GENERAL TIMELINE OF ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICANS' LEGAL HISTORY
CASE OF IN RE AH YUP (1878)
Controversial case that denied people of "Mongolian race" (Asians) ineligible for naturalized citizenship. The beginning traces of anti-asian sentiments in United States.
In re Ah Yup was born in China and moved to the United States. He soon
applied for naturalization but his application was denied by the Court of
California. He filed an appeal, and his court battle with his right to become a
naturalized citizen was a landmark case that would soon influence future state
and federal legislation to bar Asians from fully integrating with American
society. He was the first immigrant from China that applied to naturalization, and he was denied because he was not white or black. However, Ah Yup petitioned to provide proof that he was eligible for naturalized citizenship. The legal gray area to his appeal is whether the statute allowed the naturalization of a person that is from China and of “Mongolian race”. There was a law passed in 1790, that allowed “free white persons” and “persons of African nativity and descent” (after the civil war) to become naturalized citizens. Since In re Ah Yup was not of African descent, he could argue that he was a “white man” and therefore qualified to be naturalized. The courts had to decide whether a person of Mongolian race qualifies within the “white person” category; or does the current naturalization law exclude people that are neither of white or African descent. According to Webster, he defines the human species in distinct separate races, “First, the Caucasian or white race, to which belong the greater part of the European nations and those of Western Asia; second, the Mongolian, or yellow race occupying Tartary, China…,third, the Ethiopian or Negro race…fourth, the American, or red race…”(Odo 47). Court judge, Sawyer decided that with the specific distinction between people that are Caucasian and Mongolian, that Congress specifically wrote the law in this manner to “…exclude Mongolians from the right of naturalization… a native of China, of the Mongolian race, is not a white person…”(Ode 48).
The judge’s court decision continued the legal cycle of reinforcing white supremacy in American society. The People v Hall case (1854) was the first landmark case that put a barrier generally between nonwhite immigrants and ‘white Americans’. That case ruled that a person of Chinese descent cannot testify against a white defendant. The case set a precedent that,” testimony of a Chinese man who witnessed a murder by a white man was inadmissible, largely based upon the prevailing opinion that the Chinese were "a race of people whom nature has marked as inferior, and who are incapable of progress or intellectual development beyond a certain point, as their history has shown; differing in language, opinions, color, and physical conformation; between whom and ourselves nature has placed an impassable difference" and as such had no right " to swear away the life of a citizen" or participate" with us in administering the affairs of our Government”(People v Hall). The case explicitly stated that a Chinese people were not as intelligent or as progressive to be able to even participate in government related affairs. As a result, it marked the early beginnings of the anti-Chinese sentiment and continued to reverberate throughout the later years.
Judge Sawyer’s ruling would coddle the anti-Chinese sentiments that were very prevalent during this time. His ruling also inadvertently confirmed that Chinese immigrants cannot be considered ‘American’ and ‘Americans’ are the superior one. The growing prejudiced the public had on Chinese immigrants would be reflected in this case and in other legislative laws. Just four years later, the government would enforce the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. This act closed almost all Chinese from being able to immigrate to the United States. In the case of In re Saito (1894), a Japanese immigrant, the courts would also rule against him because Japanese would also not be considered of ‘white race’ and also denied the right to be naturalized. As the years progressed the anti Chinese sentiment seemed to manifest itself to an anti-Asian one. The Immigration Act of 1924 would be the pinnacle of the anti-Asian sentiment as it banned all immigration from the ‘Asiatic zone’. In re Ah Yup and the laws that took effect stigmatized Asian immigrants as inferior and non American that was incapable of ever assimilating to American society. It would lead to Asian immigrants struggling to establish a home in the United States. Their children will be left to struggle between their ethnic identity and their American citizenship identity.
Works Cited
"Between Two Worlds." PBS. Accessed May 11, 2015.
"In Re Ah Yup." In Student Almanac of Asian American History, 36-37. 1st ed. Vol. 2. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2004.
1f. Case 104. Ninth Circuit Court of California. “In re Ah Yup”. Sawyer. April 29,1978.
