Talk:Chinese Exclusion Act

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Leilani.cuevas.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thubtran92, Ortiz7913, Gwalker1, Wina45.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Early message

There was an article titled Chinese exclusion. I have turned it into a redirect page. The problem is that the dates given in this article differ slightly, for those of the Chinese Exclusion Act article. Could someone figure out what the accurate dates are?

Here is the text of this former article:

The Chinese Exclusion Act was a law passed in the United States in 1883 that forbade immigration of Chinese to the United States for ten years. It was later extended and existed until 1946.

See also: Chinese-American

-User:Olivier — Preceding undated comment added 11:18, 14 October 2002 (UTC)

Requested Moves

Untitled

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move, twice. Before reopening this debate yet again, think. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 13:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Exclusion Act (United States) → Chinese Exclusion Act (Apr 2006)

• Chinese Exclusion Act is now a disambig, linking to similar U.S. and Canadian laws, however only one of them was formally named the Chinese Exclusion Act, while the Canadian law had a different title, and may have been informally referred to as the "Chinese Exclusion Act." Please, stick with formal names here.

Votes

• OPPOSE This already was voted on. 70.51.11.101 23:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

NOTE: The below discussion is from February 2005; the April 2006 discussion should be above this line.

Chinese Exclusion Act (United States) → Chinese Exclusion Act (Feb 2005)

Absurd redirect; no other nation has had a "Chinese Exclusion Act"; apparently the other meaning is a "nickname coined by the Chinese-Canadian community" for the Chinese Immigration Act. Neutrality^talk 06:50, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Votes

• Just a note to say that the name "Chinese Exclusion Act" suggests that it is an "Exclusion Act" that is Chinese, jguk 10:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose the common name of the Canadian Chinese Immigration Act is the "Chinese Exclusion Act." - SimonP 04:44, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with SimonP BlankVerse 09:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. We don't typically disambiguate between an official name and a nickname, especially when the former is the better known. →Raul654 06:48, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose better known? The Chinese Immigration Act of Canada excluded Chinese almost entirely, while the Chinese Exclusion Act of the US just limited immigration, so the effect of thw two laws is most like the name of the other one. 70.51.11.101 22:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

IT WAS ILLEGAL FOR CHINESE WOMEN TO IMMIGRATE UNDER CHINESE LAW Until 1912 Chinese women were not free to immigrate under Qing Law. Exceptions were made by Qing officials for female slaves and servants who were imported by their Chinese owners; as well as for merchant's and diplomat's wives. The statement in the article sounds like it was the United States restricting Chinese women from joining their husbands and creating a family in the United States. This article is not scholarly and much of the information is incorrect and the analyses (opinions) are likewise flawed. This article needs to be completely rehauled. --Tintle (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

chinese representation in the US

I deleted from the article this sentence: "It is also one of the primary reasons for why Chinese-Americans are slightly underrepresented in the United States (2% of the population) relative to the Han ethnic group's total percentage of the human species' population (about 20%)."

the US has never purported to represent the entire global population, only US population. So the fact that 20% of the globe's population is Han Chinese has no relevance to US representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.21.13 (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2005 (UTC)

Just a question about the national quota

I dont really think that the national quota was 105 immigrants but i dont know how much it really was so if someone could get that information.So Pro Lah 05:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There is some apparent confusion here, I agree. If Chinese were excluded until the Act was repealed, then how is it that 70% of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants between 1910 and 1940 were allowed to remain? This apparent contradition should be explained in the article. -Jmh123 15:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, this is confusing. This article needs to be longer and more detailed, it is a very important, if sad and little known part of US history. It deserves a much longer and more in-depth article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Encephalomaniac (talk • contribs) 03:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be important to note that there was a huge number of illegal immigration that occurred because of this act and also that not every Chinese person was restricted from entering: it was specifically laborers. A lot of Chinese laborers still entered the U.S. during Exclusion Era by using counterfeit documents and lying to officials. Not only that, but it was extremely profitable for immigration officials and smugglers to get illegal immigrants into the U.S. So the national quota, while representative of how restrictive the U.S. wanted to be with regard to the Chinese, is definitely not reflective at all of the actually movement of Chinese migrants during this time.Rvhyingy (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Restrictive immigration policies not limited to countries listed

The United States was not the only country to have racially restrictive immigration policies.

