2/6/13
Issues and Controversies in American History
Chinese Exclusion Act
Necessary Protection for American Workers or Racist Policy?
The Issue
Harper's New Monthly/Cornell University
The issue: Should the United States pass the Chinese Exclusion Act, banning Chinese workers from immigrating to America?
Arguments for the Chinese Exclusion Act: Chinese immigrants undermine the livelihood of American workers by driving down
wages and taking away jobs. Moreover, they drain the national wealth by saving up all of their earnings to take back to China rather than
circulating them back into the U.S. economy. The only Americans benefitting from cheap Chinese labor are the capitalists, whose greed
widens the ever-expanding gap between the rich and poor. Chinese immigrants also threaten American culture by retaining their
"peculiar" and often "immoral" ways. Even if they want to assimilate, the Chinese are simply incapable of doing so; Eastern civilization is
too vastly different from Western civilization.
Arguments against the Chinese Exclusion Act: The Chinese are a decent and hardworking people who just want to have the
same chance at freedom and opportunity as any other immigrants. The lower-wage labor they bring to the U.S. economy dramatically
cuts production costs, which can then be used to invest more in new development and technology. Besides, the Chinese often take the
jobs most Americans are not willing to perform anyway. The racist rhetoric used by anti-Chinese leaders to denigrate the Chinese
culture is simply reprehensible. A large number of those leaders and their working-class supporters were once immigrants themselves.
If the Chinese were allowed to become naturalized citizens, which the federal government forbids, then they would feel far more inclined
to assimilate into the American way of life.
Background
The Statue of Liberty was a symbol of freedom and opportunity for millions of immigrants to the United States in the late 19th and 20th
centuries. That monument, which was a gift from the people of France to commemorate the centennial of America's Declaration of
Independence in 1776, was dedicated in a ceremony in New York Harbor in October 1886. Just four years earlier, however, the U.S.
government had passed a law that seemed to go against the entire spirit of the memorial. The first of its kind, that law, the Chinese
Exclusion Act of 1882, essentially banned all Chinese immigration to the United States. The ban would continue well into the 20th
century.
The United States was founded by immigrants and their descendants. During the 17th and 18th centuries, the British colonies were
settled by a variety of European peoples who came to America to seek opportunity and escape political and religious persecution.
Immigration was encouraged in the colonial era, but mostly because the vast majority of immigrants were white, Anglo-Saxon
Protestants. When foreigners of another sort began entering the United States in the 1790s, immigrants were suddenly no longer
welcome.
In 1798, nine years after the U.S. government was formed under the new Constitution, Congress passed a series of controversial laws
known as the Alien and Sedition Acts. These laws, one of which, the Naturalization Act, lengthened the period until an immigrant could
apply for citizenship, were partly an attempt to stem an influx of political refugees from France and Ireland, which were predominantly
Catholic nations. The Alien and Sedition Acts expired or were repealed a few years later. A second anti-immigrant wave, known as
icah.infobaselearning.com/icahprintarticle.aspx?ID=107565&citation=mla
1/7
2/6/13
Issues and Controversies in American History
the "Know-Nothing" movement, arose in the 1840s and 1850s. Know-Nothings directed most of their antagonism toward Irish-Catholic
immigrants, many of whom were poor, unskilled, and uneducated.
Despite such isolated efforts, the policy and attitude of the United States toward immigrants before the Civil War (1861-65) was
generally tolerant, and the immigration of free persons was virtually unrestricted by the federal government. That tolerance began to
dissolve in the decades following the war, however, as "new immigrants" from regions other than Western and Northern Europe
streamed into the United States. Their arrival was critical to fueling the booming American cities during the Industrial Revolution, a
period of economic activity marked by the arrival of mass production, improved transportation and the factory system.
Of these new immigrants, the Chinese became the first Asian people to immigrate to the United States in significant numbers. Their
arrival was spurred by the job opportunities opened up by the Gold Rush of 1849 and the construction of the transcontinental railroad in
the 1860s, as well as by a civil war tearing China apart during the 1850s. Of the Chinese who immigrated to the United States in the 19th
century, more than 90 percent lived in the 10 westernmost states, and more than two-thirds were in California. San Francisco, home to
nearly a quarter of the nation's 107,000 Chinese in 1890, was the capital of Chinese America.