Odo, Franklin. "In the Matter of Ah Yup, Application for Naturalization." In The Columbia Documentary History of the Asian American Experience. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002.
Supreme Court of the State of California.”The People, Respondent v. George W. Hall”. Heydenfeldt.1854.
http://www.cetel.org/1854_hall.html
The judge’s court decision continued the legal cycle of reinforcing white supremacy in American society. The People v Hall case (1854) was the first landmark case that put a barrier generally between nonwhite immigrants and ‘white Americans’. That case ruled that a person of Chinese descent cannot testify against a white defendant. The case set a precedent that,” testimony of a Chinese man who witnessed a murder by a white man was inadmissible, largely based upon the prevailing opinion that the Chinese were "a race of people whom nature has marked as inferior, and who are incapable of progress or intellectual development beyond a certain point, as their history has shown; differing in language, opinions, color, and physical conformation; between whom and ourselves nature has placed an impassable difference" and as such had no right " to swear away the life of a citizen" or participate" with us in administering the affairs of our Government”(People v Hall). The case explicitly stated that a Chinese people were not as intelligent or as progressive to be able to even participate in government related affairs. As a result, it marked the early beginnings of the anti-Chinese sentiment and continued to reverberate throughout the later years.
Judge Sawyer’s ruling would coddle the anti-Chinese sentiments that were very prevalent during this time. His ruling also inadvertently confirmed that Chinese immigrants cannot be considered ‘American’ and ‘Americans’ are the superior one. The growing prejudiced the public had on Chinese immigrants would be reflected in this case and in other legislative laws. Just four years later, the government would enforce the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. This act closed almost all Chinese from being able to immigrate to the United States. In the case of In re Saito (1894), a Japanese immigrant, the courts would also rule against him because Japanese would also not be considered of ‘white race’ and also denied the right to be naturalized. As the years progressed the anti Chinese sentiment seemed to manifest itself to an anti-Asian one. The Immigration Act of 1924 would be the pinnacle of the anti-Asian sentiment as it banned all immigration from the ‘Asiatic zone’. In re Ah Yup and the laws that took effect stigmatized Asian immigrants as inferior and non American that was incapable of ever assimilating to American society. It would lead to Asian immigrants struggling to establish a home in the United States. Their children will be left to struggle between their ethnic identity and their American citizenship identity.
Works Cited
"Between Two Worlds." PBS. Accessed May 11, 2015.
"In Re Ah Yup." In Student Almanac of Asian American History, 36-37. 1st ed. Vol. 2. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2004.
1f. Case 104. Ninth Circuit Court of California. “In re Ah Yup”. Sawyer. April 29,1978.
Odo, Franklin. "In the Matter of Ah Yup, Application for Naturalization." In The Columbia Documentary History of the Asian American Experience. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002.
Supreme Court of the State of California.”The People, Respondent v. George W. Hall”. Heydenfeldt.1854.
http://www.cetel.org/1854_hall.html
Cable Act (1922)
In 1907 under the act of March 2nd legislative stated that any women who married would take the nationality of her husband. This did not affect women who were immigrants but this did affect women who were United State Citizen married to “aliens”. Some of these women were able to regain their citizenship once their husbands gained citizenship as well. This was not possible though for women who married men of Asian ethnicity such as Chinese, Japanese and Filipino.
Then the Expatriation Act was carried out and stated that any women who married would now take the citizenship of her husband. This meant that even if a woman was already an American citizen, then married a foreign man she would lose her citizenship. In 1922 this law was reversed by the Cable act, also known as the Married Women’s Act. This changed the former immigration law regarding marriage. Most of the American women who lost their citizenship because of marrying an immigrant were then allowed to reapply for citizenship. The problem with the Cable Act was that the law stated that women were guaranteed citizenship who was married to an alien eligible to naturalization. But during this time Asians were not eligible for citizenship so any women who was already married or married an Asian after this law would still lose her citizenship.
Finally In 1931 the Cable Act was amended. Women who were United States citizens could regain their citizenship even if they were married to anyone of Asian descent.
