Immigration Law 1943-1965
Asian Americans and the Law
Dr. Steiner
Filipino American Population:
Immigration by Decade and Immigration Law in Effect
Decade ending
Population
Immigration in
Prior Decade
Law in Effect in Prior Decade
1910
2,767
U.S. possession
1920
26,634
U.S. possession
1930
108,424
U.S. possession
1940
98,535
781
In 1934, 1917 & 1924 Acts
1950
122,707
4,324
In 1946, quota of 100
1960
176,310
19,307
1952 Act
1970
343,060
98,376
1953 Act; 1965 Act
1980
781,894
354,987
1965 Act
1990
1,406,770
525,300
1965 Act
--Hing, Making and Remaking Asian America Through Immigration Policy, 1850-1990
Asian Indian American Population:
Immigration by Decade and Immigration Law in Effect
Decade ending
Population
Immigration in
Prior Decade
Law in Effect in Prior Decade
1910
5,424
4,713
Open
2,082
Asiatic barred Zone (1917)
1920
1930
3,130
1,886
1924 Act
1940
2,405
496
1924 Acts
1,761
In 1946, quota of 100
1950
1960
12,296
1,973
1946 quota;1952 Act
1970
72,500
27,189
1952 Act; 1965 Act
1980
387,223
164,134
1965 Act
1990
815,447
147,900
1965 Act
--Hing, Making and Remaking Asian America Through Immigration Policy, 1850-1990
Chinese American Population:
Immigration by Decade and Immigration Law in Effect
Decade
ending
Population
Immigration in
Prior Decade
Law in Effect in Prior Decade
1880
105,465
123,201
Burlingame Treaty
1890
107,488
61,711
Chinese Exclusion Act
1900
118,746
14,799
Chinese Exclusion Act
1910
94,414
20,605
Chinese Exclusion Act
1920
85,202
21,278
Chinese Exclusion Act
1930
102,159
29,907
Chinese Exclusion Act/1924 Act
1940
106,334
4,928
Chinese Exclusion Act/Chinese Repealer
1950
150,005
16,709
Chinese Repealer/Asian-Pacific Triangle
1960
237,292
25,201
Asian-Pacific Triangle
1970
436,062
109,771
Asian-Pacific Triangle; 1965 Act
1980
812,178
237,793
1965 Act
1990
1,645,472
446,000
1965 Act
Racing the Enemy

The “yellow” color race code was the branding of
choice when referring to the Japanese. They were
the “yellow peril,” and “yellow monkeys.” Even Time
magazine in a report on Pearl Harbor used the
phrase, “the yellow bastards!” The New York Times
contributed with their own anti-Japanese rhetoric
explaining how the Japanese “have kept their
savage tradition ‘unbroken through ages eternal,’
from the fabulous age of their savage gods to the
present day.”

Anthony V. Navarro, A Critical Comparison Between Japanese
and American Propaganda during World War II
“Great East Asia War”
December 13, 1941

Overthrow the American and British
imperialists, who have oppressed and
squeezed one billion Asians, in order to
establish an ideal order of co-prosperity and
co-existence in East Asia.
Japanese Propaganda Leaflet

America is China’s ally. Americans say they love
and admire the Chinese. But can you go to
America, can you become citizens? No. Americans
do not want you. They just want you to do their
fighting. Their Exclusion Act names you and says
you are unfit for American citizenship. . . . There will
be no such discrimination against you in the Greater
East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere.
“The Hypocritical and Ugly Face of the United States,”
China Daily (June 24, 1943)

If the American government does not abolish
the discriminatory laws against the Chinese,
Asian people have no equality. . . . All Asians
[must] unite together to drive away American
and British imperialists from Asia in order to
establish a prosperous Asia for the Asiatics.
Japanese radio broadcasts

Far from waging this war to liberate the
oppressed peoples of the world, the AngloAmerican leaders are trying to restore the
obsolete system of imperialism.
Pearl S. Buck, Feb. 1942

