ORIENTAL EXCLUSIONTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
THE BAKER & TAYLOR COMPANY
NEW YORK
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY OF CANADA, LIMITED
TORONTO
THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON
THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA
TOKYO, OSAKA, KYOTO, FUKUOKA, SENDAI
THE COMMERCIAL PRESS, LIMITED
SHANGHAIORIENTAL EXCLUSION
THE EFFECT OF AMERICAN IMMIGRATION
LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND JUDICIAL DECI-
SIONS UPON THE CHINESE AND JAPANESE
ON THE AMERICAN PACIFIC COAST
By
R. D.^McKENZIE, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology, University of Washington
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS3 ZS. Z5Z.
Mijol
Copyright 1928 By
The University of Chicago
All Rights Reserved
Published June 1928
Composed and Printed By
The University of Chicago Press
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.590298
PREFACE
This study is one of a series of monographs prepared in connection
with the Conference of the Institute of Pacific Relations at Honolulu
in July, 1927. These monographs are presented to the Institute on be-
half of the American Group attending the Conference; but the pres-
entation of this material for consideration in the program does not
imply either that the Institute itself or that the American Group as-
sumes responsibility for statements of fact or opinion contained in the
texts. These remain as much the personal expression of the authors as
would be the case had the contribution been communicated orally.
The Research Committee, which has charge of the editorial work
of the American Group, has necessarily limited itself to the question
of the pertinence of the subject matter to the discussions of the Insti-
tute.
At the 1925 Conference of the Institute, it was clear that the
American Immigration Laws and their administration were regarded
as a cause of friction and misunderstanding, but the Conference found
itself without any substantial factual basis for its discussions, and
copies of the Immigration Laws of the Pacific countries were not
available. To facilitate discussion of these matters at the 1927 Con-
ference, the American Group is making available copies of the Im-
migration Laws of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, and the
United States. In addition, it asked Professor R. D. McKenzie of the
University of Washington to undertake a study of the actual opera-
tion and effect of the American Immigration Laws, Regulations, and
Judicial Decisions upon Chinese and Japanese, particularly on the
American Pacific Coast.
This study, which is the result of Professor McKenzie’s work, is
now offered in this preliminary form as data for discussion and ex-
amination at the Honolulu Conference. The statements contained in
this report have been checked as carefully as possible in the time
available, but Professor McKenzie will be grateful for the prompt cor-
rection of any inaccuracies which a wider circle of readers may detect.
Effect will, if possible, be given to them in a future edition.AUTHOR’S PREFACE
This study is limited to a consideration of Chinese and Japanese
exclusion. Other Asiatics equally affected by the exclusion act of 1924
have been disregarded because of lack of time to deal with them. How-
ever the same general principles and problems which arise in connec-
tion with Chinese and Japanese exclusion apply with equal significance
to other barred Orientals.
I have tried to show the general types of problems that arise in
connection with Oriental exclusion. Some of these problems are of a
temporary and passing nature, others are inherent within the system
itself.
I am greatly indebted to many persons for assistance in making
this hasty review of the exclusion situation. Special acknowledgment
should be given to Commissioner Luther Weedin of the port of Seattle
and to the individual members of his staff for generous and cordial
assistance; also to M. E. Mitchell of San Francisco for a thorough ac-
count of the immigration problems arising at that port. Furthermore
I wish to express my appreciation of the kind co-operation of the
Chinese and their attorneys, especially Henry A. Monroe of Seattle.
So many Japanese have assisted me in this study that it is impossible
to give individual acknowledgment of my gratitude, however I wish
to mention in particular the efficient and generous help of H. Kawa-
mura, Japanese Consul in Seattle.
My wife worked with me throughout both in the preparation of
the manuscript and in reading the proof.
R. D. McKenzie
University oe Washington
June 22, 1927TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.	The Exclusion Movement.........................................	9
II. The Exclusion Movement in the United States.....................24
III.	Changes Effected by the Immigration Act of 1924 .	.	.	.	34
IV.	Reactions of the Chinese and Japanese to the Exclusion	Act of
1924...........................................................42
V. Chinese and Japanese Exclusion Compared as Administrative
Problems.......................................................50
VI. Ineligibility to Citizenship as a	Basis	for Exclusion ....	66
VII. Exclusion and the Family.......................................79
VIII. Problems Arising in Connection with Admissible Classes	.	.	98
IX. Reentry from Temporary Visits Abroad .	.	.	.	.	..	100
X. Temporary Visitors. .	....................................114
XI. The Treaty Merchant.............................................123
XII. Students ......................................................134
XIII.	Illegal Entry and Deportations.................................156
XIV.	Effect of Exclusion Upon Oriental Communities in the United
States.........................................................167
XV. Conclusion .	.	.......................................177
viiAPPENDIXES
Table A—Orientals in the United States (Census data)	.	.	.183
Table B—Number of Japanese Residents in North America and Hawaii
1904-1924	....................................................	184
Table C—Immigration to and emigration from the United States by
years and countries..............................................185
Table D—Chinese and Japanese immigrant aliens admitted and emi-
grant aliens departed, with excess admissions or departures, fiscal
years ended June 30, 1911 to 1926..............................	187
Table E—Chinese .admitted to the United States, fiscal years ended
June 30, 1917 to 1926, by ports..................................188
Table F—Immigrant aliens admitted, for the two specified fiscal years
before, and the two specified years after the Immigration Act of
1924 became effective—by States of intended future permanent
residence............................................................189
Table G—Net increase or decrease of population by arrival and de-
parture of Chinese and Japanese immigrant aliens, fiscal years
ended June 30, 1911 to 1926, by sex ...............................	.	190
Table H—Age distribution of Chinese and Japanese immigrant aliens
admitted, fiscal years ended June 30, 1917 to 1926...............192
Table I—Chinese claiming American citizenship by birth, or to be the
wives or children of American citizens, admitted, fiscal years ended
June 30, 1917 to 1926 .	...............................193
Table J—Chinese aliens of the merchant classes admitted, fiscal years
ended June 30, 1917 to 1926	.	.	.	.	....................194
Table K—Chinese students admitted and debarred, fiscal years ended
June 30, 1917 to 1926............................................195
Excerpts from Immigration Act of 1924.................................196
viiiCHAPTER I.
The; Exclusion Movement
Exclusion as a form of cultural isolation is as old as
the history of stable human groups, but exclusion as a
method of controlling biological and economic competition
is a relatively recent idea. The modern movement on
the part of the white nations on the Pacific rim to ex-
clude Asiatics on economic and racial grounds dates back
not farther than the middle of the last century. During
the first half of the nineteenth century, the nations of
the western world battered at the doors of Asia attempt-
ing to gain admission in order to carry on trade and com-
merce. Today the situation is reversed. The same white
nations are engaged in bolting their own doors against
the colored strangers who are endeavoring to return the
call.
The exclusion movement is an index of the rising tide
of national and racial consciousness. The recent develop-
ment of communication has not only made for a greater
fluidity of the peoples of the world, but has also given
rise to a highly sensitized spirit of nationalism, every-
where reflected in the modern tendency of nations to
erect barriers to regulate the international movements of
commodities and peoples. In its initial stages the move-
ment on the part of the white nations fringing the Pacific
to exclude Orientals was of a purely local character. This
is shown by the early efforts at state and provincial legis-
lative control of Oriental immigration. Gradually, how-
ever, the exclusion movement has everywhere assumed a
910
Oriental Exclusion
national form characterized by national legislation and na-
tional machinery for enforcement.
“The story of how Chinese exclusion was brought about (in
the United States) is an interesting one. As early as 1852, even
before the larger movement began, the governor of California
advised that Chinese coolie immigration be restricted, and in 1855
the State legislature enacted a law imposing a head tax of $55 on
every immigrant of that race. This was followed in 1858 by a
law forbidding Chinese or Mongolians to enter the State, and
later by other restrictive enactments, but all such legislation was
declared unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court, and
finally, in 1876, by the Supreme Court of the United States.”
“After this decision the people of the Pacific Coast States
turned earnestly to congress for relief. A congressional inquiry
took place in 1876-77; the California legislature appealed to the
National Government in 1877 and 1878, and Pacific Coast members
made a vigorous effort for exclusion legislation. In 1879 Congress
passed a bill limiting the number of Chinese who could come to the
United States in any one vessel to 15, and repealing the favored-
nation clause in the Burlingame Treaty of 1868, which provided
for free immigration and emigration between China and the United
States, but President Hayes vetoed the measure.”
“In 1880 another. treaty was concluded with China which gave
the United States the right to ‘regulate, limit, or suspend’ the im-
migration of Chinese laborers, but not to ‘absolutely prohibit it.’
In 1882 Congress sought to take advantage of the new treaty’s
provisions and passed a bill suspending the immigration of Chinese
laborers for 20 years; this was vetoed by President Arthur. Later
in the same year, however, a bill providing for a 10 years’ sus-
pension of such immigration, but giving the right of reentry to
Chinese lawfully in the United States, became a law, and in 1884
another law was enacted which strengthened the law of 1882 in
some particulars.” (Annual Report of the Commissioner General
of Immigration, 1919, pp. 53-54.)
Similarly in Australia and Canada, the first attempts to con-
trol Chinese immigration were of a local or regional character. Up
to the Commonwealth Immigration Act of, 1901, the various colonies
of Australia had separate measures dealing with Chinese im-The Exclusion Movement
11
migration. Victoria passed a law in 1855 limiting any vessel
to one Chinese for every ten tons of registered tonnage, also im-
posing a ten pound head tax. In 1857 South Austraila passed a
similar act. In 1861 New South Wales did likewise. These acts
were subsequently repealed, and in 1880-81 an international colonial
conference was held at which a policy of uniform restriction of
Chinese immigration was adopted. In Canada the urge for Oriental
exclusion has always come from British Columbia. This province
on various occasions has attempted to prevent the landing of
Oriental immigrants and by provincial legislation has restricted
their activities within the province.
Racial exclusion is an outgrowth of settlement. Pio-
neer conditions seem to promote the opposite attitude,
namely, an encouragement of immigration of low priced
coolie labor. The widespread dissemination of Chinese
and Indian laborers throughout the plantation and pioneer
belts of the world affords ample proof of this statement.
The migration of western capital into the tropics and un-
settled or sparsely settled parts of the world has served
as a magnet drawing to these regions masses of unskilled
labor from the two great human reservoirs, China and
India. Chinese are found in almost every pioneer belt;
their sturdy physique and thrifty habits of life make them
excellently suited to the exigencies of pioneer conditions.
Chang Chao Wu, a graduate student in the University of
Chicago, has compiled the following data concerning the distri-
bution of Chinese around the Pacific rim:
Chinese in Yellow Countries
Japan,
Korea
12,884 (1923)
23,089 (1920)
Formosa............
Hong Kong..........
Macao..............
French Indo-China
Siam...............
3,000,000
612,510 (1920)
71,021 (1910)
229,464
260,194 (1920)
Total
4,209,86212
Oriental Exclusion
Chinese in Brown Countries
British Malaya.............................................. 1,173,354	(1921)
Dutch East Indies (official estimate).......................	770,103	(1917)
Hawaiian Islands (Governor’s report)........................	24,522	(1925)
Philippine Islands..........................................	43,802	(1918)
British North Borneo........................................	37,856	(1921)
Brunei..................................................	1,423	(1921)
New Guinea (Aust., Mand.)...................................	1,402	(1921)
Pacific Islands.............................................	3,321
Total...................................... 2,055,783
Chinese in White Countries
Alaska.........................1....................	56	(1920)
Canada..............................................	39,487	(1921)
United States.......................................	61,639	(1920)
Mexico..............................................	12,769	(1913)
Panama Canal Zone...................................	516	(1912)
Australia...........................................	17,157	(1921)
New Zealand.........................................	3,266	(1921)
Total......................................	134,990
But as a region passes from a pioneer to a settled
condition, the human material that was once of value
becomes a source of annoyance and trouble. The	entire
Caucasian fringe of the Pacific is studded with pockets
of Asiatic peoples whose ancestors were induced to come
to supply a pioneer demand for unskilled labor. But as
these pioneer conditions gradually pass into established
settlements, anti-Oriental sentiment emerges, finding ex-
pression in restrictive legislation, local and national. More-
over, the immigration once artificially stimulated tends to
develop a spontaneous flow which does not readily respond
to changes in demand or sentiment. This is especially
true of labor that is transported a great distance. The
ebb and flow of labor to nearby sources of employment
is much more sensitive to changes in demand. This is
illustrated by the fluctuations in the yearly migrationsThe: Exclusion Movement
13
of Chinese to British Malaya and of Mexicans to the
United States.
TABLE 1
Year	Mexican Immigration to the United States1		Chinese Immigration to British Malaya2	
	Number	Per cent increase or decrease	Number	Per cent increase or decrease
1919		44,776	+41.3	70,912	+21.4
1920		68,392	+52.8	126,077	+ 77.8
1921		46,794	-31.6	191,043	+ 51.5
1922		30,295	-35.3	132,886	-30.4
1923		75,988	+ 150.8	159,019	+ 19.6
1924		105,787	+39.2	181,430	+ 14.1
1925		49,729	-52.9	214,692	+ 18.3
1926		59,785	+20.2		
				
1	Compiled from the Annual Reports of the Commissioner General of Im-
migration.
2	Annual Report of the Protector of Chinese, Strait Settlements, 1925, p. 1.
The rise of exclusion sentiment reveals certain phases
of development common to all white nations invaded by
Orientals. In the early stages of Chinese immigration,
the standard of living argument received the greatest
amount of attention. Facts were presented to show how
the low standard of living of the Chinese laborer made
it impossible for the white laborer to compete.
Compare, “Some Reasons for Chinese Exclusion/’ Senate
Document 137, 57th Congress, First Session. Here the argument
for Chinese exclusion is based entirely on economic grounds. A
detailed statement is given , showing the low cost of living of
Chinese as compared with that of whites. This argument is quite
different from that presented in “Japanese Immigration and Col-
onization”. Senate Document No. 55, 1921, where birth rates and
assimilibility are the chief subjects of attention. This is also the14
Oriental Exclusion
sentiment expressed by the California Joint Immigration Committee:
“Certainly, this nation, having determined to restrict immigration
in the interests of assimilation, has done the obvious and logical
thing in excluding incidentally aliens who are ineligible to citizen-
ship and who are and must remain hopelessly unassimilable because
of that disability imposed by our laws.” In a recent letter to the
writer, Honorable Albert Johnson, Chairman of the House of
Representatives Committee on Immigration and Naturalization,
summarized the argument for exclusion as follows: “The exclusion
statute is nothing more or less than a recognition of the elemental
fact that the Oriental character is different from the Occidental,
and nothing is to be gained by mixture of the races. No question
of inferiority or superiority is involved. We have built on this
continent an Occidental and not an Oriental civilization. We mean
no disrespect to any Oriental nationality or race when we insist
that there shall be no Oriental colonization within our borders.”
(April 5, 1927.)
A similar shift of attention in Australia is indicated by the
following quotation from the Official Year Book, 1925, p. 955: “Up
to the last decade of the 19th century the action of the various
colonies towards Chinese immigration was directed to avoiding
the evils which were supposed to be connected with a large Chinese
element in the community; between 1891 and 1901 the feeling
evinced gradually developed the ‘White Australia’ policy which
excludes all colored people. On the consummation of federation
this policy was expressed in the Commonwealth Immigration Act
of 1901.”
While the reference to Oriental immigration in the Canada
Year Book for 1924, p. 175, lays emphasis on the economic factor—-
“The immigration to Canada of labourers belonging to the Asiatic
races, able because of their low standard of living to underbid the
white man in selling their labour, is fundamentally an economic
rather than a racial problem, affecting most of all those portions of
the country which are nearest to the East and the classes which feel
their economic position threatened”—nevertheless the fear of eco-
nomic competition would hardly explain the recent petition submitted
by the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia
to the Dominion Government requesting that a law should be
passed to “completely probibit Asiatic immigration into Canada.”The; Exclusion Movement
15
This action was taken, although there has been no immigration
from China since the passing of the Chinese Immigration Act of
1923, and less than 500 Japanese immigrants a year have arrived
in the Province during the past seven years, and practically no
Hindus have arrived since 1908.
Early exclusion legislation was designed to keep out
the Chinese laborer, other classes were admitted freely
in accordance with treaty rights. This early emphasis
on economic competition as the leading argument for ex-
clusion has gradually been superseded by emphasis on
questions of assimilation and amalgamation as the
fundamental reasons for	restriction.	This change	of
emphasis is	closely related	to the trend	in Japanese	im-
migration. The first protests against the influx of Jap-
anese came from labor organizations, and the standard
of living v argument received leading emphasis. Later,
however, when the Japanese, unlike their Chinese prede-
cessors, adopted the policy of bringing their wives to
America and establishing home life here, attention gradu-
ally shifted	from questions	of economic	competition,	im-
mediate or	ultimate, to questions of	assimilation	and
amalgamation. This shift of emphasis from economic to
cultural and biological considerations is not limited to any
single country to which Orientals have immigrated, but
is to a greater or less degree a common trend everywhere.
It corresponds also with the trend from local’to national
concern about exclusion.
The methods employed by the various states and
nations on the Pacific to restrict Oriental immigration
show a rather uniform trend of evolution. At first, the
regions most directly concerned attempted to restrict Chi-
nese immigration by limiting the number that might be
brought on a vessel, also by imposing head taxes. This16
Oriental Exclusion
method was adopted by Australia, California and Canada.
The first national gestures at Oriental exclusion were
characterized by consideration for the sensibilities of the
nation whose citizens were concerned.