While the Chinese were initially welcomed as a source of low-wage labor, they experienced a severe backlash in the 1870s. By that time,
the Gold Rush had ended and the transcontinental railroad was complete, leaving a large population of Chinese immigrants and
American settlers in their wake. Job competition between these two groups became fierce, particularly after the Panic of 1873 triggered
a long economic depression. Chinese workers, who were often willing to work for less than their American counterparts, increasingly
faced discriminatory state and local laws and violent reprisals from working-class whites, mainly Irish-Americans.
Pressure from unions and anti-Chinese organizations in California became strong enough by the late 1870s for the issue of immigration
to be thrust into the national spotlight. After a few years of diplomatic wrangling with China, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act
of 1882, the first U.S. law to ban immigration based on race or nationality. All Chinese people, except members of a select few
professions, were barred from entering the country. Combined with a previous federal law that barred any Chinese from becoming
naturalized American citizens, the Exclusion Act isolated a sizeable community of Chinese in the United States for more than a half
century. [See Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (primary document)]
Though residents of the West Coast overwhelmingly favored Chinese exclusion, and Congress passed the Exclusion Act by a wide
majority, there was still considerable debate over Chinese immigration. Should the Chinese have been allowed to benefit from the
economic growth of the United States, or was low-wage Chinese labor detrimental to the U.S. economy and native workforce? Did the
Chinese have the same right as other people to immigrate to America, or did the U.S. government have the right to exclude a particular
nationality from entering the United States?
Supporters of the Chinese Exclusion Act maintained that immigrant Chinese labor hurt the U.S. economy more than it helped. Because
the Chinese were willing to settle for a much lower standard of living than U.S. citizens, supporters argued, they unfairly undermined the
livelihood of American workers. And because Chinese workers did not purchase many consumer goods themselves, but instead pumped
much of their earnings back into the Chinese economy, they dragged down the U.S. economy, proponents asserted. The only benefit of
cheap Chinese labor was to fatten the profits of the capitalist class, they charged, which further widened the gap between rich and poor.
The Chinese were not just a threat to the U.S. economy, supporters of exclusion insisted, they were also a threat to the American way of
life. The Chinese refused to assimilate into white America, they argued, and retained every ounce of their foreign culture. Conversely,
the "strange," "un-American," and often "immoral" practices of the Chinese undermined American values. Even if some Chinese wanted
to assimilate, others argued, they were simply incapable of doing so. Chinese habits and customs were fundamentally incompatible
with Western civilization, many Americans claimed, which was contaminated by the very presence of the Chinese. Finally, supporters
maintained, the immigration ban had to be complete because even a small Chinese community would serve as a magnet for millions.
Such racist rhetoric, opponents of the Chinese Exclusion Act countered, was inaccurate at best and deplorable at worst. The Chinese
were hard-working, law-abiding, and decent members of their communities, they argued, who were maligned as dangerous and
degenerate by political demagogues pandering to the fears of the working class. A great many American workers were once immigrants
themselves, critics of the act contended, and thus should be more sympathetic to their Chinese counterparts. The customs of Chinese
immigrants were no stranger than those of other immigrants, they charged, and the reason the Chinese did not readily assimilate was
due to the constant animosity directed at them by white Americans, not to mention the federal law that made it impossible for them to
become U.S. citizens.
From an economic standpoint, opponents of the act maintained, the low-wage labor provided by Chinese immigrants greatly benefited
the United States. Such labor decreased the cost of production, they argued, and the savings could be funneled back into an everexpanding economy. Employing a Chinese workforce reinforced the basic principles of the free market, they claimed, which called for
labor costs to be as low as possible. Other critics of the Exclusion Act insisted that the real culprit was the greedy capitalist, not the
Chinese immigrant. They argued that workers of all races and nationalities should unite against that common enemy, who created the
entire system of low-wage labor in the first place.
Acceptance of Chinese Immigrants
The California Gold Rush of 1849 caused a sudden and dramatic influx of Chinese immigrants to the American West. On January 24,
1848, a mill construction crew camped out on the American River near Sacramento, California, discovered a few gold nuggets on the
riverbank. Word quickly spread, and by the following year hundreds of thousands of gold prospectors from around the world —dubbed
the "Forty-Niners"—had descended on California in search of their fortunes.
Chinese workers, with their strong work ethic, acceptance of low wages and willingness to work under dangerous conditions, were
particularly appealing to mine operators. Business owners would hire brokers to pay for the transport of Chinese across the Pacific
Ocean. Chinese immigrants, in turn, paid off their transit costs through their mine earnings. Once their debts were paid off, most mine
icah.infobaselearning.com/icahprintarticle.aspx?ID=107565&citation=mla
2/7
2/6/13
Issues and Controversies in American History
workers hoped to amass small fortunes in the "Golden Mountain"—the Chinese term for California—and return to China as rich men.