The Japanese weapon of
racial propaganda in Asia is
beginning to show signs of
effectiveness. . . . We cannot
win this war without
convincing our colored
allies—who are most of our
allies—that we are not
fighting for ourselves as
continuing superior over
colored peoples.
Citizens Committee to Repeal Chinese Exclusion and Place
Immigration on a Quota Basis
Exclusion and Extraterritoriality

Exclusion and Extraterritoriality,
Contemporary China (May 18, 1942)


“White supremacy” of American immigration laws
and extraterritoriality criticized
This is No Racial War, Contemporary China
(August 10, 1942)

Freedom and equality for “all the oppressed races
and nations”
United States Department of State
June 17, 1942

Japanese campaigns of “Asia for the Asiatics”
and “the colored races of the world united
under Japanese leadership against the white
races” could win in Asia
United States Rescinds Extraterritoriality
Oct. 10, 1942



“Extraterritoriality” was invoked by colonial powers to
deprive foreign nations of jurisdiction over crimes by
Westerners, who would be tried by courts constituted
by their home countries such as the United States
Court for China.
FDR announced that United States had decided to
rescind one-sided treaties
Chiang Kai-shek responded that FDR’s action would
“unquestionably . . . boost morale of our Chinese to
fight against aggression continuously” and “any other
actions can not compare with the abolition of the
unequal treaties”
Memorandum by the Advisor on Political Relations,
Department of State (June 9, 1943)

During the past forty years the Japanese,
increasingly smarting under the grievance, as
they saw it, of our discrimination against them
as a race, made of this discrimination a
diplomatic issue and used the fact of this
discrimination as a springboard and a
projectile of propaganda among their own
people against the white race in general and
the United States in particular.
Hearings on Chinese Exclusion,
House Committee on Immigration and
Naturalization, May/June 1943

Six hearings with fifty-one witnesses


42 witnesses favored repeal, arguing repeal would
help the United States win the war
9 opposed, including coalition named American
Coalition who called Chinese “morally the most
debased people on the face of the earth”
Representative Walter H. Judd
(Rep. Minn.), 1943

There will never be a
war between the white
and colored races, if
only we keep the largest
and strongest of them,
the Chinese, with us.
FDR Special Message to Congress
Oct. 10, 1943

Congress had to “take the
offensive in this propaganda
war and repeal the laws that
insult our only ally on the
mainland of Asia”
FDR, Oct. 11, 1943

China is our ally. For many long years she
stood alone in the fight against aggression.
Today we fight at her side. She has
continued her gallant struggle against very
great odds. . . . By the repeal of the Chinese
exclusion law, we can correct a historic
mistake and silence the distorted Japanese
propaganda.
FDR Dec. 17, 1943

It is with particular pride and pleasure that I
have today signed the bill repealing the
Chinese exclusion acts. . . . An unfortunate
barrier between allies has been removed.
The war effort in the Far East can now be
carried on with a greater vigor and a larger
understanding of our common purpose.
What did the Repealer accomplish?


Quotas for Chinese immigrants (105 per
year)
Chinese immigrants became eligible for
naturalization
Chinese Americans and WWII


Approximately 14,000 Chinese served in U.S.
Armed Forces—22% of all Chinese adult males
Harold Liu: “In the 1940s for the first time Chinese
were accepted by Americans as being friends
because at that time, Chinese and Americans were
fighting against the Japanese and the Germans and
the Nazis. Therefore, all of a sudden, we became
part of the American Dream. . . . It was a whole
different era and in the community we began to feel
very good about ourselves.”
Filipino Americans and WWII



Bataan: “The gallant United States and Philippine
forces in Bataan peninsula surrendered today after
enduring the tortures of hell. They were beaten, but
it was a fight that ought to make every American
bow his head in tribute. . . . The Americans fought
for everything they loved, as did the Filipinos.”
Carlos Bulosan: “Bataan has fallen. . .Our defeat is
our victory.”
Manuel Buaken: “No longer on the streetcar do I feel
myself in the presence of my enemies. We Filipinos
are the same—it is Americans that have changed in
their recognition of us.
1946 Changes in Immigration Law

Filipinos and Asian Indians




Naturalization and “Asiatic Barred Zone”
immigration restrictions lifted
100 person quota for each year established
No quota for spouses and children of citizens
Chinese