The first attempts on the part of the Government of the
United States to exclude Chinese laborers were based on treaty
agreements. Gradually, however, national assertiveness developed
and each successive step at legislative control of Chinese im-
migration reveals less consideration for China and a stronger
determination to assume complete control of the question of who
shall or who shall not be admitted to the country. This same
trend is represented in relation to Japanese immigration. At first
there was an attempt to limit the number of Japanese immigrants
by international agreement, but the trend of opinion in the United
States has been toward more national assertiveness in Japanese
as well as in Chinese immigration matters.
Canada’s experience in restricting Oriental immigration
reveals a similar trend toward increasing national assertiveness.
Starting in 1886 by the imposition of a small head tax, $50 on each
Chinese immigrant, the Dominion Government gradually raised the
amount to $100 in 1901 and then to $500 in 1904. Even this tax,
however, did not seem to accomplish the end desired. Consequently,
Orders in Council were resorted to in order to prevent the landing
of Chinese laborers. Finally, the Chinese Immigration Act of 19233
completely shut off the flow of Chinese immigrants to Canada.
Japanese immigration to Canada is still controlled by the
Gentlemen’s Agreement, known as the Lemieux Agreement of 1907.
There is, however, as already indicated, a strong demand from the
Province of British Columbia to have the Dominion Government
pass an act excluding all Oriental immigration.
The first national legislation in Australia to restrict Oriental
immigration was not tinged with so much consideration for the
feelings of the nationals excluded as was the case in regard to
3	“The Chinese Immigration Act of 1923 (13-14 Geo. V, c. 38) restricts
the entry to or landing in Canada of persons of Chinese origin or descent,
irrespective of allegiance or citizenship, other than government representatives,
Chinese children born in Canada, merchants, and students- the last two classes
to possess passports issued by the Government of China and endorsed by a
Canadian immigration officer.” The Canada Year Book, 1924. P. 176.The Exclusion Moveme^ f
17
early national restrictive legislation in the United States and
Canada. Despite the efforts of the British Foreign Office to per-
suade Australia to restrict immigration by diplomatic efforts, the
colonies, and later the Commonwealth, went ahead with their own
methods of procedure which, under the Commonwealth Immigration
Act of 1901, is to exclude all Asiatics by means of a language test.
The exclusion movement, wherever it has spread, has
given rise to rather well defined types of problems. In
the first place there is the problem of dealing with illegal
entries. Exclusion legislation by abruptly cutting off the
natural supply of a particular type of labor, thereby raises
the value of such labor and produces a strong urge toward
illegal entry. This situation is well demonstrated by the
Canadian experience with the head tax on Chinese immi-
grant$. The temporary cessation of immigration occasioned
by the tax so increased the demand for Chinese labor that
it became a profitable business to import Chinese coolies
and pay the tax. The situation is well described by the
Honorable W. L. McKenzie King. “The Chinese at home
looked on the new tax as constituting an all but impossi-
ble barrier.... Then the economic effect of the tax be-
came apparent. The Chinaman who had landed in this
country prior to January, 1904, discovered that the state,
unwittingly perhaps, had, by restricting further competi-
tion from without, created of his labor a huge monopoly;
without organization, without expense, without even agita-
tion, every Chinaman became a unit in a labor group
more favored than the most exclusive and highly pro-
tected trade union. Then monopoly began to do its work.
The Chinaman, discovering his protected position, sought
the advance in wages which comes from an increasing
demand and diminishing supply. Within a couple of years
the wages doubled and in some instances, more particularly18
Oriental Exclusion
in the case of servants of a better class, trebled, and even
went beyond this point/’4
It is for the same reason that immigrant bootlegging
becomes such a profitable business. Throughout the 45
years of Chinese exclusion from the United States, there
has been a continuous struggle on the part of adminis-
trative officials to guard against illegal entry and to detect
fraud among those applying for admission. Exclusion en-
hances the value of the country to the people excluded.
This condition lays the foundation for graft and makes of
fraudulent entry a business enterprise. Over twenty years ago, the
Commissioner General of Immigration writes in his Annual Report
(1905; p. 79-80), “There is no Chinese steerage passenger so
destitute that money practically without limit is not available to pay
for his entrance. He can command legal advice of the most ex-
pensive counselors; he can secure witnesses to testify to anything;
he can tempt smugglers by payment of large sums of money; he can
carry his case through all the tribunals up to the Supreme Court
of the United States. His youth, his obvious ignorance, his equally
conspicuous poverty, his lack of friends or relatives known to him
in this country, his lack of knowledge even of the occupation to
which he will apply himself if landed—all combined do not deprive
him of the benefit of ample funds from some source to secure his
admission in some way, if possible.” This same type of situation
is referred to in almost every Annual Report of the Commissioner
General of Immigration throughout the last twenty-five years
but as the subject of smuggling will be dealt with later on
in this report there is no need of further discussion now.
In addition to making the illegal entry of excluded
aliens the basis of a business enterprise, exclusion tends
to draw into the country substitute labor for that excluded.
It is this tendency toward substitution that has given rise
to the policies of general exclusion in those countries that
4	Quoted by McNair in “The Chinese Abroad,” p. 76.The: Exclusion Movement
19
are desirous of maintaining a high standard of living
and a white racial stock.
When substitution is impossible capital tends to migrate to
the sources of cheap labor. Note the rapid migration of United
States capital, since the country entered upon a policy of restrictive
immigration, into Canada and countries of South America whose
doors are still open to European immigrants. The Western world
may bar the cheap labor of the East but in doing so it creates a
condition whereby capital is forced to migrate to the countries
whose nationals are debarred or to areas that are still open to free
exploitation.
The next general type of problem confronting those
in charge of the enforcement of an exclusion law is that
of determining the status of the individuals who present
themselves for admission. Exclusion never excludes all
classes of the race concerned. Certain exemptions are
always made. This gives to the enforcement of an ex-
clusion law all the problems connected with that of a
selective immigration law. Moreover, the selection en-
tailed in an exclusion law is based on legal rather than
on physical evidence that can be determined by expert
knowledge.
Then there is the problem of interpreting the law.
The legislative body that passes an exclusion measure can-
not anticipate all of the multitude of problems that may
arise in connection with its enforcement. The executive
department, entrusted with the administration of the law,
is, therefore, assigned the difficult task of interpreting
its meaning. Accordingly rules and regulations are es-
tablished in a rigid or a liberal manner depending upon
the personal attitudes of the officials in charge. In
either case the rules governing enforcement tend to be-
come arbitrary and may produce results quite contrary20
Oriental Exclusion
to the spirit and purpose of the act. The ultimate re-
sort in this country, of those who consider themselves in-
jured by the law, is to appeal to the courts of the land.
Through such appeals the courts participate in the in-
terpretation of the law. In the course of time judicial de*
cisions constitute a large part of the rules governing pro-
cedure. This complicates the problem of interpretation
but it is the only release from prison warden’s methods of
dealing with international problems.
‘‘The object to be accomplished in enforcing an immigration
law relating to Chinese should be to make easy the admission of
those entitled to land, and to make sure both the exclusion and ex-
pulsion (for one cannot be made effective without the other) of all
not entitled to enter and reside in this country. The accomplishment
of this object is a matter of extreme difficulty under the law which
has been in force now for almost a quarter of a century. To
prevent the coolie from posing as an exempt, the bona fide exempt
must be examined at our ports; and, not understanding or caring
to understand this, offense is often taken where none is intended.
Every time one plan followed by the coolie and the promoter and
smuggler is discovered and defeated a new plan is substituted,
which for a time may prove even more successful than that aban-
doned, and the introduction of the prohibited class goes on. . . . ”
(Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration, 1908,
pp. 147-148.)
“The Chinese exclusion law has been modified by court de-
cisions to such an extent as in large measure to defeat its purpose
of preventing Chinese from entering the labor market of this
country. It has been held repeatedly by the courts that Chinese
‘exempts’ permitted to land and later found employed as laborers
are not subject to deportation unless the Government establishes
that their entry was fraudulent, or in other words, that it was
their intention at that time to become laborers. Thus, while tech-
nically ruling, in accordance with the statute, that the administrative
decision is not final as to status, they have, to all intents and pur-
poses, placed the burden of proof upon the Government, a con-The: Exclusion Movement
21
dition which was not contemplated by the act. Applicants admitted
as the minor sons of domiciled merchants are permitted to engage
immediately in laboring pursuits, and the ease with which others
engaged as laborers and who cannot show lawful admission may
establish citizenship before the courts renders ineffectual any
attempt to secure deportation through judicial process.” (Annual
Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration, 1920, p. 302.)
In addition to the complicated problem of interpreting
the law as it pertains to different classes of applicants
for admission, there is the further serious problem of
interpreting evidence. The vast difference between the
cultural systems on the two sides of the Pacific makes
the problem of securing and interpreting evidence a very
difficult one indeed. Immigration officers can cite with-
out end cases in which Oriental applicants have used
“fraudulent” testimony to gain admission to the country.
“There is no gainsaying the fact, established by the observation
of all officers, both administrative and judicial, who have come into
close contact with the .enforcement of the exclusion laws, that,
upon questions affecting the admissibility to this country of Chinese,
the testimony of persons of that race is almost universally un-
reliable. No matter how trustworthy and honorable a Chinese
merchant or laborer may be in the conduct of his daily business,
he seems to have no compunction whatever in practicing deceit
concerning matters in which the Government is interested.” (Annual
Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration, 1907, p. 107.)
On the other hand, the Chinese complain bitterly against what
they consider to be the unnecessarily severe and unjust treatment
meted out to them by immigration officials. The following statement
made by a prominent Chinese with reference to his experience
with an immigration inspector presents the situation from the
Chinese point of view:
“During 1916, I met Mr. X who was Chief Inspector of
Immigration. He knew my father very well. While I was getting
my passport in China, my cousin go to people here (names an
attorney in Seattle) to get passport and send it to me. I was all22
Oriental Exclusion
the time afraid, I thought he would return me back to China. I
remembered what my father told me of his life story. My father’s
life was so mixed up, I told a different story in the immigration
house from what my father told me was his\ life story. The immi-
gration inspector scared me because he said he would send me back
to China or to jail. He bluffed me. I was very scared because he
bluffed and everything else. He asked me every question. He asked
me if my mother was dead. He said, ‘What does your mother look
like?’ I said, ‘How do I know?’ He asked me if my mother had a
twisted foot. Hq asked again if I saw my father. I said that just
once in all my life. Oh, he asked me so many questions. He said,
‘Where did you see your father?’ I said, ‘In Canton and in the
village when he first came back to China.’ He asked me if I see
my mother. He asked me many questions. Afterwards he said,
‘You are a smart boy/ He said I was a liar and that my father told
him a different story, but he liked my father and did not want to
send me back. He asked any questions he liked. He was crooked.”
“A partner of mine went to make application for his son to
come over. He had a small business. Inspector said, ‘What is your
name?’ He answered. He tell him every question. Inspector threw
his paper down and said, ‘My God, you damn liar.’ Inspector just
made bluff. He said, ‘You are not a business man, you are a
gambler.’ The paper he threw hard on desk fell on floor, and he
said, ‘Oh hell.’ Chinese don’t dare tell Americans what he said.
Don’t dare report to Washington. No one cares. Chinese go through
much.” (Seattle Document, No. 283, Survey of Race Relations.)
A well known merchant of Seattle, a man who has made
many visits to China in connection with business, records his
experience with immigration inspectors when returnng from his
last trip abroad: “In 1925 about 5 weeks before I wished to go to
China I went to the Immigration Station and asked whether it
would be necessary to get a passport (return permit) for my trip
and I was told that it would. So I made application but the pass-
port did not arrive. I ask several times but not there. When boat
leave I get aboard. No trouble I go without passport because I so
well known as prominent business man. On return trip I get aboard
ship without trouble, but at Vancouver, immigration inspector get
aboard and he say he will hold me up because I got no passport.The Exclusion Movement
23
I tell him I try to get my passport but it no come. It not my fault
I tell him, ‘Mr. A. . . . you know I prominent business man of
Seattle. I come and go several times without passport,’ but he say
that make no difference.	He	get pretty	smart. When we get to
Seattle he try not let me pass. I call for Mr. B . . He say ‘all right/
but Mr. A get mad and insist that I be sent to the Immigration
Station and held there. Just because I not give him plenty money.
Many officials get lots of money from Chinese. Well finally Mr.
C. . . . called and Mr. B. . . get whole bunch together and they
persuade Mr. A ... to let me go. Most officials pass Chinese when
something wrong in small technical point with passport, if th.ey pay
well. Immigration doctors in China pass examination on eyes if good
pay. Immigration officials	in	Hongkong	also take	money to let
Chinese pass. When no got money or refuse to give then they
get mean.”
This statement is quoted here not to cast any reflection upon
immigration inspectors but to illustrate a very common attitude
among Chinese. When they are detained by officers they assume
that it is because they have not offered bribe money. To quote an
official, “The trouble is with the Chinese ‘runners’. They come here
and bring others with them. Someone will tell a ‘runner’ that he
has a son he wishes brought in. The ‘runner’ then tells this Chinese
that he must have money to give the inspector. This is not true.
We have no inspectors in	the	place now	that would	take anything.
We have none that you could	buy. Once	in a while	there are men
in the service that are bought but I feel certain that we have none
here. The Chinese study a man to see if they can buy him. I re-
member about Christmas time a Chinese came to my home and said,
‘Here is a little Christmas present for you.’ He handed me an
envelope and I saw that it had money in it. I handed it to him and
told him to take it back. He said, ‘No, it is $150 ‘for you. Just
enough to buy a suit of clothes for you and one for your wife.’
I told him we did not want it, but they do try to buy an inspector
that way.”CHAPTER II.
The Exclusion Movement in the United States
The exclusion movement in the United States has
followed a course of development similar to that de-
scribed for the Pacific rim in general, that is, the move-
ment has passed from mere regional agitation against a
particular race or class of Asiatics to a national move-
ment directed against all Asiatics of every race and class.
Furthermore, the trend of emphasis has gradually passed
from economic to cultural and biological arguments for
restriction and exclusion.
The history of our exclusion legislation reflects an at-
titude of increasing national assertiveness. Although there
have been ups and downs in the degree of severity with
which the Chinese exclusion measures have been enforced,
still on the whole the tendency has been toward more
rigid restriction.
A similar trend of attitude is apparent in our dealings
with Japanese immigration. The anti-Japanese movement
has developed from a condition of local agitation against
Japanese laborers to a national movement to exclude all
Japanese. During the early stages of Japanese immigra-
tion consideration was shown for the national sensibilities
of Japan. This is evidenced by the fifteen years’ ex-
perience in restricting Japanese immigration by means of
the so-called Gentlemen’s Agreement.
Chinese immigration to the United States commenced
about the middle of the 19th century. The discovery of
gold in California served as a magnet drawing the peo-
24Exclusion in the United States
25
pie of southern China and those of eastern America to-
gether on the Pacific coast. At this time there was no
railway transportation across the American continent and
no steamship service . across the Pacific. The peoples
thus drawn together had to travel in “clipper” ships by
long and circuitous routes, taking months to make the
journey. The pioneer belt in which the two tides of immi-
gration met was in point of travel as far removed from
New York as from Hongkong.
The frontier conditions in which the East and the
West first came together were of a dynamic and un-
stable nature. The inhabitants of the San Francisco Bay
region were infected by the gold fever. The spirit of
speculation was rampant. Under the first blush of such
an economic and social environment racial intermixture
seems to have taken place without serious friction. For
a short time a condition of mutuality existed between the
races, the Orientals performing tasks which the western
gold speculators willingly left to them. Good-will flour-
ished as is indicated by, current newspaper reports and
by comments of public men.
J. Thomas Scharf, at one time chief Inspector of Chinese
immigration for the port of New York in an article entitled “Farce
of Chinese Exclusion Laws,” published in the North American
Review, Vol. CLXVI, 1898, gives an interesting account of the
conditions and attitudes associated with the early contacts between
the two civilizations. He quotes from an article written by the Daily
Alta on May 12, 1851, as follows: “Quite a large number of
Celestials have arrived among us of late enticed hither by the
golden romance which has filled the world. Scarcely a ship arrives
here that does not bring an increase to the worthy integer of our
population; and we hear by China papers and private advices from
that Empire that the feeling is spreading all through the seaboard
there, as a consequence nearly all the vessels that are for this
country are sold for the prospect of passengers.”26
Oriental Exclusion
Mr. Scharf further relates that Governor John MacDougall
in addressing the California legislature in 1852 referred to the
Chinese as the “most desirable of our adopted citizens” and “recom-
mended a system of land grants to induce further immigration and
settlement of that race.”
But the éclat was short lived. The dynamic situation
connected with mining afforded too unstable a base for
prolonged peaceful racial inter-penetration. As soon as
the speculative bubble burst and whites were thrown out
of employment the cry arose “The Chinese must go.”