[See 'The Biography of a Chinaman' (Excerpt) (primary document)]
The pull of economic opportunity in California combined with the push of economic hardship in China to inflate the number of overseas
Chinese workers. In 1850, followers of Hung Hsiu-ch'üan, a Christian schoolmaster from the southern province of Guangdong, revolted
against the long-standing Qing Dynasty, which had ruled China since 1644. The Taiping Rebellion that unfolded over the next 14 years
was one of the bloodiest civil wars in history, claiming the lives of an estimated 20 million to 30 million Chinese. Those who survived the
bloodshed endured severe food shortages and dismal employment opportunities. In 1852 alone, more than 20,000 Chinese—almost
exclusively from Guangdong—fled to California.
Meanwhile, the booming economy of the American West had opened up a range of job opportunities, in such industries as canning,
timber, agriculture, and, most significantly, railroad construction. In 1862, Congress passed the Pacific Railroad Act, and construction
soon began on the transcontinental railroad. That colossal project would connect the rail networks of California and the East, spanning
the entire North American continent from coast to coast.
The construction of the transcontinental railroad was undertaken by two private rail companies. Union Pacific Railroad laid out 1,087
miles of track from east to west, starting in Omaha, Nebraska, while Central Pacific Railroad laid out 690 miles of track in the opposite
direction, starting in Sacramento. After several years of hectic construction, the two lines officially met on May 10, 1869, in the Golden
Spike ceremony at Promontory, Utah.
Low-wage Chinese laborers, or "coolies," were essential to the rapid completion of the transcontinental railroad. With an average height
of 4'10'' and average weight of 120 pounds, the Chinese initially faced skepticism from rail owners as to whether they could handle the
strenuous work of rail construction, which typically involved 80-pound ties and 560-pound rail sections. But the Chinese turned out to
be the best laborers of all, outperforming others to such an extent that nine out of 10 Central Pacific workers who stayed until the
completion of the transcontinental railroad were Chinese—more than 11,000 in all.
Despite their central role in the completion of the railroad, however, Chinese workers were paid significantly less than their white
counterparts for the same work. For instance, Chinese workers laying tracks for the transcontinental railroad in Nevada and Utah
received an average of $26 a month and had to pay for their board, while white workers were paid $35 a month and received free board.
But while nativist sentiment against the Chinese had long been rampant among Americans, the anti-Chinese movement was relatively
benign in the 1850s and 1860s. (Nativism is an attitude that favors the interests of established citizens over immigrants.)
Some institutional forms of racism did surface during this period. California imposed higher taxes and license requirements on Chinese
miners, white workers formed "anticoolie" clubs that boycotted Chinese-made goods and, most significantly, a California Supreme Court
decision in People v. Hall (1854) prohibited Chinese immigrants from testifying against whites in court. But, overall, the Chinese were so
highly valued for their labor that any efforts to oppress them on a mass scale never amounted to much. And since the control of
immigration was under the jurisdiction of the federal government, the discriminatory state laws and local ordinances and acts of violence
committed by white Americans failed to keep the Chinese from entering the country. [See California's 'Anti-Coolie' Act of 1862
(Excerpts) (primary document)]
Official acceptance of Chinese immigration by the federal government was codified in the Burlingame Treaty of 1868, an agreement
between the United States and China that sanctioned unrestrained movement of people between the two countries. Specifically, the
treaty recognized "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 for purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent residents."
Politicians and journalists praised the treaty, and many wrote of a special friendship connecting the United States, the youngest nation,
with China, the oldest.
Although the Chinese were free to work in the United States, they were still denied full access to the American way of life. Most notably,
the Naturalization Act of 1870 limited naturalization to "white persons and persons of African descent," thus placing Chinese and all
other Asian peoples into a category of "aliens ineligible to citizenship." While the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 had
guaranteed citizenship for "all persons born" in the United States, thereby granting citizenship to second-generation Chinese, the vast
majority of Chinese in the United States were first-generation immigrants and therefore deprived of many basic rights, including the
right to vote.
Backlash Against the Chinese
The passage of the Burlingame Treaty boded well for Chinese workers, who flocked to the United States in even greater numbers during
the late 1860s. But by the 1870s, the Chinese faced a sharp increase in anti-Chinese sentiment. While there had always been cultural
animosity toward the Chinese, the key factor to the growth in animosity was economic.