Work Cited:
Hall, Timothy L. 2003. U.S. Laws, Acts, and Treaties. Pasadena, Calif: Salem Press, 2003. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed April 23, 2015).
Bankston, Carl L. 2010. Encyclopedia of American Immigration. Pasadena, Calif: Salem Press, 2010. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed April 24, 2015).
Barkan, Elliott Robert, and Michael C. LeMay. 1999. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Laws and Issues : A Documentary History. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1999. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed May 2, 2015).
"Erc/ntz/women/naturalizationlaw." Erc/ntz/women/naturalizationlaw. Accessed May 13, 2015.
"Los Angeles Public Library." El Pueblo De Los Angeles Historical Monument Photo Archive. Accessed May 5, 2015.
CALIFORNIA ALIEN LAND LAW ACT (Webb-Haney Act)(1923)
The law was targeted at Japanese individuals and companies (“aliens ineligible of citizenship”) in the Agricultural industry. The law made it illegal to purchase agricultural land and restricted the lease of the property to three years. The law also banned Japanese landowners from selling or leasing the land to an immigrant.
|
|
World War I made the economy well off, in turn there was general prosperity in Agriculture. Japanese farmers used the prosperity and increased their landholdings by purchasing land in their American born (Nisei) children’s names, and they were able to double their landholdings by 1920. However, the introduction to the Alien Land Law threatened whatever investment they had put into their farming communities in a state of complete vulnerability.
The Japanese farmers sought to protect the land they did own by exploiting the stipulation that the law did not prohibit the transfer and sale of stocks in landholding companies. So they had about 141 land companies and held around 10.249 acres total. But the three year limitation on the lease severely limited the types of crops they could cultivate. Fruit, grapes and other crops could not be grown since it required more money, time and labor. Soon the government revised the Alien Land Law (1920) to plug up the loopholes. Ultimately, it prevented Japanese farmers from purchasing or leasing land; nor were they allowed to buy or sell stock in land companies which owned or leased the land. They could also no longer appoint their children to be the landowners of the land. Now they were left with even fewer options to protect their investments and their agricultural community's livelihood.
It threatened the economic foundation of the Japanese American community. Farmers could be reduced back to laborers. There were few options. Cropping contracts relied on the distinction between employment agreement and a lease; tenant farmers would be employees of landowners and would cultivate their crops where they would be paid by the landowners by a set share or cash by the total value of the crop. But the future was very bleak; especially 1921, when agricultural prices were very low. Japanese agricultural association estimated that 300,000 acres leased, there were 90,000 acres that were due to expire. The declining state of the whole agriculture industry and the strict enforcement of the Alien Land law made the Japanese agricultural community fearful of their future.
There were four basic categories of legal cases that were related to the alien land law: The legality of cropping contracts, the appointment of guardians, holding of stock in landholding companies, and the challenging of the prohibition against leasing of land. The cropping contracts were deemed illegal by the State Attorney, U.S Webb because of it gave the employees the same rights as those granted to tenant farmers. It was also illegal since it was a blatant loophole around what the law stated without being punished by the law. However the O’Brien and Inoyuye case gave a small victory to the Japanese agricultural community since the court ruled that cropping contracts did not violate the 1920 Alien Land law. However, the ruling on the Porterfield and Mizuno case meant that the prohibition on leasing land was upheld. The Frick and Satow cases were to challenge the buying and selling of stock in land companies. However, the court upheld the 1920 law. The Yano bought fifteen acres of land before the 1920 Alien land law was enforced and he put his daughter’s name on the deed. He filed to be appointed guardian to take over her estate. The court denied him because it was thought that Yano wanted to bypass the Alien Land law. Yano appealed and the Supreme Court and ruled that the State could only deny guardianship if they were proven incompetent. This overruled the state court’s decision and was a small victory for Japanese Americans’ rights. The victory spread throughout the Japanese American community as their newspaper, Shin Sekai reaffirming their faith and loyalty to the United States.