Local legislative measures were employed to effect this
end.5
The period of the Civil War marks a decline in anti-
Chinese sentiment. The shortage of labor occasioned by
the war together with the demand for men to complete
the construction of the Central Pacific Railroad once more
placed the Chinese in a favorable situation. Coolies were
imported to work on the railroad. Nine thousand were
reported to have been employed by the Central Pacific in
1869.6 At the close of the war a new crisis arose in the
drama of Occidental-Oriental relations. In the first place
the two countries were drawn closer together by the new
facilities of transportation. The Pacific Mail established
the first direct steamship service to the Orient in 1867,
and the Central Paficic completed its line across the Amer-
ican continent in 1869. These two great systems of
transportation opened up a new route for trade and travel
between Europe and Asia. As a result of this great de-
velopment of communication a spirit of optimism pre-
vailed. Visionaries saw tremendous trade possibilities be-
tween the United States and China. Accordingly an out-
5	See Collidge, Chinese Immigration, Chapter 2.
6	Collidge, Ibid., p. 63.Exclusion in the United States
27
burst of sentiment and consideration for the feelings of
the Chinese paved the way for the passage of the Bur-
lingame Treaty of 1868, a treaty which granted to both
countries the “mutual advantage of free migration and
emigration of their citizens and subjects respectively, from
the one country to the other for the purpose of curiosity,
or trade or as permanent residents.”7
This treaty was hailed by business men and mis-
sionaries, but it did not solve the race problem. Forces
more potent than political treaties had yet to be reckoned
with. Instead of the anticipated prosperity the country
immediately lapsed into a condition of economic depres-
sion. The situation on the Pacific coast was intensified
by the large number of laborers which the completion
of the Central Pacific Railway had suddenly cast upon
the. limited and depressed labor market. Once more bit-
ter racial antagonism emerged and numerous legislative
measures were passed by state and municipal governments
designed to restrict and encumber the Chinese. All of
these, however, were later declared unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court of the United States. The anti-Chinese
movement which up to this time had been local now
became a national issue. Politicians seized the opportuni-
ty to make political capital out of racial antagonism. Af-
ter several years of haranguing by California members,
Congress finally took action and appointed in 1876 a
joint Congressional Committee to investigate Chinese im-
migration. This committee after hearing a vast amount
of testimony, mostly arguments against the Chinese, sub-
mitted the recommendation that “Congress legislate to
restrict the great influx of Asiatics to this country,” be-
7	The Preamble.28
Oriental Exclusion
cause “ a duty is owing to the Pacific States and terri-
tories which are suffering under the terrible scourge.”8
The outcome of this agitation was the treaty of 1880
whereby the United States was empowered to regulate,
limit, or suspend Chinese immigration, but not to abso-
lutely prohibit it. In the meantime the number of Chi-
nese arrivals was increasing, 11,890 coming in 1881 and
39,579 in 1882 (See appendix, Table C). The Pacific
Mail and other trans-Pacific companies found the Chinese
steerage business too lucrative to be left undeveloped.
Through efficient advertising the steamship companies
succeeded in filling their steerage accommodations with
Chinese coolies. Mr. W. C. Bunner, in his interesting
history of trans-Pacific navigation refers to the Chinese
passenger service a's “the most profitable bit of passenger
travel ever dreamed of by any trans-Pacific concern in
the history of the carrying trade.... for it was a transpor-
tation blade that cut both ways. It caught the Chinese
coming and going.”9
The first national restrictive legislation came in the
autumn of 1882. This act based on the treaty of 1880
suspended the coming of Chinese laborers for a period of
ten years. The act, however, had numerous defects among
which may be mentioned its failure to provide for
through-transit privileges or to admit Chinese coming
from foreign countries. To meet these obvious deficien-
cies, the act was amended in 1884. This first effort at
exclusion failed to solve the Chinese immigration prob-
lem either from an administrative or a practical standpoint.
The dynamic conditions of pioneer life along the Pacific
8	Senate Report, No. 689. 44th Congress, Second Session 1877. See also
Scharf, loc cit, p. 77; and Coolidge, Chinese Immigration, p. 110.
9	“Japan”, April, 1927, p. 19.Exclusion in the United States
29
coast continued to make the domiciled Chinese a problem.
The completion of the Northern Pacific Railway in 1883
and of the Canadian Pacific in 188510 threw thousands of
Chinese out of employment and produced a situation simi-
lar to that of 1869 when the completion of the Central
Pacific thrust thousands of laborers upon the community.
The drama shifted from California to the Pacific North-
west. Race prejudice and lack of employment drove the
Chinese to the mines and railway camps of the Northwest.
During the autumn of 1885 a great orgy of anti-Chinese
behavior swept across this corner of the country. The
most serious attack upon the Chinese took place at Rock
Springs, Wyoming, where in one evening twenty-eight
Chinese were murdered, many wounded and hundreds
were driven from their homes. The news of this violence
spread over the territory of Washington and demonstra-
tions against the Chinese occurred at Squack Valley,
Black Diamond, Seattle and Tacoma.11 A year later in an
uprising at Log Cabin, Oregon, a number of Chinese were
killed.12
From this time on there was a gradual subsidence
of anti-Chinese sentiment along the coast. The decline
in racial antagonism is undoubtedly due to the changing
economic and social conditions. In the first place Chi-
nese immigration suddenly dropped to almost zero. Sub-
sequently it increased but never again reached the point
attained prior to 1882. The resident Chinese population
gradually scattered throughout the states of the Union
10	For a discussion of the illegal entry of Chinese from Canada after the
completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway, see House Documents Serial
No. 2340 and No. 2379.
11	Tacoma Daily News, September, 10, 1885, quoted by A. H. Meneeley,
in his Master’s Thesis “The Anti-Chinese Movement in the Northwest”. Uni-
versity of Washington, 1922.
12	Oregon House Journal. 14th Session, 1887.30
Oriental Exclusion
thus relieving the pressure along the Pacific Coast. More-
over, Japanese immigration commenced about this time
and public attention shifted from the Chinese to the
Japanese. Since 1890 therefore Chinese immigration has
gradually ceased to be of much concern to the general
public. However it has continued to be a serious ad-
ministrative problem to immigration officers.
The cycles of opinion associated with Japanese im-
migration are very similar to those described for the
Chinese. That is, there wasi at first a brief period when
the Japanese were welcomed by the public press. They
filled a gap in the labor market caused by Chinese ex-
clusion, but as soon as the number of arrivals increased
to the point where they entered into competition with
American labor antagonism forthwith developed. Anti-
Japanese organizations were formed to promote legisla-
tion to limit the movements and activities of the Japanese
in this country and to prevent others from entering.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer of April 19, 1900, contains the
following statement:
“The Western Central Labor Union at a meeting held last
night took action looking toward the rumors that hordes of Japanese
laborers are being brought to Puget Sound in violation of the
United States immigration laws. They claim that the Japanese
question is as menacing to local interests as the Chinese question
was.several years ago. W. G. Armstrong, labor leader, has written
to President Samuel Gompers of the American Federation of Labor,
asking him to bring the matter of the restriction to the attention
of Congress.”
In some respects, however, Japanese immigration was
quite unlike that of the Chinese. In the first place the
country which the Japanese entered was markedly dif-
ferent from that to which the Chinese had come thirty
years before. Much of the crudeness of pioneer life hadExclusion in the United States	31
passed, cities had emerged, and a condition of permanent
settlement had replaced that of shifting camp life. Fur-
thermore, the Japanese themselves were different from the
Chinese. They came from a highly organized and a
rapidly developing nation and they soon adopted the
policy of bringing wives to this country in order to estab-
lish home life and settle here.
Opposition to the Japanese started about the begin-
ning of the 20th century.13 At that time there were less
than 25,000 Japanese in continental United States, but
this small number was concentrated in a few districts
along the Pacific Coast. Early opposition, therefore, as
Mears. points out,14 was of a strictly local nature, each
community attempting to solve its own race problem by
keeping out Orientals, or by placing restrictions on those
who had gained entrance.
The first Japanese immigrants took up residence for
the most part in the cities along the Pacific Coast. Here
they came into competition with organized labor and
organized retail services. It was the presence of cities,
however, that made the first reactions to the Japanese o£
a much less barbaric nature than those which characierized
the early demonstrations against the Chinese. Legisla-
tive enactments in the way of city ordinances, land laws
and trade restrictions replaced the direct action of the
camp life of a few decades before.
The movement against the Japanese, however, soon
assumed a national aspect. As early as 1900 demands
arose for the extension of the Chinese exclusion law to
i:; For a scholarly account of the evolution of anti-Japanese sentiment in
this country see R. L. Buell “The Development of the Anti-Japanese Agitation
in the United States”, Political Science Quarterly, December, 1922, and Decem-
ber, 1923.
14 Survey Graphic, May, 1926, p. 146.32
Oriental Exclusion
include the Japanese.15 From this time on stimulated by
the increasing number of yearly arrivals the movement
against the Japanese rapidly developed. The problem ac-
quired national interest in 1906 when the San Francisco
school board passed a resolution barring Japanese children
from white schools. Although President Roosevelt suc-
ceeded in having the resolution rescinded the episode
brought Japanese immigration into the focus of public at-
tention. It was evident that something had to be done to
stem the inflow of Japanese immigrants. But the problem
was how to accomplish this result without offending Japan.
The situation was quite similar to that of our relation to
China in the late 60’s when the Burlingame Treaty was
under consideration. The outcome was the consummation
in 1907 of the so-called Gentlemen’s Agreement, according
to which Japan promised to stop issuing passports to
laborers “skilled or unskilled except those previously
domiciled in the United States, or wives, or children under
21 years of age of such persons.”16
The restriction of immigration effected by the Gen-
tlemen’s Agreement failed to solve the Japanese immi-
gration problem just as the first exclusion act of 1882
had failed to solve the Chinese immigration problem. The
1907 agreement by omitting to restrict the immigration
of women left the gate open for* an influx of female im-
migrants to become the wives of Japanese domiciled
here. The effect of this loop-hole in the Gentlemen’s
Agreement was a rapid increase in the resident Japanese
population from natural increase as well as from immi-
gration. Consequently, before and, more particularly, im-
ir’ Buell, Japanese Immigration., World Peace Foundation Pamphlet, Vol. 7.
No. 5 and No. 6, 1924, p. 287.
10	Ambrssador Hanihara’s letter to Secretary Hughes, April If. 1924,
quoted by R. L. Buell, Ibid, p. 359.Exclusion in the United States
33
mediately after the great war, the anti-Japanese organiza-
tions directed their arguments against the Japanese main-
ly on the question of the birth rate and biological amalga-
mation. This was an entirely new factor in the Oriental
problem. There had never been any agitation regarding
the natural increase of the domiciled Chinese because
the Chinese had never shown any marked tendency to
bring their wives to this country. The birth rate argu-
ment against the Japanese was particularly well chosen
from the standpoint of those who saw or wished to see
a menace in the rising tide of color. The resident Jap-
anese population belonged, for the most part, to an age
group in which fecundity is high, consequently it was
easy to show that the number of births per thousand of
the Japanese population was several times higher than for
the white population.
This apparently excessive birth rate of the Japanese
immigrants coupled with their tendency to take up farm-
ing in the more productive vegetable and berry districts
furnished the necessary base for the anti-Japanese groups
to organize public opinion against the existing system of
handling Japanese immigration, and to pave the way for
the exclusion act of 1924.CHAPTER III.
Changes Ejected By the Immigration Act of 1924
The Immigration Act of 1924, by excluding aliens
ineligible to citizenship, (Sec. 13 c) added an extra sieve
to the selective machine already at work on Oriental im-
migration. Previous to this, Asiatic immigration had
been screened, not only by the selective features of the
general immigration laws applying to all aliens, but also
by special exclusion devices applying to specific groups
and classes. For forty-two years Chinese immigration had
been literally hand picked and the Japanese had to meet
the conditions imposed by the Gentlemen’s Agreement in
order to gain admission to the country. East Indians
and other Asiatics were almost completely excluded by the
barred zone provision in the Act of 1917.
My purpose is now to show how this additional sieve
has altered the volume and nature of the currents of
Chinese and Japanese immigration. Before referring to
statistical measurements let me briefly indicate the techni-
cal classes of Chinese and Japanese immigrants previously
admitted but now debarred.
The most important effect of the 1924 act on Chi-
nese immigration was the barring of alien wives of citi-
zens.17 Other classes of exempts under the Chinese Ex-
17	On May 25, 1925 the Supreme Court of the United States decided that
alien wives ineligible to citizenship, even though they be the wives of American
citizens are excluded by the Act of 1924. (Chang Chan et al v. Nagle, 69 L.
ed. 642). On the same date the Court decided that the alien Chinese wives
and minor children of domiciled alien Chinese merchants may enter the country
for. permanent residence as non-quota immigrants. (Charles Sum Shee et al v.
Nagle, 69 L. ed. 640).
This decision prohibits domiciled United States citizens (Chinese) from
bringing alien wives from China. The decision of course applies to Japanese
and other Asiatics but the American citizen class of Japanese is not yet old
enough to be much affected.
34The Immigration Act of 1924
elusion Law have suffered restrictions but none has actu-
ally been debarred.
The changes effected in Japanese immigration were
of a much more drastic nature as the provisions of the
Gentlemen’s Agreement18 had been more liberal than
those of the Chinese Exclusion Law. By excluding par-
ents, wives, and children under 20 years of age of dom-
iciled alien Japanese—a class admissible under the Gen-
tlemen's Agreement,—the act of 1924 reduced Japanese
immigration to less than a twelfth of its previous volume.
In addition to the wholesale elimination of this large
class of previous admissibles the new law greatly pared
down other classes exempt under the Gentlemen's Agree-
ment. Discussion of this aspect of the 1924 law, how-
ever, will be withheld until we deal with the exempt
classes later on.
The practical effects of the 1924 law upon the in-
ward and outward streams of Chinese and Japanese im-
migration are indicated in Table 2.
The Act of 1924 has not been in effect long enough
to permit a thorough appraisal of its influence upon the
volume of arrivals and departures of alien Chinese and
Japanese. During the two years of its operation, how-
ever, striking reductions are observable in the number of
permanent admissions for both of these Oriental groups.
In this regard its influence has been more profound on the
18	Ambassador Hanihara in his Note to Secretary Hughes, April 10, 1924,
summarizes the “essential terms” of the “Gentlemen’s Agreement” as follows:
“(1) The Japanese Government will not issue passports good for the Contin-
ental United States to laborers, skilled or unskilled, except those previously
domiciled in the United States, or parents, wives or children under twenty
years of age of such persons. (3) Issuance of passports 'to so-called ‘picture
brides’ has been stopped by the Japanese Government since March 1, 1920.
(5) Although the Gentlemen’s Agreement is not applicable to the Hawaiian
Islands, measures restricting issuance of passports for the Islands are being
enforced in substantially the same manner as those for Continental United
States.” See Buell, Japanese Immigration. World Peace Foundation Pamph-
lets Nos. 5-6, p. 359.CO
On
TABLE 2
Net increase or decrease of population by arrival and departure of Chinese and Japanese aliens, fiscal
years ended, June 30, 1917 to 1926™
Year	Cl	linese admitte	d	C	'hinese departe	?d	Increase or decrease
	Immigrant aliens	Non-immi- grant aliens	Total	Emigrant aliens	Non-emi- grant aliens	Total	
1917		1,843	913	2,756	1,799	2,763	4,562	-1,806
1918		1,576	35,621	37,197	2,239	35,174	37,413	- 216
1919		1,697	5,729	7,426	2,062	5,868	7,930	- 504
1920		2,148	11,698	13,846	2,961	11,248	14,209	- 363
1921		4,017	18,974	22,991	5,253	19,455	24,708	-1,717
1922		4,465	8,755	13,220	6,146	7,838	13,984	- 764
1923		4,074	7,811	11,885	3,788	7,127	10,915	+ 970
1924		4,670	9,843	14,513	3,736	9,172	12,908	+ 1,605
1925		1,721	7,830	9,551	3,263	6,554	9,917	- 266
1926		1,375	7,247	8,622	2,873	6,142	9,015	- 393
Totals... .	27,586	114,421	142,007	34,120	111,341	145,461	-3,454
19Compiled from Table 4, p. 35 of the Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration, 1926, and similar
tables for other years.
Oriental ExclusionTABLE 2—continued
Year
Japanese admitted
Immigrant
aliens
Non-immi-
grant aliens
Total
Japanese departed
Emigrant
aliens
Non-emi-
grant aliens
Total
Increase
or
decrease
191	7........
191	8.......
191	9.......
192	0.......
1921.:........
192	2.......
192	3.......
192	4.......
192	5.......
192	6.......
Totals..,.
8,925
10,168
10,056
9,279
7,531
6,361
5,652
8,481
682
598
67,733
4,363
4,911
4,848
6,895
6,743
6,476
5,919
7,217
3,505
5,180
56,057
13,288
15,079
14,904
16,174
14,274
12,837
11,571
15,698
4,187
5,778
123,790
722
1,558
2,127
4,238
4.352
4.353
2,844
2,120
1,170
1,201
24,685
8,440
9,282
9,106
11,415
11,193
10,925
8,328
9,623
8,098
9,190
95,600
9,162
10,840
11,233
15,653
15,545
15,278
11,172
11,743
9,268
10,391
120,285
+4,126
+4,239
+3,671
+	521
-1,271
-2,441
+ 399
+3,955
-5,081
-4,613
+3,505
Oo
Vf
The: Immigration Act of 192438
Oriental Exclusion
Japanese than on the Chinese. When temporary admis-
sions alone are considered, that is the nonimmigrant
classes, the effect of the Immigration Act is less signifi-
cant.
It is quite probable that the number of admissions
of both immigrant and nonimmigrant classes will tend to
increase as the years pass. The effect of a restrictive
measure is always greatest immediately following its ap-
plication. The history of exclusion legislation shows that
there is always a sudden reduction in the number of ar-
rivals for the first few years after the new law takes
effect. For instance as a result of the Chinese Exclusion
Law of 1882 the volume of Chinese immigration dropped
from 39,579 in 1882 to 8,031	in	1883 and 279	in 1884
finally reaching the low mark	of	10	in 1887.20	Then it
gradually increased until it reached a balance of from
one to two thousand arrivals per year.
Likewise Japanese immigration dropped from 30,824
in 1907, the year before the Gentlemen’s Agreement took
effect, to 3,275 in 1909 and 2,798 in 1910. It later gradu-
ally increased to an average of 8,000 to 10,000 a year.21
As the years pass, ways and means of getting through
the nation’s portals are gradually discovered. Frequent
resort to the courts also results in a more liberal interpre-
tation of the law than the administrative regulations at
first impose.
While the exclusion act of 1924 has greatly reduced
the stream of incoming Orientals it has also tended to
stem the outward flow. The number of emigrant and
nonemigrant alien Chinese and Japanese has been slight-
20	Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration, 1926, pp.
174-176. These figures represent immigration from	China. Statistics by race
and people were not compiled till 1898.