With the Gold Rush exhausted and the transcontinental railroad complete, there was no longer a major demand for Chinese labor in the
American West. The railroad, in turn, triggered a huge influx of white settlers from the East. The combination of less work and more
people fueled fierce job competition between Chinese immigrants and Americans. Resentment toward Chinese workers was rooted in
their willingness to accept lower wages, which led business owners to hire them in much greater numbers. For instance, the Chinese
made up nearly 25 percent of California's unskilled labor force in 1870, but were just 10 percent of the state's total population.
As job competition increased in the 1870s, violence directed toward the Chinese escalated. Racial tensions in Los Angeles exploded into
mob violence in October 1871 when around 500 people—or 10 percent of the town's population—indiscriminately attacked members of
the Chinese community. Some 20 Chinese men and boys were murdered in the "Chinese Massacre," one of the worst incidents of antiChinese violence in U.S. history. News of the massacre quickly spread around the world, and the U.S. government was compelled to issue
an official apology to China.
icah.infobaselearning.com/icahprintarticle.aspx?ID=107565&citation=mla
3/7
2/6/13
Issues and Controversies in American History
Relations between Chinese workers and American workers were further strained as unemployment rose dramatically in the years after
the Panic of 1873, reaching around 14 percent by 1876. The financial panic had resulted from overspeculation in the railroad industry.
Jay Cooke and his Philadelphia banking firm had heavily invested in the construction of a second transcontinental railroad called the
Northern Pacific Railway. When Cooke's firm took account of how much money it owed and declared bankruptcy on September 18, 1873,
the news triggered a string of bankruptcies, bank failures, and foreclosures across the country.
Mob violence against the Chinese flared up again in 1877, a year when unemployment in California hovered at 20 percent. In late July,
workers in San Francisco rallied en masse to express solidarity for railroad workers mounting a nationwide strike. The protest soon got
out of hand, and a prolonged riot ensued. Venting their nativist anger, the white mob burned down dozens of Chinese businesses,
including 20 laundries, and attacked scores of Chinese bystanders.
Following the riot, a San Francisco businessman named Denis Kearney harnessed the widespread anti-Chinese resentment by forming
the Workingmen's Party of California (WPC). Kearney was an Irish-born immigrant who had come to the United States as a young man,
established a hauling business in San Francisco, and became an American citizen in 1876.
A fiery orator who threatened "to kill every wretch that opposes [his movement]," Kearney was frequently arrested under a "gag law"
that made it a felony to encourage riots through inflammatory rhetoric. He also popularized the nativist battle cry "The Chinese must
go!" [See Denis Kearney Gives Anti-Chinese Speech (primary document)]
The WPC would go on to spearhead the national anti-Chinese movement. In January 1878, the party held its first statewide convention
in San Francisco. It declared a broad anticapitalist agenda, which condemned big business in general and the railroad industry in
particular. The WPC also called for a ban on Chinese labor, which the party argued had driven down the wages of working-class whites
for the benefit of both business owners and "un-American" Chinese workers.
While the WPC dominated only two election years—1878 and 1879—before falling by the political wayside, it succeeded in shaping
several of the anti-Chinese provisions written into the California Constitution of 1879. These included the total disenfranchisement of any
"native of China," a complete ban on Chinese employment in the public sector, and a call to the state legislature to protect California
"from the burdens and evils arising from" the presence of Chinese immigrants. Californian lawmakers closely reflected the sentiments of
their citizens; in a statewide referendum that year on Chinese immigration, 99.4 percent of voters opposed it. [See 1879 California
Constitution Provisions Dealing with Chinese Immigrants (primary document)]
The political momentum from local anti-Chinese organizations like the WPC finally spilled over onto the national scene in the late 1870s.
California and its neighboring states had emerged as a veritable economic stronghold, and the Democrats and Republicans in the East
began to vie for Western votes. During the presidential election in 1876, both parties inserted anti-Chinese planks in their national
platforms. The most vocal defenders of the Chinese were entrepreneurs, who wanted them for their cheap and reliable labor, and
missionaries, who wanted to convert them to Christianity.
In 1879, Congress passed Fifteen Passenger Bill, a measure aimed at limiting to 15 the number of Chinese passengers permitted on
vessels arriving at U.S. ports. President Rutherford B. Hayes (R, 1877-81), however, vetoed the bill. While he did not object to limiting
Chinese immigration in principle, Hayes said, he claimed that the law violated the unlimited immigration clause of the Burlingame
Treaty.