Annual quota of 105 remained in place, but
nonquota status extended to Chinese wives of
citizens
McCarran-Walter Act (1952)




Reaffirmed the basic provisions of the national
origins quota system; seventy percent of all
immigrant slots allotted to natives of United
Kingdom, Ireland, and Germany
Annual ceiling for all immigration set at 154,277.
Immigration and naturalization exclusions against
Asians were abolished
The act gave preferences (within the national origins
quotas) to foreigners with education or skills (fifty
percent), as well as relatives (twenty percent)
McCarran-Walter Act
and American Foreign Policy

This bill would make all persons, regardless of race,
eligible for naturalization, and would set up minimum
quotas for aliens now barred for racial reasons.
Thus, persons of Japanese, Korean, Indonesian,
etc., ancestry could be admitted and naturalized as
any other qualified alien. No doubt this will have a
favorable effect on our international relations,
particularly in the Far East. American exclusion
policy has long been resented there and, in the eyes
of qualified observers, was an important factor in the
anti-American feeling in Japan prior to the last World
War.

House Judiciary Committee Report (1952)
McCarran-Walter Act and the AsiaPacific Triangle
McCarran-Walter and Asia-Pacific
Triangle


Asia-Pacific Triangle included all countries
from India to Japan and all Pacific islands
north of Australia
Maximum quota for Triangle set at 2000, with
annual quotas of 100 for the nineteen
countries within Triangle
McCarran-Walter Act and Race:
Minority Report

Complete adoption of the principle that an alien be
chargeable to the quota of his country of birth,
regardless of race, on the other hand, would
enhance our Nation’s moral leadership in the world
and, in particular, would strengthen our prestige in
the critical areas of Asia and the lands of the Pacific
where the struggle between democracy and
communism rages most fiercely in the minds of
men. The gain to us may be the lives of millions of
our sons.
Pat McCarran (Dem., Nevada)
Harms of Increased Asian Immigration, 1952

[T]he cold, hard truth is that in the United
States today there are hard-core,
indigestible blocs who have not become
integrated into the American way of life,
but who, on the contrary, are its deadly
enemy. The cold, hard truth, Mr.
President, is that today, as never before,
untold millions are storming our gates for
admission; and those gates are cracking
under the strain. The cold, hard fact is,
too, Mr. President, that this Nation is the
last hope of western civilization; and if this
oasis of the world shall be overrun,
perverted, contaminated, or destroyed,
then the last flickering light of humanity
will be extinguished.
Harry S Truman’s Veto Message of
McCarran-Walter Act


These are only a few examples of the
absurdity, the cruelty of carrying over into this
year of 1952 the isolationist limitations of our
1924 law. In no other realm of our national life
are we so hampered and stultified by the
dead hand of the past, as we are in this field
of immigration.
Veto overriden.
JFK on “National Origins”
July 23, 1963

It neither satisfies a national
need nor accomplishes an
international purpose. In an age
of interdependence among
nations, such a system is an
anachronism for it discriminates
among applicants for admission
into the United States on the
basis of the accident of birth.
Wait Lists under McCarran-Walter



When visas weren’t available, an alien could
be placed on a waiting list
When 1965 Act passed, the largest backlog
for visas was in Italy and Greece
But 40,000 were on the Chinese wait list,
which meant a wait of 380 years because of
a quota set at 105
The Hart-Celler Act of 1965


Abolished the national origins quota system
Allocated 170,000 visas to countries in the Eastern
Hemisphere and 120,000 to countries in the
Western Hemisphere.