21	IMd., pp. 182-185.TABLE 3
Comparative per cent of sex of immigrant aliens admitted and emigrant aliens departed during specified
periods, fiscal years ended June 30, 1911 to 1926, by race or people22
	1911	-1915	1916-1920		1921	-1925	1926		1911	-1926
	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female
Admitted: All races...	64.9	35.1	58.7	41.3	56.6	43.4	56.0	44.0	66.1	38.9
Chinese. . . Japanese. .	86.2 37.0	13.8 63.0	83.6 44.6	16.4 55.4	81.4 43.4	18.6 56.6	86.0 71.1	14.0 28.9	83.3 42.0	16.7 58.0
Departed: All races...	81.5	18.5	80.5	19.5	73.9	26.1	71.4	28.6	79.2	20.8
Chinese. . . Japanese. .	97.7 79.7	2.3 20.3	96.4 77.7	3.6 22.3	96.3 72.4	3.7 27.6	95.6 69.1	4.4 30.9	96.6 75.5	3.4 24.5
22 Annual Report, 1926, p. 215.
Cn>
The Immigration Act of 192440
Oriental Exclusion
ly less since the Act went into effect than for the years
immediately preceding. The net decrease for Chinese is
on the average less than formerly and the net decrease
for Japanese, owing to the sudden drop in the number
of arrivals, is greater than ever before.
In addition to reducing the volume of Oriental im-
migration, the Act of 1924 also changed, to some extent,
the type of arrival. In the first place it effected a
change in the sex (Table 3, p. 39) and age distribution of
immigrants causing a reversal to the composition of pio-
neer Oriental immigration when male adults constituted
the great bulk of admissions.
Table 4 compares the age distribution of Chinese
and Japanese immigrant aliens admitted during the two
periods, 1917-1924 and 1925-1926.
It might reasonably be expected that the 1924 act,
by prohibiting the entry of a large part of the immigrant
TABLE 4
Per cent of Chinese and Japanese immigrant aliens in each sepcified
age class, 1917-192623
	1917-24	1925-26
Under 16 years:		
Chinese		9.7	6.6
Japanese. 		 .	14 2	10.3
16 to 44 years:		
Chinese		78.	72.6
Japanese. 			76.6	80.9
45 years and over:		
Chinese		12.3	20.8
Japanese		7.2	8.8
23 Compiled from the Annual Reports of the Commissioner General of Im-
migration.The Immigration Act of 1924
41
alien, or permanent resident class, would thereby aug-
ment the stream of nonimmigrants. This, however, has
not been the case. During the two fiscal years for which
records are at present available the number of nonimmi-
grants admitted (also of nonemigrants departed) for
both Chinese and Japanese has remained ¿bout the same
as for preceding years. There was, of course, a slight
drop for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1925, but the
figures for 1926 are about the same as for the normal
years preceding the Act of 1924.
There has been, however, a considerable change in
the class of nonimmigrants coming since the exclusion
law took effect. Comparative figures for the Japanese
are not available as during the period of the Gentlemen’s
Agreement different official classifications were used.
But the records for the Chinese show a decline in all
classes of nonimmigrants except “temporary visitors.24
This class increased from 116 in 1923 and 105 in 1924 to
422 in 1925 and 393 in 1926. The effect of the law on
other classes will be discussed in detail later on.
24	Sec. 3.	(2) “An alien visiting the United States temporarily as a
tourist or temporarily for business or pleasure.”CHAPTER IV.
Reactions of the Chinese and Japanese to the
Exclusion Act of 1924
To the Chinese the Act of 1924 was but another
form of persecution and “gratuitous affront” added to a
condition that was already severe enough. As mentioned
above, the Act of 1924 did not repeal the Chinese Ex-
clusion Act of 1882. Consequently, the Chinese are now
subjected to the rules and regulations connected with the
two systems of exclusion.25 For over forty years, the
Chinese had battled with the administrative authorities
against what they considered to be the unjust and un-
necessarily severe enforcement of the Exclusion Law.
Directly after the Immigration Act of 1924 went into
effect, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce of San Fran-
cisco addressed a letter26 to the president of the
Chamber of Commerce of the United States in which
they presented their objections to being included in the
new law intended primarily for the Japanese.
After referring to their “graceful” acceptance of
America’s exclusion policy for the last forty-two years
and stating “that the Chinese people have always been
25	In his Annual Report of 1924^ the Commissioner General of Immigration
recommended the repeal of the old Chinese Exclusion Law. “It is not felt
that the Bureau can at this time suggest possible legislative remedies in
this respect, but after a careful study of the provision of the Act of 1924
under consideration it is strongly inclined to the belief that, with some ad-
justment, the new legislation might well make the repeal of the Chinese ex-
clusion law feasible and perhaps also of the Asiatic Barred-Zone Provision.
In other words, the Bureau is inclined to the belief that the provision which,
in effect, adds aliens ‘ineligible to citizenship’ to the long list of excluded
classes already appearing in Sec. 3 of the General Immigration Law of 1917,
may prove to be an entirely practical substitute for the earlier legislation
referred to and, more especially, the laws relating to Chinese.” (p. 30).
26	November 30, 1924.
42Reactions to Exclusion
43
reasonable in the realization that the influx of the Ori-
ental coolie classes, in large numbers, would subject white
laborers to a competition in which they could not sur-
vive, and would thus tend to lower the standard of liv-
ing in this country,” they proceeded to argue that the
Exclusion Law of 1882, based on the Treaty of 1880,
had accomplished its purpose of keeping out Chinese
coolies and “otherwise undesirable members of that race.”
In support of this statement, they quoted the census fig-
ures showing that the Chinese population of the United
States had decreased from 107,488 in 1890 to 61,639, in
1920. In view of this fact, they argued there was no
practical justification for their being further molested
by a law framed primarily for others.
That the resentment thus voiced by the Chinese in
1924 has not yet died down is indicated by a recent pro-
test made by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce of
San Francisco in a letter to the Secretary of Labor.27
After complaining against the treatment received at the
hands of immigration inspectors and Boards of Special
Inquiry, the letter states: “All that the Chinese mercan-
tile interests of this country seek of your Department
is that the Immigration Law, the Chinese Exclusion Law
and the rules and regulations appertaining to the same,
as promulgated by your Department, be given humane and
unprejudiced interpretation and application rather than
an enforcement which disregards the weight of evidence
and the circumstances surrounding the individual case
and resolves the slightest doubt against the applicant.”
It should be noted that the Chinese accept the prin-
ciple of exclusion but object to the method and manner
27	March 22, 1927.44
Oriental Exclusion
of enforcement.28 This same attitude appears again
and again in both the written and the oral statements of
responsible Chinese.
“Let the American government do as it pleases, we
as a nation seem powerless to resist, witness the encroach-
ments of this government through its Labor Department
upon our vested treaty rights, but one thing let them do
is to raise the abhorrent, obnoxious, unfair attitude of ex-
clusion and expulsion at the Port of San Francisco which
has virtually become to us a reign of terror. In saying
this we are not defending any class of case. We are not
interested in the landing or the deportation of any class
of case. Our grievances are not personal nor political.
We justly contend that if a Chinese merchant, his wife or
children apply to land at this port that they should be
fairly and justly treated and their cases safe-guarded by
the rights of justice and equity guaranteed them by the old
treaties and the natural right of fairness and interest.
That if, when these applicants, after fair hearing, within
a reasonble time, without prejudice or dislike, are found
ineligible for admission, they should in all justice be de-
ported. But the merchants, their wives and children ap-
plying to land or depart from the port of San Francisco
should not be deported on very flimsy pretext of very
false catchy questions after days of examination and
months and months of detention.”29
The Japanese reaction to the exclusion clause of the
28	By this I mean the Chinese in the United States have stopped fighting
against the principle of exclusion and are directing their efforts toward se-
curing less severe administrative practice.. As a nation China has protested
against every form of discriminatory legislation restricting the movements of
her citizens. The concessions granted by her in the Treaty of 1880 were
merely in the interest of peace and friendship. See the Commission to Evarts.
Nov. 6, 1880, U.S. Docs., ser. no. 2009, pp. 189-190. Note also the pro-
tests of Chinese diplomats against the Acts of 1882 and 1902. Coolidge,
Chinese Immigration, Ch. XVI.
29	Letter to the writer by T. Y. Tang, Manager of the Chinese Chamber
of Commerce of San Francisco, April 28, 1927.Reactions to Exclusion
45
1924 law is quite different from that of the Chinese.
To the Japanese, the passing of the law came as a bolt
from the blue, at once a suggestion of lack of national
good faith in carrying out the Gentlemen’s Agreement,
and a reflection on national pride and racial dignity. The
Japanese opposed the act during the period of its incep-
tion and still oppose it on political rather than on practi-
cal grounds. “To Japan the question is not one of
expediency but of principle. To her the mere fact that
a few hundreds or thousands of her nationals will or
will not be admitted to the dominions of other countries
is immaterial, so long as no question of national suscepti-
bilities is involved. The important question is whether
Japan as a nation is or is not entitled to the proper re-
spect and consideration of other nations. In other words,
the Japanese Government asks of the United States Gov-
ernment simply that proper consideration ordinarily giv-
en by one nation to the self-respect of another, which
after all forms the basis of amicable international inter-
course throughout the civilized world.”30
This statement made by Ambassador Hanihara in
1924 still reflects the attitude of the intellectual Japanese
in America toward the Exclusion Act. Japanese of the
official and commercial classes are unanimous in their
insistence that their complaint is not against the operation
of the present law, but rather against the principle of dis-
crimination involved in the law itself. Their contention
seems to be substantiated by the policy of the Japanese
Government since the new law went into effect. Dur-
ing the two and one-half years which the act has been
30	Ambassador Hanihara’s note regarding the Gentlemen’s Agreement ad-
dressed to Secretary Hughes, April 10, 1924. Quoted in Japanese Immigration».
by Raymond Leslie Buell, p. 361.46
Oriental Exclusion
in operation the Japanese Government has maintained as
much vigilance as ever in the issuance of passports. Al-
though relieved, by virtue of the passing of the Immigra-
tion Act, of the obligations entailed in the Gentlemen’s
Agreement, the Japanese Government has shown a spirit of
cooperation in the enforcement of the present law which
is recognized and appreciated by immigration officials.
The reactions of the Oriental common people toward
the 1924 act are somewhat different from those of the
commercial and diplomatic groups. To the ordinary
people the new law came as an inexplicable act of cruel-
ty perpetrated by a country they were taught to idealize
as the land of liberty and justice. A few cases will
illustrate the prevailing attitudes in this regard.
Chinese cases:
1.	“I am sorry about the new immigration law. It breaks up
families, will not let the wife of a citizen come in, that is not
right. One’s wife should be able to join him. The baby is able to
come in while the mother is not. If you go to China and China
say you can’t bring your wife and children with you, you make
trouble. America talks about closer relations with China and at
the same time passes such strict law. How can you bring closer
relationships when you pass a law like that?” (Race Relations
Survey document 257.)
2.	“The new law is a very bad thing, it is not right. What
about Americans if they went to China? If China said you can’t
bring your wife and children in, then I am sure your government
would cause a great deal of trouble for China.” (Survey document
234.)
3.	“I don’t understand how the Government of the United
States gave us such a law. Talk about the friendship between
these two countries! When an American goes to China the Chinese
people welcome him, why we are getting this bad treatment I can’t
see. Can a man live in this country without a wife, never see hisReactions to Exclusion
47
wife? I can’t understand your new law in breaking up the people
in a family. I can’t understand how your state representatives can
make such a law. I can’t make it out.” (Survey document 237.)
4.	“This new law very unjust—cause a great deal of trouble.
The old law, exclusion of the laborer, that bad enough, but Chinese
used to this law of 1882. This law I	think	really	made	for Japanese,
but they afraid to say only Japanese, because	Japan	very strong
nation, might make great deal of trouble, so they have to include
Chinese, too, but it is not necessary for Chinese, because they have
exclusion law, and Chinese in this country are getting less each year.
That is what the law is to accomplish, and that is why they should
not have a new law. I don’t think this is right. You say the
Japanese bring their women to this country, have lots of children,
big families, and all the women work. This is not so with Chinese.
Very few Chinese women come to this country. Their children do
not work. The women do not work. That is why the Chinese are
not the same as the Japanese. For	most	part,	all the Chinese go
back to China. They do not want to	come	and populate	this country,
but most Japanese when they	come to this country	want to	stay
here and populate it. I fear	if this law	continues,	it will	hurt
trade between China and this	country. I	think the	Chinese	may
boycott America like they did	some years	ago in Japan, and	also
when the Ambassador’s son (Chinese) went home to China and told
about treatment he received at the embarkation office. He was a
very indignant young man and caused much excitement over this,
so for six or eight months the Chinese people boycotted American
goods, causing the loss of hundreds of thousand of dollars to this
country. I think if the Chinese do this, this law will soon be
changed.” (Survey document 178.)
These and other similar attitudes which might be
multiplied indefinitely were expressed just after the pas-
sing of the exclusion act in the summer of 1924. At
that time no attempt was made to sound the Chinese at-
titude toward the new law, but in practically every inter-
view the subject of exclusion was in the focus of attention.
Japanese cases:48
Oriental Exclusion
1.	In a letter to the writer a Japanese farmer says in part,
“When the exclusion act went into effect my son was in Japanese
middle school. The act was suddenly passed and I did not have
time to get my son to this country. Since my hope was destroyed I
hardly know what I should do, for the conflict of my consciousness,
feeling that it is my duty to take care of my six children in this
country as well as my oldest boy and old parents in Japan. It is
our hearty appeal that the exclusion law be abolished and give us
an opportunity to meet our boy happily in this country in the near
future.”
2.	“Dear Doctor McKenzie: As I see the effects of the ex-
clusion act upon the Japanese I believe it is not only a question of
keeping the Japanese out but involves the greatest principle of
humanity. I have been in this country for 19 years. In 1916 I went
back to Japan and married, came back here with my wife and
engaged in farming. We had a very peaceful and joyful home and
were full of content in our lives. In later years we had two sons
and two daughters whom we had great pleasure in making good
American citizens. But about five years ago we had to meet with
the destruction of our hopeful life. It was the death of my wife,
leaving the children motherless. ... It is a world recognized fact
that the greatest education of children depends upon the loving
hands of mother. Recognizing this ... I have been striving my
utmost to get some one to take her place. . . . The only solution
is the acquiring of a mother from Japan. But the present law
does not allow that. ... In conclusion I hope that the above
facts will be taken into consideration and that the people of this
country will draw a better law for the sake of the human happiness
of the world.”
3.	“We hear that the members of the Pacific Conference,
realizing the injustice and spurred by sympathy, now attempt to
collect materials for this remedy. We cannot but be glad to find that
we are not friendless among the people of the United States, and
also that freedom, liberty and justice are not wholly vanished from
this free land of America. . . . America was the first in helping
and extending its sympathy to Armenia oppressed and treated
inhumanely by the Turks. America did not hesitate to be the
champion of humanity. They called the Turks barbarous but theReactions to Exclusion
49
Americans are the Turks now.” (The Japan American News, March
6, 1927.)
The above statements I think correctly reflect the
attitude of the ordinary Japanese people in the United
States toward the immigration law. It is hard for the
common man to reconcile America's ideal of justice and
liberty with an exclusion law which breaks up the most
intimate human relations of a people organized on a kin-
ship basis.CHAPTER V.
Chinese: and Japanese Exclusion Compared as
Administrative Problems
Administrative officials are unanimously of the opin-
ion that Chinese exclusion is their most vexatious problem.
Japanese exclusion is quite minor in comparison. That
Chinese exclusion constitutes the major problem from
the standpoint of administrative officials is indicated by
different objective tests as well as by the statements of
the officers concerned. For over twenty years the space
devoted to Chinese immigration in the Annual Reports of
the Commissioner General of Immigration is far out of
proportion to the number of Chinese admitted. In the
last two Annual Reports, 1925 and 1926, the space de-
voted to the Chinese is much greater than that devoted to
the Japanese. In the 1925 report, more than two pages
are given to a description of Chinese immigration while
only three lines, omitting tables, are assigned to Japanese.
In the 1926 report, the difference in emphasis is not
quite so great, eight lines being devoted to the Japanese
and thirty-three to the Chinese.
The percentage of applicants denied admission is at
least a rough gauge of the comparative importance of the
problems presented by these two Oriental groups.
Throughout the past ten years the per cent of Chinese
applicants denied admission has averaged 6.4 as compared
with 1.2 for the Japanese. Taking merely the years dur-
ing which the Immigration Act has been in effect, 1925
50TABLE 5
Chinese (aliens and citizens) and Japanese aliens admitted and debarred, fiscal years ended June 30, 1917-
1926s1
Year		Chinese		Japanese		
	Admitted	Debarred	Per cent Debarred	Admitted	Debarred	Per cent Debarred
1917		4,774	321	6.30	13,288	296	2.15
1918		3,166	308	8.87	15,079	201	1.31
1919		3,340	151	4.33	14,904	171	1.13
1920		4,690	125	2.59	16,174	194	1.19
1921		8,323	296	3.45	14,274	135	.94
1922		10,025	515	4,89	12,837	47	.37
1923		10,558	706	6.27	11,571	80	.61
1924		10,694	751	6.56	15,698	197	1.24
1925		6,243	673	9.73	4.187	121	2.81
1926		5,459	374	6.41	5,778	51	.87
31 Compiled from the Annual Reports of the Commissioner General of Immigration. Chinese “through transits” are
omitted. Unfortunately Japanese “through transits” had to be included in the table throughout as they were not listed
separately except for the years 1925 and 1926, when there were 754 and 656, respectively. Statistics for United States
citizens (Japanese) are not available.
Oriental Exclusion Compared52
Oriental Exclusion
and 1926, the per cent of Chinese debarred is 7.4 as
against 2.1 for the Japanese. Table 5 on the preceding
page furnishes the statistical data on which this calculation
is based.