In early 1880, Hayes appointed James Angell, president of the University of Michigan, to lead a diplomatic team to renegotiate the
Burlingame Treaty with China. Reluctantly, the Chinese government agreed to give the U.S. government the power to "regulate, limit, or
suspend" the immigration of Chinese laborers to the United States as long as such "limitation or suspension shall be reasonable."
However, China stipulated that those traveling to the United States as "teachers, students, merchants, or from curiosity" and their
servants, as well as Chinese workers already in the United States, should maintain the right "to go and come of their own free will and
accord." The U.S. Senate ratified the Angell Treaty, as it became known, in May 1881.
With the Angell Treaty in place, Congress passed another anti-Chinese bill in 1882. Under this new measure, a total ban on the
immigration of Chinese laborers would be imposed for 20 years. But like Hayes, President Chester A. Arthur (R, 1881-85) vetoed the
bill. Arthur claimed the 20-year ban was too harsh and not "reasonable," as required by the Angell Treaty. But he also hinted at
approving "a shorter experiment," so Congress went back to the drawing board.
On May 6, 1882, Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act into law, banning Chinese laborers for 10 years. It did permit the entry of
teachers, students, and merchants, but only in very limited numbers. Renewed in 1892 and 1902, the Chinese Exclusion Act remained in
force until 1943. [See The Exclusion of Female Chinese Immigrants (sidebar)]
The Chinese Exclusion Act essentially slammed the door on Chinese immigration. Was Congress justified in doing so for the "protection"
of American workers and the "integrity" of American culture? Or was the law a disgraceful betrayal of American values like freedom and
opportunity, not to mention an unwise blow to the national economy?
The Case for Chinese Exclusion
Supporters of the Chinese Exclusion Act maintained that the law was necessary to protect Americans from the economic and cultural
threats associated with Chinese immigration. The importation of cheap Chinese labor should not be regulated, they argued, but banned
outright. "California must be all American or all Chinese," WPC leader Denis Kearney said in an 1878 address. "We are resolved that it
shall be American, and are prepared to make it so."
Chinese workers threatened the livelihood of American workers in several ways, supporters of the act asserted. Because the Chinese
were willing to work for much lower wages than Americans or other immigrants, they argued, the Chinese drove down the wages of all
workers. When American laborers refused to accept such drastically low wages, particularly when they were not unionized, supporters
icah.infobaselearning.com/icahprintarticle.aspx?ID=107565&citation=mla
4/7
2/6/13
Issues and Controversies in American History
maintained, they were entirely displaced by Chinese laborers and put out of work.
The Chinese were able to survive with low pay, proponents of exclusion argued, because most of them had no families to support in the
United States and did not spend much of their earnings. "[The Chinese] pay little taxes;" read an official 1901 statement by the San
Francisco Building Trades (SFBT) in the debate leading up to the 1902 renewal of the Exclusion Act, "they support no institutions,
neither school, church, nor theater." [See Organized Labor Supports Ban on Chinese Immigration (primary document)]
Moreover, supporters argued, Chinese workers returned most of their money to their homeland. Their reluctance to contribute to the
U.S. economy hurt the economy as a whole, exclusionists charged, not just the wages of American workers. As the SFBT explained:
If [the U.S. economy] is stimulated by a nonassimilative and nonconsuming race, there is grave danger of overproduction
and stagnation. The home market should grow with the population. But the Chinese, living on the most meager food,
having no families to support, inured to deprivation, and hoarding their wages for use in their native land, whither they
invariably return, can not in any sense be regarded as consumers. Their earnings do not circulate nor are they reinvested,
contrary to those economic laws which make for the prosperity of nations.
The lower-wage labor provided by the Chinese may have decreased the production costs of U.S. industry and thus increased the
country's overall wealth, exclusionists conceded, but it also, as Kearney put it, "further widen[ed] the breach between the rich and the
poor." In other words, they claimed, the profits from cheap Chinese labor went into the coffers of the wealthy capitalist class rather than
bolstering the wages of the much larger working class. "It is the equitable distribution [of wealth] that must now be the concern of the
country," the SFBT stated.
The reluctance of the Chinese to assimilate economically, exclusionists maintained, was also true culturally: The Chinese put forth no real
effort to adopt American customs. The Chinese largely confined themselves to "Chinatown" districts, they claimed, which were simply
microcosms of their life back in China. "The American people are now convinced that the Chinese can not be incorporated among our
citizens, can not be amalgamated, can not be absorbed, but that they will remain a distinct element," one western senator declared in
1882.