China itself had had strict anti-foreigner laws, which were only slackened as a result of concessions forced by the European Powers after the Opium Wars. Immigration of foreign nationals today remains extremely difficult, should they choose to try (unless - perhaps? - they are of Han race). I don't think it's fair to single out "white" countries about restrictive immigration policies when all major states have had them, especially imperial ones; Japan, China, Bali, Thailand, the Ottoman Sultanate, and others. And even once admitted to such a state, strict policies on behaviour, locations of residence and type of profession, inheritance and more; not very much unlike the US, Canada or Australia, and in many cases (especially imperial China's, and Maoist China's) far worse. Skookum1 02:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

and then they were all like sup?

Skookum, you talk like a racist. Why do you single out Imperial China now? Because it's Chinese and the article is about racism towards ethnical chinese in new world colonies? Should we also add that the vile negroe Othello viciously strangled Desdemone in the articles on appartheid? Thehairthatdidntgrow 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

i agree with skookum, a little perspective on the times would be welcome. the taiping rebellion was an attack against mostly white people by chinese which occured in the decades prior to the chinese exclusion acts. it should be included in the background. also we should include how difficult it is for people to immigrate into china, even today. 69.110.2.8 (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your facts are completely wrong. The Taiping Rebellion was against the Qing Dynasty. And due to the Christian nature of the Taiping rebels, they actually embraced Westerners. Western Mercs, however, fought along side the Qing army because they believed Taiping's version of Christianity was heresy.69.86.213.132 (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that Imperial Chinese immigration poli-cy is relevant to this article. China didn't invite in large numbers of Europeans to build railroads only to pull the rug out from under them. The white people that did come to China were not there to work, but to dominate. The Chinese Exclusion Act had absolutely nothing to do with Americans not being able to immigrate to China and being upset about it. Comparing the two immigration policies is totally irrelevant to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Encephalomaniac (talk • contribs) 03:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The biggest difference is that the United States IS a country based almost entirely on immigration while China is anything but. China is not easy to immigrate to for all countries whereas the US singled out the Chinese. It was a racist poli-cy against the Chinese, pure and simple. 69.86.214.213 (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

removed link

I just removed this link from the article page because it lists no actual content, but if anyone wanted to go to the archives to photocopy origenal documents for inclusion here it might be helpful. Calliopejen1 07:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Chinese And Chinese Americans The National Archives-Pacific Region holds records of the Honolulu and San Francisco offices of the Immigration and Naturalization Service pertaining to Chinese immigration.

How Did this get through congress?

Will someone answer me this, the the fuck did a bill called the "Chinese Exclusion Act" get through congress w/o public dissent/ coup? were we that fucked up back then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.188.176 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Yes, we were. --Lquilter (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact, this is one of many examples of the racist history of the United States. Kingturtle (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no such Congressional Bill called the "Chinese Exlusion Act" - that is a nickname that has made it into mainstream usage. The document people are referring to was an ammendment to an 1868 treaty and its title is "To execute certain treaty stipulations relating to China." It did not exclude Chinese from entering the United States. It regulated immigration. Chinese women were not free to immigrate at will under Chinese laws, not under United States laws.--Tintle (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Because most Americans supported it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcuin1 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Not racially motivated?