However their small victory was made even smaller when the Supreme Court ruled against them to legalize cropping contracts. It nullified everything the Japanese agricultural community worked for. If they did not own land, they would be farm laborers again. This was a devastating blow to the community’s morale and more were considering returning to Japan where they’ll be accepted. However, they were allowed to fulfill the existing cropping contracts until they were set to expire. From 1920, there was 313,150 acres of leased land; and it plummeted to 76,397 acres by 1925. This reflected the harsh enforcement of the Alien Land Law.
The enforcement of the law made some Japanese farmers to use the middleman method. The farmer would have a citizen help him by leasing the land for the farmer. The citizen would be considered a famer only in name and the Japanese would do all the work and assume financials of operating the farm. To avoid being accused of bypassing the Alien Land Law they would carry out all business transactions were carried out with the land owner’s name and hire the Japanese as their manager in an employee agreement. Although it was a viable method in continuing their farming industry, it had some vulnerability to the system. It all relied on trust. The middleman could try blackmail the farmers for higher fees. If the middlemen died and left no one to take over, the farmer could run the risk of losing their entire investment on the farm. Some other methods emerged as the middlemen weren’t always the safest option.
There were oral agreements where there was no middleman included. The Japanese farmer would have a public and private agreement with the landowner. The Japanese farmer would be hired as a manager and it would be all on a public employment agreement. The private agreement was that the Japanese would cultivate the land as a cash or share tenant. Both would keep two different accounts to the according agreements. Landowners would be open to doing oral agreements since they already had a profitable relationship when they leased the land to the Japanese farmers. Even oral arrangements were difficult to arrange since the mutual trust could be difficult to have. Land owners would be especially reluctant to accept such arrangements if they lived in an area where the Alien Land Law was strictly enforced.
As a result of the law, many Japanese wanted to move out of state where they’ll be less likely to be prejudiced against. Few wanted to move to Mexico, but most stayed. For their investment that they've made in California; but to also demonstrate that they will not be pushed out due to the unfair laws against them. Nonetheless, the damage was done to the Japanese American communities. The law symbolized their eventual rejection from American society which would continue into the Immigration Act of 1924, their internment years, and further social rejection from the public.
Works Cited:
Edwin E. Ferguson, The California Alien Land Law and the Fourteenth Amendment, 35 Cal. L. Rev. 61 (1947).
Available at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol35/iss1/4
Ichioka, Yuji. "Agricultural History." Japanese Immigrant Response to the 1920 California Alien Land Law 58, no. 2 (1984): 157-78. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3742992.
"Oyama v. California | ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties." ACLU of San Diego Imperial Counties. November 2, 2006. Accessed May 11, 2015. https://www.aclusandiego.org/oyama-v-california-us-supreme-court-rules-californias/.
The Japanese farmers sought to protect the land they did own by exploiting the stipulation that the law did not prohibit the transfer and sale of stocks in landholding companies. So they had about 141 land companies and held around 10.249 acres total. But the three year limitation on the lease severely limited the types of crops they could cultivate. Fruit, grapes and other crops could not be grown since it required more money, time and labor. Soon the government revised the Alien Land Law (1920) to plug up the loopholes. Ultimately, it prevented Japanese farmers from purchasing or leasing land; nor were they allowed to buy or sell stock in land companies which owned or leased the land. They could also no longer appoint their children to be the landowners of the land. Now they were left with even fewer options to protect their investments and their agricultural community's livelihood.
It threatened the economic foundation of the Japanese American community. Farmers could be reduced back to laborers. There were few options. Cropping contracts relied on the distinction between employment agreement and a lease; tenant farmers would be employees of landowners and would cultivate their crops where they would be paid by the landowners by a set share or cash by the total value of the crop. But the future was very bleak; especially 1921, when agricultural prices were very low. Japanese agricultural association estimated that 300,000 acres leased, there were 90,000 acres that were due to expire. The declining state of the whole agriculture industry and the strict enforcement of the Alien Land law made the Japanese agricultural community fearful of their future.