Not only did the Chinese refuse to adopt American ways, exclusionists argued, but their own "peculiar" customs and values threatened
to undermine American culture. For instance, many claimed, Chinese laundries were typically fronts for immoral activities such as opium
smoking and prostitution. Supporters pointed to an 1885 report by the San Francisco board of supervisors, which determined the
following:
With the habits, manners, customs, and whole economy of life violating every accepted rule of hygiene; with open
cesspools, exhalations from water-closets, sinks, urinals, and sewers tainting the atmosphere with noxious vapors and
stifling odors; with people herded and packed in damp cellars, living literally the life of vermin, badly fed and clothed,
addicted to the daily use of opium to the extent that many hours of each day or night are passed in the delirious
stupefaction of its influence...the air is thick with smoke and fetid with an indescribable odor of reeking vapors.
Even if the Chinese wanted to adopt the American way of life, many exclusionists argued, they were simply incapable of doing so. "It has
been demonstrated that they can not, for the deep and ineradicable reasons of race and mental organization, assimilate with our own
people and be molded as are other races into strong and composite American stock," the SFBT stated. Overall, supporters of exclusion
argued, the Chinese should be kept out because of their unwillingness to assimilate and the threat they posed to the U.S. economy.
Calling them "counterfeit human beings," North Carolina writer Hinton Rowan Helper summed up his opposition to Chinese immigration
in his book Land of Gold: [See Hinton Rowan Helper Condemns Chinese Immigration (Excerpt) (primary document)]
Their places could and should be filled with worthier immigrants—Europeans, who would take the oath of allegiance to
the country, work both for themselves and for the commonwealth, fraternize with us, and, finally, become a part of us. All
things considered, I cannot perceive what more right or business these semi-barbarians have in California than flocks of
blackbirds have in a wheat field; for, as the birds carry off the wheat without leaving any thing of value behind, so do the
Confucians gather the gold, and take it away with them to China, without compensation to us who opened the way to it.
Not even a small number of Chinese workers should be allowed to enter the United States, exclusionists argued, since they would "form
the vanguard of an army of hundreds of millions, who, far from retreating before the white man, [would] thrive and multiply in
competition with him," one San Franciscan stated in 1907. To prevent such an invasion, labor leader Samuel Gompers declared, "The
superior whites had to exclude the inferior Asiatics, by law, or, if necessary, by force of arms."
The Case Against Chinese Exclusion
Opponents of the Chinese Exclusion Act maintained that the law was both unjust and unwise. The success of the Industrial Revolution
and economic prosperity of the United States, they argued, could not have been achieved without the low-wage foreign labor provided
by immigrants like the Chinese. More importantly, they contended, the law went against the nation's ideals of freedom and opportunity
and of America being an asylum for people the world over. As an 1882 editorial in Harper's Weekly stated: [See Harper's Weekly
Editorial Criticizing the Chinese Exclusion Bill (primary document)]
Considering the traditional declaration of our pride and patriotism that America is the home for the oppressed of every
clime and race, considering the spirit of our constitutional provision that neither race, color, nor previous condition of
servitude shall bar a citizen from voting, is it not both monstrous and ludicrous to decree that American civilization is
endangered by the 'Mongolian invasion?'
Chinese workers, opponents of exclusion insisted, should not have been denied the opportunity to share in the economic prosperity of
the United States simply because of their race or nationality. "The Chinamen coming here of his own accord and at his own expense of
icah.infobaselearning.com/icahprintarticle.aspx?ID=107565&citation=mla
5/7
2/6/13
Issues and Controversies in American History
accumulated earnings, has as much right here as you or any German, Russ, Switzer, Frank, Turk, Pole, Irish or Ethiopian in the land," B.
E. G. Jewett wrote in a letter to the editor of the Detroit Socialist in 1878. "[A]ir, land and water are eternally free to the whole race who
wish to live, they shall NOT be debarred that [privilege]."
The Chinese were model workers, opponents of the act argued, who should not have been punished simply because they were willing to
accept lower wages than their American counterparts. In fact, they claimed, despite their lower wages, the Chinese still managed to work
harder, were more willing to risk injury, and were far less likely to cause labor unrest than any other group of workers. And in many
instances, they insisted, the Chinese simply took the jobs that most American workers were unwilling to perform, thus contradicting the
common claim that the Chinese were stealing employment opportunities from others. "The Chinaman's only sin is, he will work," author
David Philips wrote in 1877. "If he can not get a high price, he will take a low one, but work he will."