TABLE 6
Disposition of immigrant and nonimmigrant aliens applying for
admission at the port of Seattle, from July 1, 1926
to. April 30, 192732
				_		Appeals Dismissed	
	Number Admitted	Held for Board oi Special Inquiry	Passed b Board of Special Inquiry	Rejected Board of Special Inquiry	1 Appeals Sustained		Appeals Pending
Chinese. . . .	813	512	351	32	21	45	63
Japanese. . .	838	78	53	25	9	1	1
32 Data supplied by Commissioner Weedin, ijort of Seattle, May, 1927.
“Through transits” omitted.
The comparative administrative difficulties involved
in. Chinese and Japanese immigration are well illustrated
by the last ten months’ experience at the port of Seattle
presented in the foregoing table. Although the number
of admissions for the two groups is practically the same
still 86.8 per cent of the 590 cases brought before the
Board of Special Inquiry were Chinese.
So much for the statement of fact concerning the
relative importance of the two Oriental groups from an
administrative standpoint. Now let us analyze some of
the causes of the trouble. In the first place, it is im-
portant to remember that Chinese exclusion has a his-
tory of over forty years. During this period a vast col-Oriental Exclusion Compared	53
lection of records has been made and an elaborate system
of procedure developed. The testimony of each new
Chinese applicant for admission is checked with the rec-
ords of previous entries of relatives or friends. These
may have entered at ports other than the one to which
the new case comes. In that event it is necessary to send
for the records and wait a number of days for their ar-
rival. Then in the hearing before the Board of Special
Inquiry the testimony given by the applicant for admis-
sion is checked in detail with the testimony given by a
father, brother or uncle who perhaps entered the country
years before. If the two sets of testimony do not agree,
at least in matters of importance, the applicant is denied
admission and advised that he may appeal his case to
the Department of Labor. If the appeal is not sustained
the applicant is deported at the expense of the steamship
company that brought him to America. On the other
hand he may engage an attorney and apply for a writ of
habeas corpus. If a writ is granted the case may be
fought through to the United States Supreme Court.
The applicant and his supporting witnesses are asked detailed
questions pertaining to his family and village life in China. Some-
times from 2,000 to 5,000 questions are asked at a hearing. The
questions and answers are taken down in shorthand and a brief
of the case is filed. Frequently briefs comprise from 20 to 50 type-
written (single-spaced) pages. A sample of the questions and
answers in the case of a young son of a Chinese United States
citizen recently debarred is given below. (Of course the hearing
is carried on through an interpreter.) No. 6436.
Applicant reminded that he is still under oath.
Q. What is your name? A. Leong Sem.
Q. Has your house in China two outside doors? A. Yes.
Q. Who lives opposite the big door? A. No house opposite.
Q. Who lives opposite the small door? A. Leong Doo Wui,
a farmer in the village, he lives with his wife, no one else.54
Oriental Exclusion
Q. Describe his wife. A. Chin Shee, natural feet.
Q.	Didn’t that	man ever have any children? A.	No.
Q.	How old a	man is he?	A. About	thirty.
Q. Who lives in the first house in your row? A. A. Leong
Yik Fook, farmer in the village, he lives	with	his wife, no one else.
Q.	Describe his wife. A. Wong	Shee,	bound feet.
Q.	Didn’t that	man ever	have any	children ?	A.	I	don’t
know.
Q. How many houses in your row? A. Two.
Q. Who lives in the first house, first row from the head?
A. Yik Haw, I don’t know what clan he belongs to.
Q.	Why don’t	you know	what clan	he belongs to?	A.	I
never heard his family name.
Q. Do you expect us to believe that you lived in that village
if you don’t know the clan names of the people living there? A.
He never told us his family name.
Q. How long has he lived in the village? A. For a long
time.
Q. What is his occupation? A. A farmer in the village.
Q. What family has he? A. A wife and one son, his wife’s
name I don’t know, released feet.
Q.	Who is his son? A. Ah Yin,	11 or	12 years old.
Q.	Is there a house on the second lot in the first row?	A.
No.
Q. Who lives in the first house, third row? A. Leong Yik
Gah, he is away somewhere, he has a wife, one son and a daughter
living in that house.
Q. Describe his wife. A. Lui Shee, natural feet, his son is
Wing Lok, 11 or 12, his daughter is Suey Heon, about 15 or 16
years old.
Q. Who lives in the second house in the third row ? A.
There is no house there.
Q. Isn’t the second house in the third row opposite one of
your doors ? A. The house opposite my door is in the second row\
Q. Didn’t you say your house was second house, second row?
A. I have been counting from the front of the village, the house
opposite my door is the third row, second house.
Q. Who lives in that house? A. Leong Doo Gui.Oriental Exclusion Compared	55
Q. How many houses in the fourth row in the village? A.
No houses in that row.
Q.	How	many	houses	in the	fifth	row?	A.	No	houses.
Q.	How	many	houses	in the	sixth	row?	A.	No	houses.
Q.	How	many	houses	in the	seventh row? A. No houses.
Q. According to your testimony today there are only five
houses in the village and yesterday you said there were nine. A.
There are nine houses.
Q. Where are the other four ? A. There is Doo Chin’s house,
first house sixth row.
Q. What is the occupation of Leong Doo Chin?	A.	He	has
no occupation, he has a wife, no children.
Q. Describe his wife. A. Ng Shee, bound feet.
Q. Who is another of those four families you haven’t
mentioned? A.	Leong Doo	Sin.
Q. Where is his house? A. First house, fourth row.
Q. What is his occupation? A. No occupation.
Q. What family has he? A. He has a wife, no children.
Q. Describe his wife. A. Toy Shee, bound feet.
Q. There are two families, who are	they and	where	do	they
live? A. Chin Yick Dun, fifth row third	house.
Q. What is his occupation? A. No occupation.
Q. What family has he? A. He has a wife and a son, his
wife in Chin Shee, natural feet.
Q. Did you ever hear of a man of the Chin family marrying
a chin family woman? A. I made a mistake, her husband is Leong
Yick Don.
Q.	What is the name and age of that son? A.	Leong Yick
Gai, his	house is first house, fourth row.
Q.	You have already put Leong Doo Sin	in the	fourth row,
first house. A. His house is first house third row.
Q. You have already put Leong Yick Gai first house, third
row. A. I am mixed up.
(Applicant is requested to draw a diagram of the village to-
gether with the names of the people living in the village houses
and does so, marked Exhibit ■‘A” and he signs his name thereto as
“Leong Dow Sem’\)
Q.	Now according to your diagram the	houses	across the
front of	your village belong to the following	named	men:—first56
Oriental Exclusion
house first row, Yick Haw; first house second row Yick Fook;
first house	third row Yick Gai; first house	fourth	row Doo	Sin;
first house	fifth row Yick Gai; first house	sixth row Yick	Don;
first house	seventh row Doo Chin. A. Yes,	that is	right.
Q. Have you named everybody now living in	the Gong	Ling
village? A. Yes.
Q.Who is the oldest man in that village? A. Doo Chin.
Q. Is there a wall around that village or any part of it?
A. No, but there is some bamboos on the back.
Q. Is anybody in that village blind? A. No.
Q. Is anybody crippled or lame? A. No.
Q. Is there a shrine near that village? A. Yes, there is one
at the tail end of the village.
Q.	What other villages are near that village?	A.	Gong	Cheo
village, a little way to the right side of the village.
Q.	What clan families live in there? A. Leong.
Q. Is there an ancestral hall in your village or near it? A.
No.
Q. Is there a fish pond near that village? A. No.
Q. Is there a school house in that village? A. No.
Q.	A fence of any kind around that village?	A.	Earth	bank
in front of it about two feet high.
Q.	What market does your mother patronize?	A.	Look	Bow,
8 lis east of the village.
Q. Do you cross any bridges or streams of water in going
to	that market? A. You cross one	small stone bridge.
Q. Is there a temple in that	market? A. No.
Q. Describe your school experience. A. Started when I was
7 to study See Ak Hock How, located about 2 lis south outside
of my village.
Q. Did you eat and sleep in	the school house	or	at home?
A.	I	slept in the school house and	ate at home, I studied	in	that
school for 9 years.
Q.	How old are you? A. 16.
Q. Who was your last teacher? A. There were three teach-
ers, Leong Yo Wah, Leong Bing and Leong Yee On.
Q. When was the picture taken that is on your affidavit?
A. When I was about ten years old.
Q.	Was your father in China then? A. No.Oriental Exclusion Compared	57
Q. Was the picture on the affidavit when you received it?
A. Yes.
Q. How did your father get that picture? A. My mother
sent it to him.
Q. How long ago did she send it to him? A. About Rep. 12.
Q. Why are you so excessively nervous during this examin-
ation? A. I am not at all nervous.
Q. How long have you had that gold tooth? A. About three
years.
Q. Was that tooth fixed that way while your father was last
in china? A. I had it crowned while my father was in China.
Q. Where was the work done? A. In the Ai Gong market.
Q. Do you know how much it cost ? A. A little over $4.00
Chinese money.
Q. Who is going to testifiy in your behalf besides your
father? A. Leong Seung.
Q. Have you any changes or corrections you wish to make
in your testimeony? A. No.
Q. Have you understood all the questions? A. Yes.
Q. Is there anything more you wish to say? A. No.
Chinese new comers are, as a rule, coached in ad-
vance. No matter how bona fide a claim may be they
take no chances with immigration officers. For this rea-
son, inspectors say, the story of a child applicant is fre-
quently grotesquely artificial even when there are no
grounds to doubt the validity of his admissibility.
To quote an immigration inspector:
“All of the Chinese are coached before they come in, both good
and bad cases. If they would quit this and just tell the truth they
would get along much better. They coach by letter, and begin pre-
paring the case years before they come. The father must show,
that he made a trip back to China, and state that he was married,
that a son was born, etc. After their arrival here we are almost
certain that letters are passed to them and that they are coached.”
(Race Relations Survey, document 262, 1924.)	/
The Chinese maintain that coaching is necessary as58
Oriental Exclusion
immigration inspectors, without a knowledge of Chinese
culture, misinterpret truthful statements and deny admis-
sion on the ground of fraudulent claims. On the other
hand, however, when evidence of coaching is detected it
creates an attitude of suspicion toward all testimony rend-
ered. Out of this situation, therefore, has grown up
antagonistic attitudes between the Chinese and immigration
officers that color the whole system of Chinese exclusion.
For this reason Chinese vigorously protest against the system of
private hearings before Boards of Special Inquiry. (See Rule 3,
Subdivision 3, Treaty, Laws and Rules Governing the Admission of
Chinese, October 1, 1926.) The following interview with a Chinese
indicates a very common type of complaint. “No one is even allowed
near the door. I would like to see this ruling changed so that it
would be possible for Chinese to have their counsel, friends or
relatives present at this hearing. At the present time Chinese are
often mistreated and many embarrassing questions are asked which
are unnecessary. The following case will illustrate. The daughter of
an American citizen applied for addmission. She was 24 years of
age, unmarried. She was asked why she was not married, the as-
sumption and suspicion being that she was entering here for im-
moral purposes. No counsel, friend, or even her father was allowed
at the hearing. She has been in the immigration station for five
months. The case has been taken to the United States Court. Mean-
while she is never allowed to go to the home of her friends but
may only take walks with the matron and must return to the im-
migration station at night.”
The Japanese have had no such experience in the past.
Prior to 1924, the Japanese, under the Gentlemen’s Agree-
ment, entered on passports issued by the Japanese Govern-
ment. No lengthy records were kept of arrivals. Con-
sequently when new Japanese apply for admission there
are no previous records with which to check the state-
ments made by the applicant. Further, the tradition of
deception is not so firmly implanted in the minds of in-Oriental Exclusion Compared	59
spectors with regard to Japanese as it is with Chinese.
The Japanese believe that they have inherited some of
the suspicion created in the minds of officers toward Chi-
nese just as the Chinese feel that they have been un-
justly injured by the wave of anti-Japanese sentiment
which gave birth to the exclusion features of the 1924
act.
When we consider the numerical distribution of the
classes of Chinese and Japanese applying for admission
under the 1924 Act, we get some conception of the com-
parative frequency with which problems of testimony
arise.
TABLE 7
Alien Chinese and Japanese admitted under the Immigration Act of
of 1924-(1925 and 1926)
Class of admissibles	Chinese		Japanese	
	No,	Per cent	No.	Per cent
Government officials, their families, etc		204	3.44	884	10.61
Temporary visitors		815	13.75	1,603	19,24
Merchants		499	8.42	296	3.55
U.S. residents returning from visit abroad		3,732	62.99	5,264	63.17
Professors, ministers, etc		20	.34	117	1.40
Students		655	11.06	169	2.03
Totals		5,925	100.00	8,333	100.00
United States citizens		5,419		unknown	
The Annual Reports of the Commissioner General of Immi-
gration do not give figures concerning the arrivals of United States
citizens of Japanese ancestry. However records kept by the Japanese
Association show the following admissions of United States born
Japanese at the port of San Francisco.60	Oriental	Exclusion
TABLE 8
Japanese arrivals at port of San Francisco
	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924	1925	1926
Born in U.S		398	308	395	404	482	510	887
Males		276	196	240	256	313	280	
Females		122	112	155	148	169	230	
This probably represents about half of the total number of
this class of Japanese that entered the United States during the
last 7 years. The increase in the number of American born Japanese
returning to the country during the last few years may be a result
of the alien land laws, being citizens they may rent or own land.
(Facts supplied by M. E. Mitchell in a letter, May 5, 1927.)
If we include, as we should, United States citizens
of Oriental ancestry, the total admissions of Chinese for
the last two years has been a little higher than the total
for the Japanese. Unfortunately, the number of United
States citizens (Japanese) is unknown, but it is by no
means so great as the citizen class of Chinese. It will
be observed that the Japanese have a much higher per-
centage in the classes which give the least administrative
difficulties, namely, government officials, and temporary
visitors, while the Chinese have a higher percentage in the
classes that create administrative problems, namely, merch-
ants, “citizens,” and students. Furthermore, the Chinese
have a much higher percentage of applicants for admis-
sion who belong to the immigrant alien class. During
the two years in question, 3,096 Chinese entered the
country as immigrant aliens, while only 1,280 Japanese of
this class were admitted.
There are two classes of Chinese immigrants, having
practically no counter parts in Japanese immigration, thatOriental Exclusion Compared	61
create grave administrative problems. These are the
foreign-born children of Chinese United States citizens33
and the wives and minor children of merchants. These
two classes are known to immigration officers as the
“sons of citizens” and the “sons of merchants.” While
a small number of wives and female children are always
included in these groups, still the ratio of males so pre-
dominates (87.5 per cent of all Chinese admitted to the
United States during 1925 and 1926 were males) that
the term “sons” is used to designate this type of ad-
ministrative problem.
It is impossible to ascertain the exact number of
foreign-born children of Chinese American citizens that
have been admitted since 1924. Immigration figures for
the last two years combine all Chinese United States
citizens, whether foreign or native-born, into one class.
Prior to 1924, however, the two classes of citizens were
listed in separate tables, according to which approximately
50 per cent of all “citizens” entering the country were
foreign-born. Estimating on this basis, about 2,700 for-
eign-born children of “natives” were admitted to the Unit-
ed States during the two fiscal years, 1925 and 1926.
The class of entries known as the “sons of merchants”
is, of course, not so great. In fact for the first nine
months of the operation of the 1924 act the wives and
minor children of merchants were denied admission on
the grounds of ineligibility to citizenship. The Supreme
33 “Children born abroad to an American citizen of the Chinese race at
any time subsequent to his having acquired a residence in the United States
are themselves citizens of the United States (R.S.,	1993) and entitled to
admission as such, irrespective of their age. Adopted children of American
citizens of the Chinese race are not admissible to the United States because
of the relationship asserted.” (Treaty, Laws, and Rules Governing the Ad-
mission of Chinese, October 1,1926, Rule 10, Subdivision 2)62
Oriental Exclusion
Court decision on May 25, 1925,34 however, removed the
barrier with the result that entries of the Chinese merchant
class—including merchant’s wives and minor children—
increased from 75 in 1925 to 424 in 1926. A Circuit
Court decision of August 3, 1925,35 further opened the
bars by declaring that domiciled Chinese merchants en-
gaged in purely domestic trade come within the meaning
of Sec. 3 (6) of the Immigration Act of 1924. Conse-
quently the entries of this class of Chinese are likely to
increase in the future.
Every applicant for admission in either class,—chil-
dren of citizens or wives and minor children of exempt
Chinese,—involves a dual system of investigation. First
there is the preinvestigation of the alleged status of the
husband or father seeking to bring his wife or children
from China. If he claims to be an American citizen he
must prove by means of a birth certificate or by affidavits
of supporting witnesses the validity of his claim. Like-
wise if he be an alien domiciled merchant he must show
“that he has been of an exempt status for the year pre-
ceding the application for admission of his wife or minor
children, his testimony as to status being supplemented
by two or more credible witnesses other than Chinese.”36
If the result of this preinvestigation of status satis-
fies the immigration officials,—both those through whom
the application was made and those at contemplated port
of entry,—as to the validity of his alleged status, a copy
of the testimony and affidavits with attached photographs
of the affiant and of the “wife and child whose entry
is desired” is “transmitted abroad for the use of the al-
34Charles Sum Shee et al v. Nagle, 69 L. ed. 640.
33 Wong Chai Chong 4522.
36	Treaty, Laws and Rules Governing the Admission of Chinese, October 1,
1926.	Rule 9. Subdivision 2.Oriental Exclusion Compared	63
leged child in applying to an American consul for the
proper documentation to enable the child to secure passage
to a port of the United States.” In the case of alleged
children of citizens the same procedure is carried out. If
they are eighteen years of age or over the American con-
sul abroad issues them “limited United States passports” ;
if under eighteen, certificates stipulating conceded citizen-
ship of alleged father.37
As soon as the alleged wife or child arrives at a port
in the United States a second investigation takes place.