There were four basic categories of legal cases that were related to the alien land law: The legality of cropping contracts, the appointment of guardians, holding of stock in landholding companies, and the challenging of the prohibition against leasing of land. The cropping contracts were deemed illegal by the State Attorney, U.S Webb because of it gave the employees the same rights as those granted to tenant farmers. It was also illegal since it was a blatant loophole around what the law stated without being punished by the law. However the O’Brien and Inoyuye case gave a small victory to the Japanese agricultural community since the court ruled that cropping contracts did not violate the 1920 Alien Land law. However, the ruling on the Porterfield and Mizuno case meant that the prohibition on leasing land was upheld. The Frick and Satow cases were to challenge the buying and selling of stock in land companies. However, the court upheld the 1920 law. The Yano bought fifteen acres of land before the 1920 Alien land law was enforced and he put his daughter’s name on the deed. He filed to be appointed guardian to take over her estate. The court denied him because it was thought that Yano wanted to bypass the Alien Land law. Yano appealed and the Supreme Court and ruled that the State could only deny guardianship if they were proven incompetent. This overruled the state court’s decision and was a small victory for Japanese Americans’ rights. The victory spread throughout the Japanese American community as their newspaper, Shin Sekai reaffirming their faith and loyalty to the United States.
However their small victory was made even smaller when the Supreme Court ruled against them to legalize cropping contracts. It nullified everything the Japanese agricultural community worked for. If they did not own land, they would be farm laborers again. This was a devastating blow to the community’s morale and more were considering returning to Japan where they’ll be accepted. However, they were allowed to fulfill the existing cropping contracts until they were set to expire. From 1920, there was 313,150 acres of leased land; and it plummeted to 76,397 acres by 1925. This reflected the harsh enforcement of the Alien Land Law.
The enforcement of the law made some Japanese farmers to use the middleman method. The farmer would have a citizen help him by leasing the land for the farmer. The citizen would be considered a famer only in name and the Japanese would do all the work and assume financials of operating the farm. To avoid being accused of bypassing the Alien Land Law they would carry out all business transactions were carried out with the land owner’s name and hire the Japanese as their manager in an employee agreement. Although it was a viable method in continuing their farming industry, it had some vulnerability to the system. It all relied on trust. The middleman could try blackmail the farmers for higher fees. If the middlemen died and left no one to take over, the farmer could run the risk of losing their entire investment on the farm. Some other methods emerged as the middlemen weren’t always the safest option.
There were oral agreements where there was no middleman included. The Japanese farmer would have a public and private agreement with the landowner. The Japanese farmer would be hired as a manager and it would be all on a public employment agreement. The private agreement was that the Japanese would cultivate the land as a cash or share tenant. Both would keep two different accounts to the according agreements. Landowners would be open to doing oral agreements since they already had a profitable relationship when they leased the land to the Japanese farmers. Even oral arrangements were difficult to arrange since the mutual trust could be difficult to have. Land owners would be especially reluctant to accept such arrangements if they lived in an area where the Alien Land Law was strictly enforced.
As a result of the law, many Japanese wanted to move out of state where they’ll be less likely to be prejudiced against. Few wanted to move to Mexico, but most stayed. For their investment that they've made in California; but to also demonstrate that they will not be pushed out due to the unfair laws against them. Nonetheless, the damage was done to the Japanese American communities. The law symbolized their eventual rejection from American society which would continue into the Immigration Act of 1924, their internment years, and further social rejection from the public.
Works Cited:
Edwin E. Ferguson, The California Alien Land Law and the Fourteenth Amendment, 35 Cal. L. Rev. 61 (1947).
Available at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol35/iss1/4
Ichioka, Yuji. "Agricultural History." Japanese Immigrant Response to the 1920 California Alien Land Law 58, no. 2 (1984): 157-78. Accessed March 14, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3742992.
"Oyama v. California | ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties." ACLU of San Diego Imperial Counties. November 2, 2006. Accessed May 11, 2015. https://www.aclusandiego.org/oyama-v-california-us-supreme-court-rules-californias/.