By lowering the overall cost of industrial production, critics argued, low-wage Chinese labor invigorated the national economy. These
lowered costs freed up more capital, they maintained, allowing business owners to invest more heavily in new technology and further
expand the U.S. economy. With a stronger economy, everyone benefited. American consumers, for instance, were able to get more for
their money, opponents of exclusion argued, because consumer prices were driven down by the lower production costs of Chinese labor.
Other critics of the Exclusion Act railed against the low wages of the Chinese but nevertheless defended the Chinese workers and their
right to immigrate to the United States. The real enemy, they asserted, was not the Chinese but the capitalists. Business owners
imported low-wage laborers in a deliberate attempt to drive down wages, they argued, without any real regard for the immigrants
themselves. As Jewett wrote:
What we want to fight is not the Chinese...we want to fight the importers, persons, who, ministering to their own greed, to
the lust of the flesh and the pride of life, sell (or contract) into bondage the labor of others, and drive still others into
deeper degradation and poverty. Let our pacific coast friends fight the wealth mongers, and not their slaves, and they will
have not only justice but right on their side. [W]e have no right to raise a cry against any class of human beings because of
their nationality.
Anti-Chinese leaders like Kearney, themselves immigrants, were blatant hypocrites, opponents charged. How could those who
immigrated to the United States for its freedom and opportunity, they asked, rightly exclude others who wished to do the same? "The
cry that the 'Chinese must go' is both narrow and unjust," Irish-born socialist Joseph McDonnell wrote in an 1878 editorial in the Labor
Standard. "It is merely a repetition of the cry that was raised years ago by native Americans against the immigration of Irishmen,
Englishmen, Germans and others from European nations."
For supporters of the Exclusion Act to condone the immigration of Europeans to the U.S. but not Chinese immigration was simply racist,
opponents argued. "If the Chinese in California were white people, being in all other respects what they are, I do not believe that the
complaints and warfare made against them would have existed to any considerable extent," Senator Oliver Morton (R, Indiana)
declared.
Broadly characterizing the Chinese community as dirty, diseased, and dependent on drugs was misleading and inflammatory, opponents
of the act insisted. For every Chinese who fit that description, there were many, many more who were clean. upstanding, and
respectable members of society. As writer Joaquin Miller observed: "I never, during all my years of intercourse with this people, saw a
single drunken Chinaman. I never saw a Chinese beggar. I never saw a lazy Chinaman.... They are not strikers, rioters, and burners of
cities." In other words, opponents maintained, it was wrong to paint a portrait of an entire race of people based on the exaggerated traits
of a few. [See Robert Louis Stevenson Defends Chinese Immigrants (Excerpt) (primary document), Mark Twain Defends Chinese
Immigrants (Excerpts) (primary document)]
The reason the Chinese did not assimilate into American culture, opponents argued, was the fierce racism and legal exclusion they faced
at the hands of white Americans. How could supporters have complained that the Chinese did not adopt an American way of life,
opponents asked, when the Chinese were systematically barred from joining the greater community?
Senator George Frisbie Hoar (R, Massachusetts) boiled the debate town to its underlying cause: "old race prejudice"—"the last of human
delusions to be overcome." Such racial prejudice, he argued on the floor of the Senate in 1882, "has left its hideous and ineradicable stains
in our history in crimes committed by every generation." Citing "the great doctrine of human equality in our Declaration of
Independence," Senator Hoar concluded: "We go boasting of our democracy, and our own superiority, and our strength. The flag bears
the stars of hope to all nations. A hundred thousand Chinese land in California and everything is changed.... The self-evident truth
becomes a self-evident lie."
Legacy of Chinese Exclusion Act
In the two decades after the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the United States and China constantly argued over the extent to
which the U.S. government could limit Chinese immigration. The Bayard-Zhang Treaty of 1888, which would have prevented the
immigration of Chinese who did not have family or at least $1,000 in assets in the United States, faced fierce resistance in China and was
never ratified. Congress subsequently passed the Scott Act (1888) and the Geary Act (1892), both of which imposed severe new
restrictions on Chinese immigration. In the early 20th century, the United States made the Chinese Exclusion Act permanent.
Throughout this period, the Chinese continued to face rampant discrimination and violent reprisals within the United States. Segregation
laws, akin to "Jim Crow" laws used against African Americans in the South, were strictly imposed by various Western states to limit the
rights of the Chinese. Violence against them was higher than ever in the 1880s, particularly during the so-called Anti-Chinese Hysteria of
1885-86. The worst incident during that period was the murder of 28 Chinese mine workers in Rock Springs, Wyoming, in September
1885, a massacre that sparked further violence in Seattle, Tacoma, and other towns in Washington Territory.