The applicant for admission must prove to the satisfaction
of the immigration inspector or the Board of Special In-
quiry the bona fide nature of his claim. It is here that
most of the trouble arises. The burden of proof is
placed upon the applicant for admission and immigration
officers seem to assume that all claims are^raudulent un-
til proven otherwise. Hearings, as already indicated, are
long and tedious, sometimes lasting throughout several
days, while the applicant and numerous witnesses are
questioned in great detail. Meanwhile the applicant is
kept in the detention station.' Many remain there from
six to eighteen months awaiting the outcome of appeals
to the courts.
“Last year my boy try to come to this country. He tried to
get in under son of citizen. But they not let him come. They keep
him one hundred and two days in immigration station at Seattle.
Then send him back to China. I don’t know what’s matter. I think
he answer one question wrong. No I don’t fight case. No use fight
case in Seattle. Just waste all money. San Francisco may be all
right fight case. Have better chance San Francisco, no good here.”
(Race Relations Survey Document 243.)
These two classes of admissibles, so troublesome from
37	Ibid., Rule 10.64
Oriental Exclusion
an administrative standpoint, scarcely as yet exist in Jap-
anese immigration. In the first place the United States
citizen class of Japanese are at present too young to have
foreign-born children to bring to this country. The only
part of the citizen class of Japanese that constitute any-
thing of an administrative problem are the returning Amer-
ican-born children who were taken by their parents to
Japan when quite young and are now, in adolescent years,
seeking to reenter their native land. The problem con-
fronting them is to prove United States birth. This as
ai rule is done by presentation of birth certificates or af-
fidavits from physicians or midwives. It is only occasion-
ally that evidence of American birth is inadequate to per-
mit undisputed admission.
Likewise in regard to the wives and minor children
of merchants, Japanese immigration presents no adminis-
trative problem comparable with that of the Chinese.
The departmental interpretation of Section 3 (6) of the
Immigration Act of 1924 restricts the meaning of the
term “merchant/' as applied to Japanese, to persons en-
gaged in international trade, or commerce. The Japanese
domestic merchant, therefore, unlike the Chinese, is not
permitted to bring his wife and minor children to the
United States. Consequently a large class of Japanese
merchants are thus summarily prohibited from troubling
the immigration officials with requests to bring their fam-
ilies to this country. The international trader who is
granted this privilege naturally presents no administrative
problem.
Still another consideration which makes Chinese im-
migration* a more complicated problem than that of the
Japanese is the fact that a much higher percentage of
Chinese travel steerage, and, in accordance with adminis-Oriental Exclusion Compared	65
trative practice, steerage passengers entering the coun-
try for the first time, are, as a matter of course, sent
to detention quarters for medical examination and inspec-
tion. The steerage passenger is also more likely to create
an attitude of suspicion on the part of immigration officers
than the person traveling first class. For this reason
Chinese, on returning to the country or having their sons
brought over, very frequently make an effort to use first
class accommodations even though they would prefer from
economic considerations to travel in another class.CHAPTER VI.
Ineligibility to Citizenship as a Basis for Exclusion
The United States employs three different systems of
exclusion with reference to Orientals.38 The Exclusion
Law of 1882 with subsequent amendments excludes Chi-
nese laborers on the basis of race. The Barred Zone Pro-
vision in Section 3 of the Immigration Law of 1917 ex-
cludes East Indians and some other Oriental groups re-
siding within a prescribed geographical area.39 Section
13 (c) of the Immigration Act of 1924 excludes all aliens
ineligible to citizenship. This new basis of exclusion has
given rise to a number of problems, both with reference
to administration and with reference to group attitudes.
In the first place, it must be remembered that ex-
clusion on the basis of ineligibility to citizenship does not
exclude all members of a given race, nor is the selection
based on grounds logical or easily determinable. In-
eligibility to citizenship means ineligibility to naturalization.
Citizenship, however, may be acquired by means other
than naturalization. The Constitution provides that all
persons born in the United States and “subject to the
jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and
of the state wherein they reside.”40
According to the Fourteenth Census there were 18,-
532 native born Chinese and 29,672 native born Japanese
38	There is also the exclusion of special classes of undesirables under the
general immigration laws.
39	The zone includes India, Siam, Indo-China, parts of Siberia, Afghanistan,
and Arabia, the islands of Java, Sumatra, Ceylon, Borneo, New Guinea, Celebes,
and various lesser groups.
40	Article 14, Section 1.
66Citizenship a Basis for Exclusion	67
in continental United States in 1920. In Hawaii there
were 12,342 native born Chinese and 48,586 native born
Japanese.41 Under date of October 31, 1926, the Japanese
Consulate General of San Francisco published figures
showing 63,749 American citizens of Japanese parentage
in 10 western states. As this region contained 92.5 per
cent of the total Japanese population of the country in
1920 it is probable that there are between 70,000 and 75,-
000 Japanese United States citizens in the country at
present. The same publication listed 70,860 citizens of
Japanese ancestry in Hawaii. This would give a total of
about 145,000 for the continent and the islands.
In addition to the citizens of Oriental ancestry that are
resident in the United States, there is a large but indefinite
number living in China and Japan. This number is com-
posed of (1) native-born citizens who have gone to the
Orient with or without their parents and remained there,
(2) children born in the Orient whose fathers were born
in the United States. The Act of February 10, 1855,
(Sec. 1993) states that “All children bom out of the limits
and jurisdiction of the United States whose fathers were
or may be at the time citizens thereof, are declared to
be citizens of the United States.”
There is no way of ascertaining the number of such
foreign-resident citizens. It has been estimated42 that
there are about 25,000 United States born Japanese now
living in Japan. The number of United States citizens
(Chinese) resident in China is a much more uncertain
quantity. Most of such “citizens” are the foreign-born
children of United States born Chinese fathers.
41	Fourteenth Census, Vol. Ill, p. 1173.
42	U. G. Murphy, The American Born of Japanese Parentage, 1927.TABLE 9
Chinese claiming American citizenship by birth, admitted, 1917 to 19264a
Year	Foreign-born children of natives	No record of departure (known as “raw natives”)	Native Born		Total
			Status as native born *	Status not previously determined	
1917		905	19	904	151	2,089
1918		331	13	492	98	1,066
1919		260	15	471	179	1,016
1920		843	15	691	191	1,881
1921		2,067	22	812	302	3,493
1922		2,292	25	1,239	278	4,230
1923		2,399	27	1,610	• 515	4,938
1924				2,136	11	1,912	476	4,931
1925						3,023
1926							2,396
* Determined by U.S. Government previous to present application for admission.
40> Compiled from Annual Reports of the Commissioner General of Immigration. Complete data not available for
1925 and 1926.
Oriental ExclusionCitizenship a Basis for Exclusion	69
Table 9 shows the number of foreign and native-
born Chinese United States citizens entering the country
during a 10 year period. Approximately 50 per cent of
these Chinese United States citizens were foreign-born.
Many absudities arise in connection with this type
of “American citizen” who applies for admission to the
country of his allegiance. Frequently, such “citizens”
come to the United States for the first time as mature
individuals without the slightest knowledge of American
institutions, customs or language. During the last two
months, three brothers, Chinese, age 21, 35 and 39 ar-
rived at the port of Seattle claiming admission on the
grounds of citizenship. None of the three could speak
a word of the English language or had the slightest idea
of the country to which he was coming as a full fledged
citizen. On the other hand, many Chinese, and Japanese
too, have come to the United States as small children
and have been reared here to manhood and womanhood
but being foreign-born, they are not granted the privilege
of becoming citizens.
Commenting on this situation in 1916, the Commissioner
General of Immigration writes in his Annual Report as follows:
“Under the naturalization laws of this country, it makes no
difference how long a person of the Mongolian race may have
lived here nor how devoted he is to our country and its institu-
tions—how thoroughly Americanized in the substantial sense he
may have become—he must remain a foreigner ; he cannot become
a citizen. Yet a person of the Monoglian race who is so fortunate
as to be born here is vested by the ‘accident, of birth’ with
American citizenship; and no matter how fhoroughly foreign he
may be in his ideas, ideals and aspirations .... ,and even though
he demonstrates his foreign inclination by going to the native
country of his parents and marrying and establishing a home there
and there begets children and rears them to maturity, .... the70
Oriental Exclusion
children of such a person, born and reared abroad and having not
the least idea of what American citizenship means, may at any time,
either before or after attaining their majority, come to the United
States, be freely admitted at our ports (irrespective of their
moral, mental, or physical condition) and on the very day of
landing claim and exercise all the rights, immunites, and privileges
of American citizenship; and moreover, such a person’s foreign-
born children may also in turn assert American ciitzenship. Citizen-
ship in this country should rest upon substantial elements, not
upon mere technicalities.”44
A quite opposite illogical outcome of exclusion based
on ineligibility to citizenship is that a United States citi-
zen (Chinese or Japanese) is denied privileges granted
to alien residents of his own race.
“In the case of a wife of a citizen of the Chinese race, con-
sidered by the United States District Court in Boston, Massachusetts,
Judge Lowell reviewed previous court decisions in which the Chinese
exclusion law was interpreted and concluded that Congress in pro-
viding in the Immigration Act of 1924 for the admission of the
wives and minor children of ministers or professors, did not intend
to be more solicitous for the rights of such an alien than for those
of American citizens, such a result being absurd and contrary to
the principles of the construction of the statutes.” (Letter from
the President of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce of San Fran-
cisco to the President of the Chamber of Commerce of the United
States, November 30, 1924.)
Reference has already been made to the fact that
alien Chinese or Japanese merchants, domiciled or new
comers, may, under the court and departmental interpre-
tations of the act of 1924 and the respective treaty pro-
visions, bring their wives and minor children to the
United States while American citizen merchants of these
races are not permitted to do so.
“It might not be out of the way, however, to call
44	Pp. XV and XVI.Citizenship a Basis for Exclusion	71
attention to the fact that while the Immigration Act of
1924 prohibits the admission of the alien Chinese wife
of an American citizen, the Supreme Court of the United
States has recently held that the act permits the admis-
sion of the alien Chinese wife of an alien Chinese mer-
chant, who is resident in the, United States. In other
words, the act gives greater rights to the alien Chinese
resident here than it accords to our own citizens of the
Chinese race. It is submitted that an American citizen
in his own country should certainly be accorded rights
at least equal to those given to an alien resident here.”45
The practical outcome of this interpretation of the
1924 act will be to encourage intermarriage between Chi-
nese and other races or, what is much more probable, to
further stimulate the present all too common custom
among citizen as well as alien Chinese residents of this
country to establish and maintain families in China and
later bring their United States citizen offspring over
here when they are old enough to get along without a
mother’s care.
Although the 1924 act excludes the alien wives of
Chinese and Japanese United States citizens, it does not
exclude their children—born after the father has estab-
lished residence in the United States—thus producing the
anomalous situation that when a mother and child ar-
rive at a United States port the child is permitted to enter
but the mother is debarred.46 Likewise a child born in the
United States during a temporary visit of the mother is
45	H. R. 6544, p. 39.
4(5 Immediately after the 1924 Act took effect a number of Chinese women
(35), wives of Chinese United States citizens arrived at different United
States ports. They were refused admission as aliens ineligible to citizenship
but subsequently were allowed out on bond. During their stay in the country
many have given birth to children. If the present ruling of the Supreme
Court is not reversed these mothers will have to return to China but their
children may remain here. (See H. R. 6544, p. 20).72
Oriental Exclusion
a United States citizen and is not subject to the immi-
gration laws, but a child, born to domiciled alien parents
during a temporary visit of the mother to Japan or China,
is an alien and can never attain United States citizenship.
This feature of the 1924 act occasions illogical and
severe discrimination among the members of a family
group and in the eyes of the ordinary person makes the
law seem unnecessarily harsh and unjust. A Chinese resi-
dent of Seattle expresses himself on the subject as follows:
“I have been taking care of a case there. . . . He is the son
of a citizen. He took a trip to visit his wife in China. Brought his
wife and nine months old baby back. Will admit the baby but not
the mother. How can the father take the baby and leave the mother ?
Dirty place to stay. I wouldn’t stay there one night. No other
nation would treat anyone so. Not even let the mother out on bail.
Baby has to stay in unhealthy place; sleep on mattress put on
ground. Can’t tell how long they will have to stay, but they have
been there more than three weeks now. Have no milk or anything
for the baby. No place to bathe baby, or wash clothes. Makes
Chinese feel very, very bad.” (Race Relations Survey Document,
283.)
Two cases are pending in the United States District
Court in Seattle at the present time which illustrate
further complications bearing on citizenship and exclu-
sion. One is that of an American-born Chinese girl who
visited China a year ago holding a citizen’s return cer-
tificate. During her visit she married an alien Chinese,
but a short while later separated from her husband and
returned to the United States using her citizen’s return
certificate. In the course of immigration inspection it
was discovered that she had married an alien ineligible
to citizenship during her visit abroad and she was there-
fore denied admission to the country of her birth on the
grounds that she had lost her citizenship under Section 3Citizenship a Basis for Exclusion	73
of the Cable Act of 1922. Her attorney is fighting the
case on the claim that her marriage in China was illegal
and at present there is considerable correspondence with
authorities in China to ascertain what actually constitutes
a legal marriage. If the illegality cannot be substantiated
the girl will be sent back to China where she has no rela-
tives or means of support.
The other case is that of a young man, born in China,
to the wife of a domiciled alien Chinese merchant. Ac-
cording to the Chinese polygamous system of marriage
the claim is made that a man may have more than one
legal wife. As the courts have decided that a domiciled
Chinese merchant is allowed to bring into the United
States his wife and minor children, the merchant in ques-
tion is attempting to bring in his minor son born to his
second wife. As far as the writer is aware this type of
case has never been tested in the courts before. If the
decision is favorable to the merchant the number oi
American citizens in China and of minor children of
domiciled alien merchants who may make application
for admission to the United States will be greatly in-
creased.
Moreover, as ineligibility to citizenship is a legal con-
cept rather than a physical or social condition this basis
for exclusion is subject to sudden and frequent changes
depending upon court interpretations. For instance each
of the three large Oriental groups now excluded on the
principle of ineligibility to citizenship was at some
time or other in the past, granted citizenship.47 Prior
to the Act of 1882 Chinese were permitted to become na-
47	The 1920 Census lists 1,834 naturalized foreign-born Chinese and 572
Japanese.	Undoubtedly many of these were naturalized under the military
Service Act of July 19, 1919.74
Oriental Exclusion
turalized citizens.48 The ineligibility to citizenship of for-
eign-born Japanese was not finally decided till November
13, 192249 and of East Indians50 until a year later.
Prior to the Cable Act of 1922 alien wives of United
States citizens acquired citizenship regardless of race by
the fact of marriage. Many Chinese women of foreign
birth entered the United States as American citizens (1,-
943 during the period 1917 to 1924) being the wives of
United States citizens. The 1922 act, however, together
with the Supreme Court's decision51 of May 25, 1925,
denies the right of citizenship to alien Chinese or Jap-
anese wives of United States citizens of these races and
excludes them from the country.
Exclusion on the basis of ineligibility to citizenship
gives rise to discriminatory features that are highly ob-
noxious to national and racial	pride.	It	is	hard	for	a
high class Chinese or Japanese	to see	the	logic	of	being
excluded from the United States on the basis of color
when Africans, Mexicans and Filipinos are free to enter.
The discrimination has been further accentuated by the
recent decision of the Supreme Court that even service
in the United States overseas' forces does not make pos-
sible the reward of citizenship, a reward which is given
to other aliens, white and colored.
In the test case, Takao Ozawa v. United States, Justice
Sutherland delivered the opinion of the Court:
Facts: “The appellant is a person of the Japanese race born
48	The right of naturalization wag expressly denied the Chinese by Section
14 of the Act of 1882. Prior to this a number of Chinese received naturali-
zation through local courts, being considered as “free white persons.” A
small number of Japanese aslo received naturalization through similar inter-
pretation of the first naturalization law of	1790.
® Takao Ozawa v. United States, 260	U.S., 178.
R0 United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261	U.S.,	204.	(That the
question of Indian citizenship is still unsettled is indicated by the Copeland
Bill, S. 4505 introduced last Session.
51 Chang Chan et al v. Nagle 69 L. ed. 642.Citizenship a Basis for Exclusion
75
in Japan. He applied, on October 16, 1914, to the United States
District Court for the Territory of Hawaii to be admitted as a
citizen of the United States. His petition was opposed by the
United States District attorney for the District of Hawaii. In-
cluding the period of his residence in Hawaii, appellant had con-
tinuously resided in the United States for twenty years. He was a
graduate of Berkeley, California, High School, had been nearly
three years a student in the University of California, had educated
his children in American schools, his family had attended American
churches and he had maintained the use of the English language
in his home. That he was well qualified by character for citizenship
is conceded.”
“The District Court of Hawaii, however, held that, having
been born in Japan and being of the Japanese race, he was not
eligible to naturalization under section 2169 of the Revised Statutes,
and denied the petition. Thereupon the appellant brought the cause
to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the North Circuit and that
Court has, certified the following questions, upon which it desires
to be instructed.”
“The questions briefly restated are as follows:	1—Is the
Naturalization Act of June 29, 1906, limited by the provision of
Section 2169 of the Revised Statutes of the United States? 2—If
so limited, is the applicant eligible to naturalization under that
section ?”
“1—Held: Section 2169 of the Revised Statutes, which is part
of Title XXX dealing with naturalization, and which declared: “The
provisions of this Title shall apply to aliens, being free white
persons, and to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African
descent”, is consistent with the Naturalization Act June 29, 1906,
and was not impliedly repealed by it.”