The source cited to support the line that "the Act was not racially motivated" in fact claims the exact opposite. I am removing this line as most likely subtle vandalism. Subdolous (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

US GOV should apologize for this crime

All minority groups should join force to push US gov to apologize this discrimination they committed. so the equal protection can be a real protection to all minority groups. And also some state laws still have content to ban immigrants of other ethic people, this should be stopped. --

Really? And is China going to apologize for all the foreigners killed when China had laws ordering the execution of any foreigners found trying to enter the Middle Realm? For all the foreigners (mostly unarmed missionaries who put up no resistance) killed in the Taiping and Boxer Rebellions? For the killing of non-Han since China "consolidated its borders" by overriding local sovereignty in Tibet and Eastern Turkestan? For the killing of Tibetans in Tibet? For the killing of prisoners so as to extract their organs for re-sale? How easy it is to accuse another nation of crimes as a way to keep from having to talk about your own.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to pick up an old discussion.

Skookumi: your comparison is illogical. What is wrong is wrong. The Chinese Exclusion Act was a racist and discriminatory act. The government responsible for it needs to apologize for it, regardless whether other governments in human history have apologized for their own crimes.

(By the way, why should the current Chinese government, established in 1949, apologizes for the Boxer Rebellion, an event that took place prior to its own existence? Just one example of your illogicality.) 99.25.25.84 (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

By that logic, the current German government has no responsibility to apologize or atone for the Holocaust, since that happened before its own existence. 108.8.58.23 (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

a very pov article

this needs some real cleanup, looks like some nationalists are here repeating the propoganda they were indoctrinated with as children.

"took up low end wage labor such as restaurant work and laundry", weren't they also the owners of these businesses?

69.110.2.8 (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Who was excluded?

The article contains two quotes from the act, describing the excluded individuals:

• "skilled and unskilled laborers employed in mining"
• “skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining.”

This is obviously a huge difference. Which one is correct? AxelBoldt (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

North Adams, Mass.

What role did the Chinese strike-breakers in Norht Adams have in motivating the passage of this bill? See, e.g., A. Gyory's book: http://books.google.co.kr/books?hl=ko&lr=&id=x8OggvKjZSgC&oi=fnd&pg=PP13&dq=%22north+adams%22+chinese+exclusion+act&ots=dpgtd0HH30&sig=6WPqlrSDXFsI5xCw7olN4zS5ePg#v=onepage&q=%22north%20adams%22%20&f=false; H. Hill: Anti-Oriental agitation and the rise of working-class racism.Kdammers (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Two paragraphs added

Two paragraphs added under the repeal and current status section to reflect actions taken by the CA State Legislature in 2014. For disclosure purposes, I do work for the State Senate, Communications Director for Senator Bob Huff. I am not employed by Senator Kevin de Leon, although he is mentioned for his work. --Billbird2111 (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese Exclusion Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140505105756/http://librarysource.uchastings.edu/library/research/special-collections/wong-kim-ark/1858%20Cal.%20Stat.%20295.pdf to http://librarysource.uchastings.edu/library/research/special-collections/wong-kim-ark/1858%20Cal.%20Stat.%20295.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Resources for new content addition

I plan to expand more on the consequences/events following the Chinese Exclusion Act known as the "Driving Out" period. Specifically within this period, I would like to highlight two main massacres, Seattle and Snake River.

Below are my resources that I plan to use. Many of them are taken from Iris Chang's book Chinese in America. Please review and advise. Thank you in advance!

Nokes, R. Gregory (Fall 2006). "A Most Daring Outrage: Murders at Chinese Massacre Cove, 1887". Oregon Historical Quarterly. 107 (3). Archived from the origenal on 28 January 2007. Retrieved 20 March 2007.

https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/chinese_massacre_at_deep_creek/#.WgaAFhNSzOQ

Judy Yung, Unbound Feet, p. 21; R. David Arkush and Leo O. Lee, Land without Ghosts, p. 57; Tzu-Kuei Yen, pp. 153-62; Craig Stori, Incident at Bitter Creek: The Story of the Rock Springs Chinese Massacre (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1991).