While the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 singled out one specific nationality, it also triggered a whole range of restrictions on a variety of
icah.infobaselearning.com/icahprintarticle.aspx?ID=107565&citation=mla
6/7
2/6/13
Issues and Controversies in American History
immigrant groups, including East Indians, Japanese, and Middle Easterners. That same year, for instance, Congress passed a law that
imposed a tax on every immigrant entering the United States, while prohibiting the entry of convicts, the mentally retarded, lunatics,
and those thought likely to become a public charge. Restrictions on immigration culminated 40 years later with the Immigration Act of
1924. This law vastly reduced the numbers of Eastern and Southern European immigrants and barred nearly all Asians.
In spite of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, Chinese merchants, their families, students, and elite travelers continued to enter the
United States legally. But the law proved very effective in limiting the great majority of those seeking entry—laborers—and thus the
Chinese population in the United States substantially declined. Nevertheless, many Chinese workers entered the country illegally, either
by sneaking across borders or jumping ship as stowaways. One elaborate scheme involved the abuse of an immigration loophole that
allowed U.S.-born Chinese to bring back two children whom they had conceived while visiting China. Instead, they brought back people
posing as their children, who were usually extended family members but sometimes strangers who paid for a slot. Because "children"
with false papers were usually boys, they were referred to as "paper sons."
A major turning point in the history of Chinese immigration occurred during World War II (1939-45). In this conflict, the United States
and China were close allies against Japan. As a token of solidarity, Congress in 1943 passed the Magnuson Act, which repealed the
Chinese Exclusion Act, scaled back other exclusion laws, and allowed Chinese to become naturalized U.S. citizens. The new law by no
means swung open the doors to Chinese immigration, however; China was allotted an annual quota of just 105 immigrants under the
Magnuson Act. (While restrictions on Chinese immigration were relaxed during the war, U.S. policy toward another Asian people—the
Japanese—tightened significantly. In addition to a continued ban on all Japanese immigration, the U.S. government, out of national
security concerns and a general suspicion toward the loyalty of Americans of Japanese descent, forcefully relocated more than 100,000
Japanese and Japanese Americans into "War Relocation Camps," an incident known as Japanese Internment.) [See Japanese American
Internment]
Not until Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1965 did the U.S. government equalize immigration and abolish the various nationalorigin quotas in place since 1924. "The time has come for us to insist that the quota system be replaced by the merit system," Attorney
General Robert Kennedy wrote in favor of the act. Under the new law, an annual limit of 170,000 visas was established for immigrants
from Eastern Hemisphere countries, with no more than 20,000 immigrants from each country, regardless of the size of that country. Of
those visas, which were available on a first-come, first-served basis, 75 percent were for specified "preference" relatives of citizens and
lawful permanent residents, and an unlimited number were available to spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens.
Despite the landmark act of 1965, immigration has continued to be a hot-button issue in the 21st century. Many of the contemporary
debates over economics, assimilation, and underworld activity echo those first raised during the controversy overy Chinese immigration
in the 19th century.
Bibliography
Chan, Sucheng, ed. Entry Denied: Exclusion and the Chinese Community in America, 1882-1943. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press, 1994.
Chang, Iris. The Chinese in America: A Narrative History. New York: Penguin, 2004.
Chen, Yong. Chinese San Francisco, 1850-1943: A Trans-Pacific Community. Palo Alto, California: Stanford University Press, 2000.
Gyory, Andrew. Closing the Gate: Race, Politics, and the Chinese Exclusion Act. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998.
Lee, Erika. At America's Gates: Chinese Immigration during the Exclusion Era, 1882-1943. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press, 2006.
Pfaelzer, Jean. Driven Out: The Forgotten War against Chinese Americans. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008.
Yung, Judy. Unbound Voices: A Documentary History of Chinese Women in San Francisco. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1999.
Yung, Judy, Gordon Chang, and Him Mark Lai, eds. Chinese American Voices: From the Gold Rush to the Present. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2006.
Citation Information
Bodenner, Chris. “Chinese Exclusion Act.” Issues & Controversies in American History. Infobase Publishing, 20 Oct. 2006. Web. 6 Feb. 2013.
<http://icah.infobaselearning.com/icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=107565>.
RECORD URL: http://icah.infobaselearning.com/icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=107565
icah.infobaselearning.com/icahprintarticle.aspx?ID=107565&citation=mla
7/7