“In all of the Naturalization Acts from 1790 to 1906 the
privilege of naturalization was confined to white persons ( with
the addition in 1870 of those of African nativity and descent),
although the exact wording of the various statutes was not always
the same. If Congress in 1906 desired to alter a rule so well and
so long established, it may be assumed that its purpose would have
been definitely disclosed and its legislation to that end put in
unmistakable terms.”76
Oriental Exclusion
“It is the duty of the Court to give effect to the intent of
Congress. Primarily this intent is ascertained by giving the words
their natural significance, but if this leads to an unreasonable result
plainly at variance with the policy of the legislation as a whole, we
must examine the matter further. We may then look to the reason
of the enactment and inquire with its antecedent history and give
it effect in accordance with its design and purpose, sacrificing, if
necessary, the literal meaning in order that the purpose may not
fail.”
2—“This brings us to inquire whether under section 2169, the
appellant is eligible to naturalization. The language of the natural-
ization laws from 1790 to 1870 had been uniformly such as to deny
the privilege of naturalization to an alien unless he came within the
description ‘free white person’. By section 7 of the act of July 14,
1870, c 254, 16 Stat. 254, 256, the naturalization laws were extended
to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent.”
“Is appellant, therefore, a ‘free white person’, within meaning
of that phrase as found in the Statute?”
“Held: The term ‘white person,’ as used in Rev. Stats., section
2169, and in all earlier naturalization laws, beginning in 1790,
applies to such persons, as were known in this country as ‘white’
in the racial sense, when it was first adopted, and is confined to
persons of the Caucasian Race.”
“The effect of the conclusion that ‘free white person’ means
a Caucasian is merely to establish a zone on one side of which are
those clearly eligible, and on the other those clearly ineligible, to
citizenship; individual cases within this zone must be determined
as they arise.”
“The appellant, in the case now under consideration, however,
is clearly of a race which is not Caucasian and therefore belongs
entirely outside the zone on the negative side. A large number of
the federal and State courts have so decided and we find no reported
case definitely to the contrary. These decisions are sustained by
numerous scientific authorities, which we do not deem it necessary
to review. We think these decisions are right and so hold.”
“In passing on the eligibility of persons of the Japanese race
to naturalization, the court has no function other than to ascertain
and declare the will of Congress, and the culture or enlightmentCitizenship a Basis for Exclusion	77
of the Japanese people are not matters which can properly be
considered/’
The resentment engendered by this decision is re-
flected in the following statements:	(1) taken from
Hearing No. 69, 1. 8 before the Committee on Immi-
gration and Naturalization on the admission of wives of
American citizens of Oriental ancestry, and (2) from
an unpublished paper written by a Japanese graduate
student in an American university.
1.	“Father and mother born in China. Oldest son, also called
Sing Kee, standing in center of group, and also represented in
inset, born Saratoga, California; served in United States Army in
France, being awarded Distinguished Service Cross; Army citation
accompanying same reading as follows”:
‘For extraordinary heroism in action at Monte Notre Dame,
west France, August 14-15, 1918. Although seriously gassed during
shelling by high explosive shells, he refused to be evacuated
and continued practically single-handed, by his own initative, to
operate the regimental message center relay station at Monte
Notre Dame. Throughout this critical period he showed extra-
ordinary heroism, high courage, and persistent devotion to duty,
and totally disregarded all personal danger. By his determination
he materially aided his regimental commander in communicating
with the front line/
“Some time after his discharge from the Army he went to
China to bring to the United States his wife, whom he had married
before entering the service. Fortunately he and his wife arrived
in the United States June 16, 1924, and she was admitted. If his
wife had arrived after July 1, 1924, she would not have been
admissible.”
2.	“The incidents which tended to lessen Japanese friendship
towards America were not to cease with the Immigration Act of
1924. On May 25, 1925, the United States Supreme Court handed
down a decision denying to a Japanese who had served in the
American army during the World War, the right to become an
American citizen. He had been granted this citizenship by the local78
Oriental Exclusion
court in Boston, on the common sense understanding that the Act
of Congress in May, 1918, granting citizenship to aliens serving in
the American Army, was intended in good faith to include all
aliens. On this decision of the Supreme Court, the ‘Yorozu’, one of
the largest dailies in Tokyo, comments (May 28) : ‘The United
States deceived our nationals resident therein. She has thus forsaken
her honour as a law-abiding nation. Before not only our own
countrymen, but also all Asiatics, we hold this as an example of
what America is alike/ The ‘Osaka Mainichi’, with a daily cir-
culation of over one million copies, the largest in the Orient, made
the following statement: ‘Americans are as spiteful as snakes and
vipers. It seemed as if anti-Japanese agitaiton had abated somewhat.
Now it has blazed again more luridly than ever. . . The Supreme
Court of the United States has handed down a judgment denying
the Japanese the right of naturalization that she had promised
when they joined America’s expeditionary forces to Europe. . . .
We hold the Government of the United States as an imposter. We
do not hesitate to call that government a studied deceiver.’ The
‘Tokyo Jiji’ published a cartoon entitled ‘The Broken Promise’,
in which a Japanese with crutches sits on a straight-back chair,
facing Uncle Sam, who is laughing, seated on a davenport with a
cigar in his right hand. The inscription below read: ‘The crippled
Japanese to Uncle Sam: Didn’t you promise me citizenship if I
served in your army?’ Uncle Sam: ‘Oh that was war talk; I’ll
promise the same when another war comes.”’CHAPTER VII.
Exclusion and the Family
Restrictive or selective immigration inevitably breaks
up natural human groups. Human .beings are not like
grains of corn that can be sifted and sorted into classes
without doing violence to sentiments and causing individu-
al suffering. The most serious effect of exclusion upon
Orientals domiciled here is that related to marriage and
the family. It is well known that the family is a more
fundamental social institution in China and Japan than
in Western countries. The familial behavior of Orientals
is difficult for anyone to understand who is not at least
somewhat familiar with their kinship attitudes and cus-
toms. In the first place, practically every normal Chinese
or Japanese man expects to marry and rear a family. To
fail in this is to fail in life. No matter what possessions
a man may have, he is not a success unless he is married
and has a family. More than this, his relations toward
his parents are much more rigidly fixed by custom than
is the case in Western civilization. Filial piety is stronger
and the sense of obligation to parents keener.
“It is the tragedy of human life if one has to remain single
while he or she wants to settle. Their nature as a rule turns very
queer unless they hold on tight the faith in God once delivered to
them. I heard that two or three cases in Southern California
committed suicide when they were thrown into the hopeless con-
dition in getting their bride.”—(Letter from a Japanese resident
of Southern California, April 26, 1927.)
The Northwest American Japanese Association, when collecting
information from its local branches, asked the question: “How
7980
Oriental Exclusion
many become insane from not being able to marry?” Five local
organizations responded to the question. Two reported three cases
each of insanity from such a “cause”; one reported one case and
two reported none. This information is presented here to throw
light on attitudes rather than on “causes”.
“You see, by Chinese tradition and custom, if my father
wanted to retire now, he could do it, and I, as the oldest, would
have to support him. Two girls that I know had a father about 60
years old, but he did not look more than 50. He sold out all of his
business to get money to go to China and live. After about three
years he came back to America and the two girls had to support
him, working in a tea room to do so. Finally, after three or four
years, he got tired of that, produced some more money from
somewhere or other, and went back to China. If. a girl marries,
under such circumstances, however, she is free, except that she
may have to support a new family. It is very hard for Chinese
girls because marrying always means off with her own family and
taking on a new one.” (Survey Document.)
“One reason why I wanted to live in Seattle was that it is
the nearest port to Japan and if my father, who is now elderly and
retired, should become ill I would have to go back to Japan as
quickly as possible for I am the eldest son and would have to take
my father’s place.” (Survey Document, 35.)
It has already been pointed out that the common
people, as distinguished from the upper economic and
official classes, appraise exclusion almost entirely from
the standpoint of its effect upon marriage and the family.
The 1924 law introduced certain restrictions which have
had a rather serious effect upon the family problems
of domiciled Orientals, whether citizens or aliens. So
far as the Chinese are concerned the new law changed the
situation chiefly with respect to the United States citizen
class. Alien Chinese laborers have never been permitted
to bring their wives or children to this country since the
beginning of Chinese exclusion in 1882. Also the status
of the exempt classes is about the same now as it wasExclusión and the: Family
81
under the Chinese Exclusion Act, except that students and
some other classes of temporary residents are now denied
the privilege of bringing in their wives.
The Act of 1924 effected much more significant
changes with reference to the domestic life of domiciled
Japanese for the reason that the restrictions imposed by
the Gentlemen’s Agreement were less severe than those
in vogue under the Chinese Exclusion Law. The condi-
tions of the Gentlemen’s Agreement permitted domiciled
Japanese to bring their wives, minor children and aged
parents from Japan irrespective of class or occupation52
The 1924 act suddenly terminated this privilege to all
classes except government officials, ministers, professors
and treaty merchants.53
The Problem of Marriage. Domestic problems aris-
ing among domiciled Chinese and Japanese as a result
of the new law may be considered under two heads: (1)
the problem of marriage and (2) the problem of separa-
tion within family groups. It is the question of marriage,
however, that seems to occasion the most severe hardship
as measured by the reactions of local Chinese and Jap-
anese people. But the marriage problem is not the same
for the two nationalities. Among the Chinese the prob-
lem is almost entirely confined to the United States citizen
class, while the Japanese of this class are practically un-
affected by the law. The problem of marriage among the
Japanese is confined to resident aliens, and especially to
those in middle life.
The United States citizen class of Chinese has pro-
tested vigorously against the Supreme Court decision
32 See Ambassador Hanihara’s Note Respecting the Gentlemen’s Agreement,
in Japanese Immigration, by Raymond L. Buell, p. 359.
53	Section 3 (1),	(6)	and	Section	4	(d).82
Oriental Exclusion
which excludes their alien wives.54 They even succeeded
in bringing their case before the House Committee on
Immigration and Naturalization. At a hearing in Feb-
ruary, 1926, they tried to persuade the House to introduce
an amendment to the Immigration Act of 1924 which
would add to the list of exempt classes under section 13,
“the wife of a citizen of the United States.”55
It is interesting to note that the Japanese United States
citizens did not participate in this protest against the 1924 act. The
silence of the Japanese in regard to this matter, is, of course, at
least partially explained by the fact that the law does not affect
them to the same extent as it does the Chinese for the simple
reason that most of the Japanese American citizens are as yet
below marriageable age, also because the ratio between the sexes
is more nearly equal. But in addition to this fact, the entire system
of Japanese policy toward the 1924 act comes into play, namely,
the policy of keeping out of the courts and the headlines of the
newspapers as much as possible. The Japanese believe that more
is to be gained by silence than by agitation under the present con-
dition of prejudice toward them. The Chinese are in a position
where, by appealing to the public, their case is likely to be modified.
Just the opposite is true of the Japanese and the Japanese know it.
Consequently throughout the two and a half years which the law
has been in operation, there has been no indication on the part of
either group to join with the other in opposing the law or any
feature of it.
It is rather surprising that an exclusion law should
affect a class of United States citizens to the extent that
they would go to such expense and trouble for redress.
But two important factors lie at the base of the prob-
lem, namely race and disparity between the sexes. Na-
tive-born Chinese, like native-born Orientals in general,
do not intermarry with the white elements of the popu-
54	Chang1 Chan et al y. Nagle, 69 L. ed. 642.
55	Admission of Wives of American Citizens of Oriental Ancestry, H. R.
6544.Exclusion and the Family
83
lation. In fact there is as yet in continental United States
very little intermarriage even between different racial
groups of Asiatics. The United States citizens (Chinese),
therefore, must secure their wives within their own racial
group. Here they are confronted with the second factor,
namely the disparity between the sexes. It might rea-
sonably be expected that the ratio of the sexes of the
native-born Chinese would be about equal since there
is very little emigration of female Chinese. This, how-
ever, is not the case. According to the 1920 census there
were 8,694 native-born Chinese males 21 years of age
and over and only 1,437 native-born Chinese females in
the same age class in continental United States. This
is a ratio of six men to one woman.
Of course the native-born Chinese are not limited to
the native-born Chinese women for marriage partners.
They may intermarry with the foreign-born Chinese wom-
en. But here the disparity between the sexes is much
greater than it is among the native-born. In 1920 the
census showed 38,285 foreign-born Chinese males, 21
years of age and over, and only 2,209 for the correspond-
ing class of females, a ratio of 17 men to one woman.
Comparing the entire group of unmarried Chinese males,
15 years of age and over, with the corresponding group
of females the figures are as follows:
TABLE 1056
	Single	Widowed	Divorced	Total	Ratio, males to females
Males Females	23,096 962	1,355 371	66 15	24,517 1,348	18 to 1
36 Abstract of the Fourteenth Census of the United States, p. 216.84
Oriental Exclusion
While the disparity between the sexes of unmarried
domiciled Chinese was high in 1920 nevertheless it was
much lower than at any time in the past. In 1910 there
were 39 unmarried men to every unmarried woman, and
in 1900 the ratio was 48 to 1.
The problem of marriage is also a troublesome one
with the domiciled Japanese, but as stated above it per-
tains to the foreign-born rather than to the native-born.
In 1920 there were only 412 native-born Japanese males,
21 years of age and over, in the United States and 246
females of the same class, that is a ratio of about 2
males to each female. If we consider the proportion of
the sexes among the Japanese 15 years of age and over
who were unmarried in 1920 the figures are as follows:
TABLE ll57
	Single	Widowed	Divorced	Total	Ratio of males to ' females
Males Females	24,423 1,604	1,118 388	154 23	25,695 2,015	13 to 1
57 Ibid, p. 216.
The ratio of single Japanese men to wom^n in 1910
was 42 to 1 and in 1900, 41 to 1. In 1910 the dispropor-
tion between the number of unmarried men and women
was greater for the Japanese than for the Chinese. In
Hawaii, 1920, the ratio of unmarried males, 15 years of
age and over, (single and widowed) to unmarried fe-
males of the same age was approximately 4 to 1 while
for the Chinese the ratio was 5 to 1.Exclusion and the Family
85
Naturally the disproportion of the sexes is greater
in the upper than in the lower age levels. The following
charts compare the age and sex distribution with that of
the population of the country as a whole. The data are
for 1920; the Japanese population is undoubtedly more
nearly normal now than it was seven years ago. The
Chinese, however, have probably changed but little.
AGE & SEX DISTRIBUTION OF JAPANESE
AND CHINESE FOR HAWAII: 1920.’
•JAPANESE-	‘CHINESE*
PELfc CENT	AGE
10 fi G 4 2 O 2 4 G 6 10 12 12
PEE CENT
10 ô G 4 2024GÔ
1	't1					
			1 11^?7			
		J				
		f				
	J	w	i			
	%W>	w	III T			
m		V//'				
	\M\		ml			
		k				
		J	¡It			
			fill,			
		1	nil			
	k	I	r4m			
		w	ML			
	J	$	!			
	I*		m 111			
AGE
10 12
60
75
70
G5
GO
55
50
45
40
35
50
25
20
15
10
5 •
O
10 Ô 6 4 2 O 2 4 G 8 10 12 12 10 6 G 4	2	O 2 4 G 6 10 12
PE2	CENT	PE-B	CENT
* UNITED 5TATE5 CEN5U5 DATA
It is clear from these charts that while both groups are
highly abnormal the Japanese constitute a much more
nearly normal biological group than the Chinese. In theAGE & SEX DISTRIBUTION OF THE TOTAL POPULATION, JAPANESE, & CHINESE FOR THE UNITED STATES! 1920! •JAPANESE* 'TOTAL POPULATION* «CHINESE* AGE PEB CENT AGE PEE CENT AGE PEB CENT A3E J2 10 8 S 4 2 O 2 4 6 6 10 12 J2 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 Ô 10 12 12 10 8 Q> 4 2 0 2 4. & Ô 10 I2_																																	
75- 70-														I','			s 1	vl	!		- 00 ■		I	1			J		4				ou
			■s'-				<				- 70 -		A?						V<		-	75 - -	70 -			.0	✓		1						i D - 70 65
																										!	1$						
60											60 -										- w C. A			%	é		il						
						j					- 55 -										- wj -		¡1	1	il	li	1						toU
crs					J	fi(										II					- 55 -		1	II	IÉ	¡1	n						55
OU AC				III		i					- 45 ■					1*					- 50 '			l|		P	m						■ 50
' ACS	J	m	i	i	IÉ						- AC\ -					J	ml				- 45 -				i	i	m						- 4U
	n	%	!		P	III					nU _ xc .				/		mil				- 40 -			f		1	m						- 40
o«>		w,	Ill	II							OD - 30 -				j		«1				- 35 -			1	É	¡1	II						- 35
				|	II	if 1		$			- 25 -				1	I	ÎWÊm ïWÊ m				- JtJ - 9 H			i		1	m						- 30
CO 20											- 20 -					II	mm				- to - 20				m	I	m						- 25
					II	1					_ I c _				p	i	i«i				1 R					1	A						- cu
is 10- Ç						1					1 o - 10 -				%	il	Hi;				1 O				r		4						- 15
				J	i	m					* 5 -				1	f	iWÈml	|			| Q _						ill						- 10
0- 12		u			1	m			II						11	li	mm									f!	m						- 5
	: io ô		€>	4 2 PER.		0 2 4 CENT		0, 8 10 12 12 10 Ô 6 4 2 o 2 4 G Ô 10 PEB CENT ♦ UNITED STATES CENSU5 DATA													12 12 10 8			<o	4 2 PEE		o i	2 4 CENT		Q>	Ô	— 10 12	
Oriental ExclusionExclusion and the; Family
87
lower age levels the proportion of the sexes for both
groups is nearly equal. But the percentage of children is
much less for the Chinese than for the Japanese.
The age and sex distribution, Chinese and Japanese,
for Hawaii more closely corresponds with that of the
country as a whole.