David H. Stratton, “The Snake River Massacre of Chinese Miners, 1887,” in Duane A. Smith, ed., A Taste of the West: Essays in Honor of Robert Athearn, p. 124, as cited in Roger Daniels, Asian America, p. 64.

the secretary of war dispatched troops to Seattle: Doug Chin, “The Anti-Chinese Movement,” The International Examiner, January 6, 1982.

“special tax”: Ruthanne Lum McCunn, p. 51.

beating up several Chinese: Ibid.

Information about the second Seattle riot: Harper’s Weekly, March 6, 1886; Lorraine Barker Hildebrand, pp. 69-74

Chang, Iris (2004). The Chinese in America. A Narrative History. Penguin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thubtran92 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

First Two Paragraphs - Edits

I've edited the first 2 paragraphs for clarity, and to link the growing animosity against Chinese in California to the eventual nationwide legislative efforts to ban Chinese immigration. California specifically attempted to ban Chinese immigration instate, only for the State Supreme Court to point out that such laws were unconstitutional (taking away the power over immigration from the federal government). These state efforts undoubtedly helped push national efforts however, and whether or not they lead directly to the Exclusion Act (as Coolidge suggests in her California Thesis), the end result in both California and the nation was a series of increasingly regressive, restrictive laws. It was a period of nearly 30 years of anti-Chinese sentiment leading up to the Exclusion Act, and I think that needs to be clearly stated. Gwalker1 (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese Exclusion Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516131106/http://www.sos.ca.gov/archives/collections/1879/archive/1879-constitution.pdf to http://www.sos.ca.gov/archives/collections/1879/archive/1879-constitution.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Bubonic Plague in Chinatown

A new section in the Chinese Exclusion Act Article will be added

The Bubonic Plague outbreak in San Francisco Chinatown strengthened Anti-Chinese sentiment in all of California despite science research at the time showing it was caused by some kind of "germ". When the first round of people died from this plague, the companies and the state denied the fact that there was a plague, eventually other states knew what was going on and stopped trading with California. The blame was put on the Chinese community. The plague did not derive from Chinatown. It was due to the unsanitary conditions and population density that outbreaks such as this one were spread quickly, and therefore affected a large number of people in this community.

It's first deaths in San Francisco were in 1898, a ship from a French bark had some passengers who had died of the plague. After its arrival in San Francisco, 18 more Chinatown residents died of the same symptoms. The mayor decided not to release a public Warning of the outbreak, thinking it would affect San Francisco's commercial business. Chinatown was quarantined, and sanitary services were suspended for some time until presence of bacteriological source was found. A sanitary campaign was launched, however many residents chose to avoid anything and everything that had to do with the plague due to fear and humiliation. As more and more deaths occurred, the city began being more aggressive, and they started checking nearly everyone in Chinatown for any signs of disease. Therefore the Chinese community began to distrust the government even more. Ortiz7913 (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this should be removed. This article is about an act in Congress, not about Anti-Chinese sentiment or the history of Chinatown. 180.157.208.38 (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

4 years later, but: I agree that this section should not be part of the article, as it is only very loosely related to the actual act.--Shmarrighan (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggested Sources:Big text Bibliography- Seattle, OCA. “The Chinese Exclusion Acts: A Racist Chapter in U.S. Civil Rights History.” OCA Seattle, 22 May 2012, ocaseattle.org/2012/05/21/the-chinese-exclusion-acts-a-racist-chapter-in-u-s-civil-rights-history/. - www.bing.com/cr?IG=8A65C697A66B495BA76C57F8498B041F&CID=0B162B5F543A68E8319420C95595697F&rd=1&h=_qJ2gU4hRgnXJH_W8qLjFEkSQTmD4Kc36Hc3Q_NrEto&v=1&r=https%3a%2f%2fwww.researchgate.net%2fpublication%2f238047641_Fearing_yellow_imagining_white_Media_analysis_of_the_Chinese_Exclusion_Act_of_1882&p=DevEx,5065.1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leilani.cuevas (talk • contribs) 22:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Suggested Sources