FILIPINO-WHITE UNIONS BARRED
I chose this subject, due to two of my six maternal aunts’, and their histories being happily married to Filipino men in the 1930’s. There was never any discussion in our families about, why they married, but simply rather a total acceptance by our families of these unions. This class has perhaps provided an explanation to the unquestionable analysis that they married African-American women; because white women, for the most part, were not available to them for consideration to marry.
During this period in the 30’s, Filipino America was overwhelmingly male; there was only one Filipino woman for every fourteen Filipino men in California in 1930. Thus the issue of intermarriage became acutely sensitive. California and many other states prohibited the marriage of Asians and Caucasians in demeaning laws that remained on the books until 1948. And if a Filipino so much as approached a Caucasian woman, he could expect reprisals-sometimes violent. For example. White vigilante groups roamed the Yakima, Washington and the San Joaquin and Salinas Valleys in California, intimidating and even attacking Filipinos whom they accused of improperly accosting white women. In 1930 one Filipino was murdered and others wounded after they invited some Caucasian women to a dance. Undeterred, the Filipinos challenged the restrictive state laws and those that opposed them. Filipinos did not become eligible for American citizenship until 1946, and long lacked political leverage.
In 1922 the infamous Cable Act went into affect to discriminate against Asians who were deemed to have illegally married Caucasians. The Act was so egregious that it would punish Asians, American born or not, by the deportation from the United States. See the Cable Act, in pertinent part below:
1922
Congress passes the Cable Act.
"While most anti-miscegenation laws primarily targeted interracial marriages between whites and African Americans or whites and American Indians, the climate of anti-Asian xenophobia that defined the early decades of the 20th century meant that Asian Americans were also targeted. In this case, the Cable Act retroactively stripped the citizenship of any U.S. citizen who married "an alien ineligible for citizenship," which - under the racial quota system of the time - primarily meant Asian Americans."
"The impact of this law was not merely theoretical. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Thind that Asian Americans are not white and therefore cannot legally become citizens, the U.S. government revoked the citizenship of natural-born U.S. citizens such as Mary Keatinge Das, wife of the Pakistani-American activist Taraknath Das, and Emily Chinn, mother of four and wife of a Chinese-American immigrant."
In 1933 a case out of Los Angeles county took center stage for the rights of Filipinos' to marry whom they wanted as American citizens; because they were not classified as Mongaloid, but rather as Malasian. Los Angeles County failed in its appeal and a new precedent for Filipinos was established. The matter advanced to the California Court of Appeals, by the Appellant, Los Angeles County's stance that Filipinos' were barred from marrying Caucasians. See pertinent case information below:
SOLVADOR ROLDAN, Respondent, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al., Appellants
Civ. No. 8455
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO
129 Cal. App. 267; 18 P.2d 706; 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 976
During this period in the 30’s, Filipino America was overwhelmingly male; there was only one Filipino woman for every fourteen Filipino men in California in 1930. Thus the issue of intermarriage became acutely sensitive. California and many other states prohibited the marriage of Asians and Caucasians in demeaning laws that remained on the books until 1948. And if a Filipino so much as approached a Caucasian woman, he could expect reprisals-sometimes violent. For example. White vigilante groups roamed the Yakima, Washington and the San Joaquin and Salinas Valleys in California, intimidating and even attacking Filipinos whom they accused of improperly accosting white women. In 1930 one Filipino was murdered and others wounded after they invited some Caucasian women to a dance. Undeterred, the Filipinos challenged the restrictive state laws and those that opposed them. Filipinos did not become eligible for American citizenship until 1946, and long lacked political leverage.
In 1922 the infamous Cable Act went into affect to discriminate against Asians who were deemed to have illegally married Caucasians. The Act was so egregious that it would punish Asians, American born or not, by the deportation from the United States. See the Cable Act, in pertinent part below:
1922
Congress passes the Cable Act.
"While most anti-miscegenation laws primarily targeted interracial marriages between whites and African Americans or whites and American Indians, the climate of anti-Asian xenophobia that defined the early decades of the 20th century meant that Asian Americans were also targeted. In this case, the Cable Act retroactively stripped the citizenship of any U.S. citizen who married "an alien ineligible for citizenship," which - under the racial quota system of the time - primarily meant Asian Americans."