This increased the annual ceiling on immigrants from
150,000 to 290,000.
Each Eastern Hemisphere country was allowed an
allotment of 20,000 visas, while in the Western Hemisphere
there was no per-country limit.
Non-quota immigrants and immediate relatives (i.e.,
spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens over
the age of 21) were not to be counted as part of either the
hemispheric or country ceiling.
Three Decades of Mass Immigration (Center for Immigration Studies, 1995)
Hart-Celler Act

No person shall receive any preference or
priority or be discriminated against in the
issuance of an immigrant visa because of his
race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place
of residence. . . .
Immigration and Foreign Policy

Representative John Lindsay, 1965
[T]his nation has committed itself to the
defense of the independence of South
Vietnam. Yet the quota for that country of 15
million is exactly 100. Apparently we are
willing to risk a major war for the right of the
Vietnamese people to live in freedom at the
same time our quota system makes it clear
that we do not want very great numbers of
them to live with us.
Gabriel Chin,
The Civil Rights Revolution Comes to Immigration Law (1996)

The revolutionary feature of the 1965 Act was its elimination
of race and national origin as selection criteria for new
Americans. Race neutrality was a significant development
for American immigration law . . . . The 1965 Act represents
a high-water mark for opponents of immigration restriction.
They celebrate the humane spirit of the 88th and 89th
Congresses which, in two remarkable years, passed the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and
the 1965 immigration law. Diversification of the immigrant
stream is, from this perspective, no less a civil rights
triumph than is equal opportunity under law in the voting
booth or in the workplace. The elimination of race as a
factor was a practical as well as symbolic change. Since
1965, upwards of seventy-five percent of immigrants have
been from Asia, Africa, or Central or South America.
LBJ at Signing Ceremony for Hart-Celler
of 1965

This system violates the basic
principle of American
democracy–the principle that
values and rewards each man
on the basis of his merit as a
man. It has been unAmerican in the highest
sense, because it has been
untrue to the faith that
brought thousands to these
shores even before we were
a country.
Civil Rights and Immigration

The national origins
quotas and the AsianPacific triangle
provisions are irrational,
arrogantly intolerant, and
immoral.

Senator Joseph Clark
(Dem. Pa.), 1965
Immigration and Civil Rights

I would consider the amendments to the
Immigration and Nationality Act to be as
important as the landmark legislation of this
Congress relating to the Civil Rights Act. The
central purpose of the administration's
immigration bill is to once again undo
discrimination and to revise the standards by
which we choose potential Americans in
order to be fairer to them and which will
certainly be more beneficial to us.

Rep. Robert Sweeney (D-OH) (Aug. 25, 1965)
Immigration and Civil Rights

Just as we sought to eliminate discrimination
in our land through the Civil Rights Act, today
we seek by phasing out the national origins
quota system to eliminate discrimination in
immigration to this nation composed of the
descendants of immigrants.

Rep. Philip Burton (D-Cal) (Aug. 25, 1965)
Civil Rights and
Immigration

After almost 100 years,
Asian peoples are no
longer discriminated
against in the
immigration laws of our
country.

Edward Kennedy
(Dem. Mass)
Civil Rights Act of 1964



Prohibited discrimination
in public places,
Provided for the
integration of schools
and other public facilities,
Made employment
discrimination illegal
Voting Rights Act of 1965


Prohibited
practices such
as literacy tests
that had used to
disenfranchise
blacks in South
Provided for
special federal
remedies
Hart-Celler Act:
Family Reunification


Immediate relatives defined as “the children,
spouses, and parents of a citizen of the
United States”
Immediate relatives admitted “without regard
to the numerical limitations in this Act”
Post-1965 Immigration Patterns


In 1965, Canada, Mexico, United Kingdom,
Germany were the top countries sending
immigrants to the United States
By 1973, the order was Mexico, the
Philippines, Cuba, and Korea; China, India,
and the Dominican Republic replaced
Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany
from the top ten.
Continent/Country of Origin
Africa
Asia
Immigrants 1971-2002
875,700
7,331,500
China
1,179,300
India
1,005,100
Philippines
1,508,100
South Korea
Vietnam
839,600
1,098,000
Europe
3,300,400
North America
9,844,500
Caribbean
2,936,800
Central America
1,334,200
Mexico
5,141,600
Immigration Chains:
Non-quota Family Reunification



In 1975, 386,194 immigrants admitted to
U.S., including 132,469 Asians with 33,539
immediate relatives
In 1980, 560,639 immigrants admitted,
including 236,097 from Asia with 59,029
immediate relatives
In 1990, 1,536,483 immigrants admitted,
including 338,581 Asians, including 96,810
relatives
Professionals
and Immigration Patterns