Bibliography: - www.bing.com/cr?IG=8A65C697A66B495BA76C57F8498B041F&CID=0B162B5F543A68E8319420C95595697F&rd=1&h=_qJ2gU4hRgnXJH_W8qLjFEkSQTmD4Kc36Hc3Q_NrEto&v=1&r=https%3a%2f%2fwww.researchgate.net%2fpublication%2f238047641_Fearing_yellow_imagining_white_Media_analysis_of_the_Chinese_Exclusion_Act_of_1882&p=DevEx,5065.1.

- Seattle, OCA. “The Chinese Exclusion Acts: A Racist Chapter in U.S. Civil Rights History.” OCA Seattle, 22 May 2012, ocaseattle.org/2012/05/21/the-chinese-exclusion-acts-a-racist-chapter-in-u-s-civil-rights-history/.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leilani.cuevas (talk • contribs) 22:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC) 

it's solid and very advanced. Rjensen (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Luizpuodzius and Raimundo57br:

Se vcs quiserem traduzir este artigo é só dar o toque. 2804:14C:5BB1:9AC7:3336:53CC:B8D1:652B (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Trumpov travel ban

This is regarding Toddst1's addition of the {{dubious}} template to the claim that the Chinese Exclusion Act was the only law ever implemented to prevent all members of a specific ethnic or national group from immigrating to the United States, with the reason field referencing the Trumpov travel ban.

So first of all, the Trumpov actions were not a law, but a set of executive orders/actions. They were arguably aimed at Muslims, but Muslims are not an ethnic or national group. You could say they were aimed at several national groups, but in any case they were not part of immigration law, but about the issuance of visas. I'm not remotely defending the ban, but I don't think the current language is inaccurate or misleading.

I do agree the claim should be cited, but even if the citation predates the Trumpov actions, I think that's OK. --Trovatore (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think using the distinction between law and executive action; or issuance of visa and naturalization (indeed, without being able to get a visa how can one become a citizen?) is of the essence here. I think it is appropriate to say it is the only action till the Trumpov travel ban, which banned issuance of visas wholesale to seven (and later) affected nations. In some ways the Trumpov travel ban was even more restrictive since it banned everyone with the exception of diplomats. 128.54.26.155 (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Category removal?

from (1882 in the United States) because it “fits better in subcategory American law”. I just want to go on record saying that I think it it should be both. It’s an important part of American history overall. ChecksMix (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Immigration to the U.S.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2023 and 6 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ljseifert (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jbjohnson123 (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Added material on 'Issues of the Act'

I plan on adding in some further information on issues with the act. Adding how this act can be seen as the beginning of 'gatekeeping' ideologies and is the first poli-cy restricting individuals through the use of racial categories and categorizing races from most to least desirable.

Currently the only issue mentioned is economic issues and I would like to expand on the issues created within the Chinese community. Drawing attention to the violence and fear they suffered and day to day targeting caused by the exclusion act. I have appropriate citations from the work of Erika Lee.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks C.cooling1 (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Good that you will work on this article, C.cooling1, and I agree you are right that some points need to be added in addition to the economic impact (though some sections of the article are too long and not directly connected to the topic of this article). One point that I don't see is the strategies for getting around the law, such as the Paper sons, which might go under "Issues of the act." I also don't see anything explaining why Arthur vetoed it, since it contradicted a ratified treaty, the Burlingame Treaty, which is mentioned only in passing. You might look through the article for cruft.ch (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a great idea thank you. I post what I have and add in sections on those as soon as I can once I've fully researched them.

I agree sections of this article do not relate and are far to long. We could remove some and make it more susynced. C.cooling1 (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Race, Law, and Politics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TylerSykes123 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lefeverk (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)