"The impact of this law was not merely theoretical. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Thind that Asian Americans are not white and therefore cannot legally become citizens, the U.S. government revoked the citizenship of natural-born U.S. citizens such as Mary Keatinge Das, wife of the Pakistani-American activist Taraknath Das, and Emily Chinn, mother of four and wife of a Chinese-American immigrant."
In 1933 a case out of Los Angeles county took center stage for the rights of Filipinos' to marry whom they wanted as American citizens; because they were not classified as Mongaloid, but rather as Malasian. Los Angeles County failed in its appeal and a new precedent for Filipinos was established. The matter advanced to the California Court of Appeals, by the Appellant, Los Angeles County's stance that Filipinos' were barred from marrying Caucasians. See pertinent case information below:
SOLVADOR ROLDAN, Respondent, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al., Appellants
Civ. No. 8455
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO
129 Cal. App. 267; 18 P.2d 706; 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 976
CASE LAW AND THE AMBIGUOUS RESTRICTIONS AGAINST FILIPINOS
In Roldan v. Los Angeles County, 129 Cal. App. 267, 18 P.2d 706, was a 1930s court case in California confirming that the state's anti-miscegenation laws at the time did not bar the marriage of a Filipino and a white person. However, the precedent lasted barely a week before the law was specifically amended to illegalize such marriages. The case involved a Filipino American man, Salvador Roldan, engaged to a white British woman, Marjorie Rogers. Roldan was an Ilocano from northern Luzon. Since 1880, California Civil Code Section 60 had prohibited marriages between white persons and "Negros", "mulattos", or "Mongolians", but there was confusion over whether Filipinos were part of that last category. California Attorney General Ulysses S. Webb had issued an advisory opinion in 1926 that Filipinos were part of the "Mongolian race". In 1930, a court had denied another Filipino man, Tony Moreno, permission to marry his white fiancé and ruled that Filipinos and other "Malayans" were part of the "Mongolian race" and thus not eligible to marry whites.
However, the following year, Judge Walter Guerin granted a marriage license for Gavino Visco to marry Ruth M. Salas. The groom was a Filipino of Spanish ancestry, while the bride was an indigenous Mexican; however, Guerin stated that he would have granted the license even if the bride were white. In August 1931, Roldan and Rogers's application for a marriage license was rejected by the Los Angeles County clerk. The couple petitioned for a writ of mandate with the Superior. Judge Walter Gates granted the writ.
However, the following year, Judge Walter Guerin granted a marriage license for Gavino Visco to marry Ruth M. Salas. The groom was a Filipino of Spanish ancestry, while the bride was an indigenous Mexican; however, Guerin stated that he would have granted the license even if the bride were white. In August 1931, Roldan and Rogers's application for a marriage license was rejected by the Los Angeles County clerk. The couple petitioned for a writ of mandate with the Superior. Judge Walter Gates granted the writ.
Anti-miscegenation law (1940's-1967)
In the 1940’s there were still thirty- three states in the US that had Anti-miscegenation laws. Anti- miscegenation laws
were state laws that prohibited interracial marriages. This law enforced racial
segregation by not allowing a white
male or female to marry a “Negro, mulatto or Mongolian.” Some of the state’s anti-miscegenation laws specified what races were not allowed to marry. Oklahoma’s
law in 1908 banned marriage between a person of African descent and a person of
non- African descent; In 1920 Louisiana’s law banned marriage between a Native American
and an African American; And Maryland’s anti miscegenation
law in 1935 banned marriage between Blacks and Filipinos.
In 1948 Andrea Perez and Sylvester Davis applied for a marriage license. On the license she listed herself as white and he listed as “negro”. They were denied their license since their anti- miscegenation law stated that no white person could marry a “Negro, Mongolian, mulatto or members of the Malay race ". Perez and Davis took their case to the California Supreme Court on October 1st. The ruling of their case stated that the anti- miscegenation law violated the Fourteenth Amendment by “impairing the right to marry on the basis of race alone”. California was then the first state since 1887 to be rid of their anti- miscegenation law.
