend of providing the number of visas was established and different countries and their citizens were allowed to apply for visas.
People with relatives are considered to be special visitors and as such, they were granted a privileged status to migrate to the United States under the INA. The procedure means that the average visa applications were just based on the ability to satisfy specific requirements that were made to each applicant visa class. There were labor evaluation certification systems that allowed for people to get an evaluation and assessment of what they did and how they did it in order to achieve their authorization.
An aspect of the INA that favored Asian-Americans was that it created a refugee class of migrants. This is consistent with the UN Declaration on Refugees. This is part of a global order that was meant to provide the basic standards for accepting and hosting refugees in foreign countries. The net result was that Asian-Americans from nations like Vietnam and Cambodia were able to move to the US without the traditional restrictions that were extremely difficult to meet.
Another aspect of the new immigration system is that it allowed for people within the United States to apply for citizenship legally in the United States. This is done through the naturalization process whereby a person lives in a specific state and becomes a permanent resident and also goes on to meet certain requirements. Such a person is able to apply for a full citizenship and become an American citizen. This is done by filling the N-500 form and meeting some criteria.
However, in the past few years, applying for citizenship through the normal route of becoming a permanent resident has been complicated. There have been a lot of denial to people who have lived in America legally but their N-500 form was denied for various reasons. There are several reasons that are attributed to this disturbing trend. The first is the failure to pass an English or civic education test. These tests are meant to assess and evaluate whether you are a proper citizen or going to be loyal and respectful to America. Since the history of Asian-American nations is such that they kept their culture and speak other languages, many of them are not able to pass this test. And this is a form of discrimination that will normally not be faced by a British national seeking to become an American.
People with a criminal history are also excluded from citizenship. This is often because they are deemed to be dangerous to the United States, so they are excluded and generally kept out of the citizenship process. If a person is rich and has access to the right lawyers, which some Asian-Americans might not have, it means they will be denied the right to gain citizenship even though they might qualify.
Failure to meet some residency requirements are also common. This is the case with a person who cannot afford to live in America all year round. Or a person who has children back home in Asia. Such a person might need to buy expensive tickets and might not be able to go back and forth and regularize his or her stay in America. Others with social obligations back home in Asia might be restricted.
There are also some other financial restrictions which could prevent a person from gaining American citizenship although s/he qualifies in every sense. This include costs of the process, demands for some financial assets and other things. Some Asian-Americans might not have that, although they qualify.
Finally, the whole process seem to be discretionary and it is based on the decision or choice of the USCIS. This is because the USCIS can choose to query any aspect of the forms. And this would make it impossible for a person who qualifies to be a US Citizen to gain citizenship. This is the case with many applicants who are unfairly targeted and excluded from gaining citizenship. But because they are not yet citizens, they do not seem to have the right set of rights to protest against it. In many cases, Asian-American migrants, Latinos and African migrants are those chosen and excluded from gaining their citizenship. This is unfortunate and this is discriminatory.
What President Obama has proposed in DAPA is a deal that will let the people with the most obvious claims to US citizenship to be granted citizenship. This include the residents who have children and have stayed in America for a long time. Many of these people qualify to be Americans. Their children are US citizens. Deporting them and letting the US government take care of their children is not wise financially – when the parents can be in the US, become citizens and work to pay for their children.
The Republican officials claim that the decision of the US Supreme Court is to show that the President cannot bypass Congress to make laws. Rather, Congress is the authority that makes laws in the United States. The Asian-American community is standing up for this because they believe that the law helps many Asian-Americans who qualify to be American citizens to be denied the right to what is rightfully theirs – a US citizenship status. The decision of the Supreme Court is seen as a block on something that the US President has the right power and authority to enforce. Thus, there is a strong case for a lot of protest and efforts to demand a change in the US immigration system.
DAPA is to cover as many as some four million Americans who are contributing to the country’s development and are raising the next generation of Americans. If America has nothing to do for them, they should at least empower these “foster parents” of Americans and prevent them from feeling threatened. However, the US Congress and the case of USA versus Texas has turned the situation around. There is a problem and a challenge that ought to be dealt with. It is of the opinion of many people that this Act was in good faith and was meant to bring out a lot of people from the shadows. It does not directly affect anyone because these migrants are already working in the United States. So DAPA is meant to protect them and empower them to serve America in the best way possible.
Works Cited
Ancheta, Angelo N. Race, Rights and the Asian American Experience. New Brunswick: Rutgers Unigersity Press, 2006. Print.
Fuchs, Chris. Asian-American Leaders Vow Continued Work after SCOTUS Immigration Decision. 23 June 2016. Web. 11 July 2016. <http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/asian-american-leaders-vow-continued-work-following-scotus-immigration-decision-n598306>.
Harvard University Library. California Gold Rush (1848-1858). 1998. Web. 11 July 2016. <http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigration/goldrush.html>.
Lam, Kevin D. "Theories of Racism, Asian American Identities, and a Materialist Critical Pedagogy." Journal for Critical Educational Policy Studies (2015): 83-103. Web. <http://www.jceps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/13-1-5.pdf>.
Purtschert, Patricia and Harald Fisher-Tine. Colonial Switzerland: Rethinking Colonialism from the Margins. New York: Springer, 2015. Print.
Schubert, Louis, Thomas Dye and Harmon Zeigler. The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon Introduction to American Politics. Mason, OH: Cengage, 2015. Print.