In 1973, less than 25% of immigrants were in
professional and technical fields; 54% of
Asians were in this category, including 67%
of Filipinos and 83% of Asian Indians

Maldwyn Allen Jones, American Immigration(2d ed. 1992)
Asian Pacific Americans with a Bachelors Degree or Higher by Ethnicity and
Immigrant Status
Vietnamese
Korean
Filipino
Chinese
Native Born
Immigrant
Asian
Indian
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Table from Reframing the Immigration Debate 56 (1996)
Family Reunification/Occupational
Categories, 1969, 1985, 1989
Place of Birth
Relatives
1969
China
Occupational
1985
Occupational
1989
60.9% 80.9% 92.6% 20.8%
15.8%
5.2%
India
27
85.9
85.1
45
12.6
1.4
Japan
74.5
59.4
64.1
17.6
33.1
28.9
Korea
64
89.2
88.9
23.2
7.6
9.5
Philippines 55
86.9
87.8
42.3
7.6
8.1
Vietnam
15.7
98.8
8
.18
1.1
82.7
Relatives
1985
Relatives
1989
Occupational
1969
Family Reunification and Occupational
Preference Categories


Family reunification categories offered more
visas (80% of all preference and 100% of
immediate-relative, nonquota visas until
1990) and less stringent requirements
(relationship as spouse, parent, child, or
sibling)
Occupational categories required certification
from the Department of Labor that no
qualified American worker could fill the
position

Hing, Making and Remaking Asian America Through Immigration Policy
Filipina Nurses and the 1965 Act


By 1974, there were more than 10,000 Filipina
nurses in the United States. What accounts for
this influx of nurses?
Push-pull factors




American colonization had led to American-style nursing
programs
Philippine colleges producing large numbers of
graduates, but the economy promised few jobs
Philippine government actively encouraged nurses to go
to the United States for work
The United States had a chronic nursing shortage
Philippine Economy


“There is an overabundance of a welleducated middle class in the Philippines, and
a startling number of them cannot use their
special learning after graduation. The
Philippine government’s own statistics
indicate that only 60% of today’s college
graduates are employed in any more than
menial jobs.” Los Angeles Times 1972
In addition to lack of jobs, wages were low.
Ferdinand Marcos
Address to Philippine Nurses Association 1973

And so, in short, what is the policy
of nursing? . . . It is our policy to
promote the migration of nurses. .
. . I repeat, we will now encourage
the training of all nurses because
as I repeat, this is a market that
we should take advantage of.
Instead of stopping the nurses
from going abroad why don’t we
produce more nurses? If they
want a thousand nurses we
produce a thousand more.
Overseas Employment Development
Board

Established by Philippine government in 1974




Publicized availability of Filipino labor in overseas
labor markets
Evaluated overseas employment contracts
Recruited Filipino workers for work abroad,
including vigorously promoting the migration of
nurses
Catherine Ceniza Choy, Relocating Struggle:
Filipino Nurses Organize in the United States

The Asian Population 2000 (Census Brief 2002)

The Asian Population 2000 (Census Brief 2002)
From the Mideast to the Pacific:
A Profile of the Nation’s Asian ForeignBorn Population (Census Brief 2000)
Unintended Consequences?
Bill Ong Hing (1993)

In considering and ultimately passing these [1965
immigration] reforms, policymakers did not pay careful
attention to those Asian American and Asian social
forces that Congress and state governments had
previously endeavored to hold in check—Asian
American family needs, economic ambitions, and
residential patterns. Most policymakers did not
understand how the political, economic, and social
dynamics in Asian countries would influence
immigration. They knew little about Asian American
communities, Asian countries, and their relationship,
and their analyses by and large were cursory and
highly inaccurate. Asian immigration after 1965 took
the United States by surprise.
Attorney General Robert Kennedy
Predicts What?

I would say for the AsiaPacific triangle it would
be approximately
5,000, . . . after which
immigration from that
source would virtually
disappear; 5,000
immigrants would come
in the first year, but we
do not expect that there
would be any great
influx after that.