In 1958 Richard and Mildred Loving were not allowed to marry in their home state of Virginia because he was White and she was Black. So they went to Washington D.C to get married. When they returned back home in Virginian they were arrested for breaking the law which was that two people of different races could not live together as a couple. They were released shortly after but with the condition that they had to leave Virginia. They then left and moved to Washington D.C. In 1963 the Lovings decided to appeal their case. They had no luck at the Virginia trail court or even when they tried to take their case to the Supreme Court of Virginia. They then took their case to the U.S Supreme Court in 1967. The court ruled in their favor stating that the “Fourteenth Amendment could not be construed as permitting states to prevent, punish, or invalidate interracial marriage.” and appealed Virginia’s anti- miscegenation law. After the case of Loving vs. Virginia it was finally ruled unconstitutional in the United States to not allow two people of different races to marry. The rest of the sixteen states with anti- miscegenation laws were no longer in effect.
In 1948 Andrea Perez and Sylvester Davis applied for a marriage license. On the license she listed herself as white and he listed as “negro”. They were denied their license since their anti- miscegenation law stated that no white person could marry a “Negro, Mongolian, mulatto or members of the Malay race ". Perez and Davis took their case to the California Supreme Court on October 1st. The ruling of their case stated that the anti- miscegenation law violated the Fourteenth Amendment by “impairing the right to marry on the basis of race alone”. California was then the first state since 1887 to be rid of their anti- miscegenation law.
In 1958 Richard and Mildred Loving were not allowed to marry in their home state of Virginia because he was White and she was Black. So they went to Washington D.C to get married. When they returned back home in Virginian they were arrested for breaking the law which was that two people of different races could not live together as a couple. They were released shortly after but with the condition that they had to leave Virginia. They then left and moved to Washington D.C. In 1963 the Lovings decided to appeal their case. They had no luck at the Virginia trail court or even when they tried to take their case to the Supreme Court of Virginia. They then took their case to the U.S Supreme Court in 1967. The court ruled in their favor stating that the “Fourteenth Amendment could not be construed as permitting states to prevent, punish, or invalidate interracial marriage.” and appealed Virginia’s anti- miscegenation law. After the case of Loving vs. Virginia it was finally ruled unconstitutional in the United States to not allow two people of different races to marry. The rest of the sixteen states with anti- miscegenation laws were no longer in effect.
Work Cited:
Wallenstein, Peter. 2000. "Native Americans Are White, African Americans Are Not; Racial Identity, Marriage, Inheritance, and the Law in Oklahoma, 1907-1967." Journal Of The West 39, no. 1: 55-63. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed April 10, 2015).
Fryer, Roland G. 2007. "Guess Who's Been Coming to Dinner? Trends in Interracial Marriage over the 20th Century." Journal Of Economic Perspectives 21, no. 2: 71-90. Business Source Elite, EBSCOhost (accessed April 10, 2015). Gevrek, Deniz. 2014. "Interracial Marriage, Migration and Loving." Review Of Black Political Economy 41, no. 1: 25-60. Business Source Elite, EBSCOhost (accessed April 23, 2015).
Matsumoto, Valerie. 2004. "What's Love Got To Do With It?" The Politics of Race and Marriage in the California Supreme Court's 1948 Perez v. Sharp Decision." OAH Magazine Of History 18, no. 4: 31. MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed April 18, 2015).
Ling, Huping. Surviving on the Gold Mountain : A History of Chinese American Women and Their Lives. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1998. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed May 2, 2015)."Map - The Leadup to Loving." American Civil Liberties Union. Accessed May 4, 2015.
"Remembering Hank Oyama | Dr. Henry 'Hank' Oyama, 1926-2013." TucsonSentinel.com. Accessed May 5, 2015.
"Map - The Leadup to Loving." American Civil Liberties Union. Accessed May 5, 2015.