The contrast between the Chinese and Japanese pop-
ulation composition is very significant from the standpoint
of the future. It is obvious that the Japanese will with-
in a short period of time have no necessity of going to
the Orient for wives. The marriage problem, therefore,
among the Japanese is for the most part a temporary
one, limited to males of middle life who came to the
country during the first influx of Japanese immigration.
While the problem of marriage among this element of the
Japanese population is at present a very acute one be-
cause the American-born generation is not yet old enough
to marry, and it is impossible for these men to secure
wives from Japan, nevertheless as the years pass the
marriage problem for the entire Japanese population will
gradually diminish in importance.
Leaders in Japanese communities throughout the Pacific
Coast states have sent to the writer lists of Japanese men between
the ages of thirty and forty-five who are unmarried and who
cannot secure wives in this country. Every local Japanese community
contains a number of such men. They are too old and foreign in
habits to secure wives among the American-born. Native-born girls
are unwilling to marry alien Japanese and thereby forfeit their
citizenship. The chasm between the younger generation of American-
born and the older alien immigrants is much greater than is gener-
ally supposed. The following letter written by a young native-born
Japanese to his chum in Seattle is quite typical of the family and
courtship attitudes of the younger generation. It stands in striking88
Oriental Exclusion
contrast to the Japanese system of marriage by paternal arrange-
ment.
San Diego, California
“Dear S-------	Julp	30,	1926
Thanks for the letter which I received from you today. Gosh,
I was sure surprised to hear such interesting news from the old
town. Say is that the truth that Y is in Los Angeles at present?
What in the devil made him come to this neck of the woods. I
couldn’t imagine that he would leave the dear old town and desert
his comrades (A and B). Anyway I would be surprised to find the
rest of the Three Musketeers making a dash to the land of sun-
shine and flowers.
Also did you really mean it when you said that P has already
got hitched? Well, well, another man gone wrong in this world
for marrying so soon. He’ll find out one of these* days that they
can’t live on Love, alone. They say that Experience is the greatest
teacher and whoever said that proverb is sure hitting the nail on
the head.
And that poor V--------- guy is really down to brass tack to get
married is he? Here’s hoping him the best of luck and may their
love-nest be as happy and wonderful as they are dreaming it to be.
Say Bo-Zo I guess we are the only ones who are left behind
in the dust. Well we can make up for it in another way and in one
sense of the word we will be closer to our goal for success in this
world, than the ones who are married. At least I hope so. What
do you say old man?
Who’s next on the row? A or B? Are there any girls who are
announcing their engagements to the public lately? When is that
S----- Queen “L” going to get married? Surely she can’t wait too
long for she’ll also be an old maid before she knows it. There’s
a lot of others not mentioning names.
Yes, I went to Los Angeles about a couple of weeks ago
and saw N the Sheik. I’ll say he’s a Sheik in Los Angeles. And
by the way I met his future wife. Very nice girl indeed and also
better looking than the average girl in Los Angeles among the
Japanese. Really I didn’t get to speak to her very much for we
were busy and didn’t have the time to chew the fat. However, all
I can say is that she’s a nice girl and I don’t blame N ravingExclusion and the: Family
89
about her to all his friends. Anyway, you can’t tell by looks only,
for these days, good looks are very deceiving—as the saying goes.
N is also down to brass tacks and working like the devil.
When I first saw him he looked awful worried or else he was
thinking about something for he didn’t act like the N------------ of days
gone by. In fact he had a far look in his eyes for some unknown
reason, and I told him to cheer up and be himself. I got the im-
pression that he is realizing the hardships that are confronting him
more and more, and the responsibility that is on his shoulders.
He seemed a little disgusted with life in general for he mentioned
something to that effect. He says that his girl is willing to marry
him right away but he seems to have refused her for he has
thought things over and decided that it -would be best for both of
them to wait a little longer. Anyway he’s not as foolish as some
people, not mentioning names, to get married too soon and suffer
the hardships that come with married life at such a young age.
I admire him for that—that he has common sense to realize the
cold fact that he must face, if he takes the plunge into matrimony.
Anyway I tried to cheer him up the best I could and we talked
over old times, together. I sure enjoyed seeing him for there is a
common bond of friendship that draws us together when we are in
this different country.
Say by the way do you know that fellow by the name of H.
S.? That good for nothing bum is loafing around Los Angeles and
doing nothing at all. At least that is the impression I got from
the fellows who know him. Surprised indeed to see him. He’s the
same old nut as usual, and as a matter of fact I didn’t hardly pay
any attention to him at all.
There is not much news of any kind at present old man so
I’ll leave the rest to you to tell.
I’ll excuse you for not answering for a long time due to the
fact that you were in C--------, but next time don’t forget to answer
my letters at an earlier date.	So long,”
With the Chinese, however, there is no such probable
future diminution in the problem of securing wives. The
Chinese have shown but slight tendency to bring women
or female children to this country. Their immigrationTABLE 12	vo
o
Immigrant aliens admitted and emigrant aliens departed, by sex, showing net increase and decrease, fiscal
years ended June 30, 1911-192658
Year	Chinese admitted		Chinese departed		Net increase or decrease		
	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female	
1911		1,124	183	2,660	56	-1,536	+	127
1912		1,367	241	2,483	66	-1,116	+	175
1913		1,692	330	2,204	46	- 512	+	248
1914		2,052	302	2,005	54	+ 47	+	248
1915		2,182	287	1,918	41	+ 264	+	246
1916		1,962	277	2,093	55	- 131	+	222
1917		1,563	280	1,735	64	- 172	-f	216
1918		1,276	300	2,156	83	- 880	+	217
1919		1,425	272	1,979	83	- 554	+	189
1920		1,719	429	2,844	117	-1,125	+	312
1921		3,304	713	5,112	141	-1,808	+	572
1922		3,622	843	5,943	203	-2,321	+	640
1923		3,239	835	3,625	163	- 386	+	672
1924.			3,732	938	3,553	183	+ 179	+	755
1925		1,526	195	3,124	139	-1,598	+	56
1926		1,182	193	2,746	127	-1,564	+	66
Totals			32,967	6,618	46,180	1,621	-13,218	+4,997	
58 Compiled from the Annual Reports of the Commissioner General of Immigration.
Oriental ExclusionTABLE 12—Continued
Year	Japanese admitted		Japanese departed		Net increase or decrease	
	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female
1911			1,409	3,166	2,721	603	-1,312	+2,536
1912		1,930	4,242	1,167	334	+ 763	+3,908
1913		3,157	5,145	561	172	+ 2,596	+4,973
1914		3,292	5,649	615	179	+2,677	+5,470
1915		3,762	4,847	676	149	+3,086	+4,698
1916		4,033	4,678	635	145	+3,398	+4,533
1917		4,162	4,763	581	141	+3,581	+4,622
1918		4,821	5,347	1,215	343	+3,606	+5,004
1919		4,567	5,489	1,715	412	+2,852	+5,077
1920		3,414	5,865	3,181	1,057	+ 233	+4,808
1921		3,147	4,384	3,279	1,103	- 102	+3,281
1922			2,683	3,678	3,086	1,267	- 403	+2,411
1923		2,489	3,163	2,043	801	+ 446	+2,362
1924		3,784	4,697	1,537	583	+2,247	+4,114
1925		368	314	837	333	- 469	- 19
1926		425	173	830	371	- 405	- 198
Totals		47,443	65,600	24,649	8,020	+22,794	+57,580
Exclusion and the: Family92
Oriental Exclusion
has been largely confined to males. The contrast between
the Chinese and Japanese in this regard is indicated by
Table 12 above.
Separation Within Families. This form of domestic
problem assumes a variety of aspects. First there is the
case of the wife and part of the family in the Orient and
the husband with the rest of the family in America. Next
the wife and husband are in America while some of the
children are marooned in the Orient. A third, and less
common, condition is for the children to be in America
while the parents are in the Orient.
Problems of family separation like those of marriage
have different characteristics for each of the Oriental
groups. For instance among the Chinese the problem
is one of husband and wife separation. The two main
classes of domiciled Chinese, merchants and citizens, are
free to bring their children to America. Merchants may
bring their wives also but citizens are not granted this
privilege. With the Japanese, on the other hand, owing
to their habit in previous years of bringing their wives to
America, the problem of separation is largely confined
to children who are marooned in Japan and are unable to
join their parents in this country.
The following chart presents a comparative picture
of1 the marital completeness of the family life of Chinese
and Japanese in the United States.
According to the 1920 Census the percentage of mar-
ried males, 15 years of age and over, was about the same
for Chinese, Japanese and the population as a whole,
namely 49.7, 54.5 and 59.1 respectively. The Chinese,
however, have shown but slight tendency to bring their
wives to the United States. Only 12.3 per cent of theExclusion and the Family
93
JAPANESE & CHINESE MARRIED
MALES HAVING WIVES IN UNITED
states: 1900,1910,1920.
JAPANESE
T
0	'iw
Wtf/M’/AM
PE£ CENT
0	. (p . 20	30	,	40	,	50	,	60	,	70	,	ÔO	,	90	,	\Q0
m
CHINESE
PCE. CENT
WM	Wa		'm	VM	'M	'//A	y///z	W'
								
w//\	W/s	W/,	W/,	Wa	W	'//A	W/<	Wa
								
WÀ	W/,	VM	VM	V/À	m		VM	'm
WIVES IN THE. UNITED STATES
WIVE5 NOT IN THE UNITED STATES
* U. 5. CENSUS DATA94
Oriental Exclusion
married males had their wives with them in the coun-
try in 1920 as against 71 per cent of the Japanese married
males. Even the United States citizen class of Chinese
frequently marry and leave their wives in China. During
the 19 year period preceding the Act of 1924 only 2,848
wives of United States citizens (Chinese) came to this
country.
The question naturally arises why the Chinese leave
their women folk in China while the Japanese bring theirs
to America. The Chinese Exclusion Law has prevented
laborers from bringing in their wives, but even other
classes who have not been denied this privilege have
shown little tendency to do so. A few excerpts from in-
terviews with representative Chinese may throw some light
on the situation.
1.	“My wife is still in China. I have not seen her for ten
years. You wonder why I don’t bring her here. Well that is the
question. Because my wife come over here, and you Americans
cause her a lot of trouble. You pen her up in the immigration
office and then have doctors come and say she has liver trouble,
hookworm, and the doctor does not know anything about it, to tell
the truth. When my little boy came to this country, he was kept
in the immigration office for over two months. Poor little fellow—
he was so homesick. That is the reason why my wife hates to come
over here. It would break her heart to have to stay so long in the
immigration office.” (Race Relations Survey Document 241.)
2.	“I could not support my wife in this country so I leave
her in China. When I come back in about a year and a half, my
wife dead in China. Then I marry again in China. Very few
Chinese women in this country. Chinese-born girl very much better
anyway. Know all about China and don’t cost so much.” (Document
237.)
3.	“In 1910 I go home, get married this time. I been back to
China three times—in 1910, 1917, 1921. I no bring my wife this
country. Cost too much to do that. Spend lots of money in thisExclusion and the Family
95
country. My wife want to come, but I think best leave her in
China. If law change, I would bring my boy over her;e maybe. I
intend to bring my wife after few years if the law change, and I
get money.” (Document 263.)
4.	“I went to China to marry. I no bring her back here for
long time. I go back to China two three times to see her. I bring
my oldest boy back some years ago. I have two boys born in China
and one adopted girl, and two children born in this country, one
boy, one girl. After boy come to this country, he write his mother,
tell her to come. I want my children to get Chinese education. They
must have Chinese custom and understand Chinese language because
they always be Chinese.” (Document 256.)
5.	“Not many Chinese women in this country. Lots of men
go to China for wives .Girls in China are more safe than here. No
spend so much money, no all time want something. Chinese girl
born in this country very wasteful.” (Document 245.)
6.	“Sure I go back to China three times. I get married when
I go back in 1913. Last time I come back from China, I bring my
boy with me. I leave my wife in China. Not enough money to bring
her over here. I would bring her here if I had enough money. She
wants to come very bad.” (Document 251.)
Every Japanese community of any size in America
contains some households from which the mother or one
or two of the children are permanently absent as a re-
sult of the exclusion law. The Japanese have had a habit
of sending their children back to Japan to be with rela-
tives or to attend school. So when the exclusion law
came into effect the foreign-born children and the moth-
ers who did not return to America in time are now sep-
arated from their families.59 The number of such brok-
en, families does not seem to be very great but wherever
they are found they occasion severe local criticism con-
59 In cases where legal residence in United States was established prior to
1924, it has been the practice of the Bureau to grant admission. The prob-
lem arises in connection with cases where previous legal residence for the
absent members cannot be established.
The Bureau also admits infants conceived in the United States but born
abroad during the temporary visit of the mother.96
Oriental Exclusion
cerning the cruelty of the law. As a result of a ques-
tionnaire sent to seven branches of the Japanese Associa-
tion—all in rural districts—65 cases were reported of
families where either the mother or one or more children
were in Japan ancj could not join the family here on ac-
count of the exclusion law. Many individuals from dif-
ferent parts of the country have written to the author of
this paper citing similar cases of family separation.
Space does not permit, nor is it necessary for the
purpose of this report, to present many instances of homes
broken by the 1924 Act. One or two cases, however,
will illustrate the problem.
1.	A prominent Japanese resident of Pacific Beach, California,
40 years a resident in the United States, married and has seven
children, six American citizens, one born in Japan. His wife went to
Japan in 1919 to visit her sick father. She was pregnant at the
time or her departure, and the child was born in Japan. She re-
turned to the United States in 1920, leaving the child under the care
of her parents. Sickness prevented her return to Japan for the
child prior to the passage of the 1924 act. Her parents have
recently died, ,and there is no one in Japan to take care of the
child, and being an alien ineligible to citizenship, it is not possible
to bring him to the United States except as a temporary visitor. In
his petition to the Commissioner of Immigration, the father writes:
“I have had faith in the United States for the past forty years,
and I have today. The nation which stands for liberty, justice
and humanity shall not fail me in my distress.”
2.	A young Japanese high school graduate of Los Angeles,
an American-born citizen, 27 years of age, went to Japan on May
15, 1924, in order to secure a wife before the Act would take
effect. He was too late to get back before the restriction was on.
Consequently, his young wife was refused a passport, and he re-
turned to the United States alone. Subsequently, a child was born
to him in Japan, so now the mother and child are in the Orient,
and the father, an American citizen, is in California.Exclusion and the Family
97
This problem is not confined to Orientals alone. It
arises in connection with all forms of selective immigra-
tion. It has, however, a more fatalistic connotation for
Orientals than for other immigrants as exclusion is abso-
lute while the quota system leaves a prospect for future
entry.
The question of family separations resulting from se-
lective or restrictive immigration is one that has always
called forth a great deal of public sympathy. The Com-
missioner General of Immigration has frequently com-
mented upon the need for generosity in dealing with
such cases.60 The President in his message to Congress,
December 7, 1926, says in part “While restrictive im-
migration had been adopted for the benefit of the wage
earner and in its entirety for the benefit of the country, it
ought not to cause a needless separation of families and
dependents from their natural source of support contrary
to the dictates of humanity.”61
«° Annual Reports, 1925, p. 28; 1926. p. 23.
61	See Monthly Record of Migration, International Labor Office, February.
1927,	p. 60. Attention is called to the Wadsworth Bill H.R. 6238 which
provided for “non-quota stàtus to the wives and unmarried children under
18 years of alien residents who came to the United States before July 1.
1924 and who have declared their intention to become American citizens.”
The bill was subsequently defeated by the House committee on Immigration
and Naturalization.CHAPTER VIII.
Problems Arising in Connection With
Admissible Classes
The Act of 1924 specified seven different classes of
aliens, ineligible to citizenship, admissible to the United
States. These classes are grouped into two divisions,
nonimmigrants and nonquota immigrants. The first di-
vision includes government officials, their families, etc.;
temporary visitors; continuous through transits; and treaty
merchants. The second division includes returning domi-
ciled residents; ministers and professors, their wives and
children; and students.
Inasmuch as certain of these classes create but re-
latively slight administrative problems they will be omitted
from consideration in this paper. For instance govern-
ment officials, through transits, ministers and professors,
do not occasion problems of law enforcement to be com-
pared with those associated with other classes of ad-
missibles.
Government officials who travel with proper cre-
dentials are accorded the usual courtesies belonging to
this class. During the fiscal years 1925 and 1926, 204
Chinese and 884 Japanese were admitted under the
heading “Government officials, their families, attendants,
servants, and employees.” These figures indicate the ex-
tent to which each nation is officially associated with this
country.
The class designated as “Ministers, professors, their
wives and children” is numerically quite small, but hereAdmissible: Classer
99
again the Japanese greatly outnumber the Chinese, 117
as against 20 for the two fiscal years referred to above.
The through transit class of nonimmigrant admissi-
bles is comprised, for the most part, of Chinese laborers
en route to Cuba also of a few Japanese laborers crossing
through Southern California to Mexico. Occasionally
travelers crossing to and from Europe use through transit
visas but as a rule they possess temporary visitor's visas
which allow stop off privileges.
The through transit laborers are taken direct from the
ships and placed under the custody of the railway com-
pany which transports them across country and furnishes
bonds as a guarantee of their departure within the time
limit imposed. This through transit traffic, while large
in extent, (reaching 34,977 for the Chinese in 1918 of
whom 28,838 were destined to France) occasions prac-
tically no administrative problem at the ports of entry.
For this reason I shall omit further discussion of this class
and proceed with an analysis of the administrative and
social problems arising in connection with other admissi-
ble classes.CHAPTER IX
Reentry From Temporary Visits Abroad
The habit common to all alien residents of the United
States of making temporary visits to their homelands is
well known. Commenting in his 1920 Report upon the
unusual exodus of alien residents immediately after the
war, the Commissioner General of Immigration writes:
“The return movement of aliens is no new thing, how-
ever, for between 1908, when official records of outgo-
ing aliens began, 36 left the country for every 100 ad-
mitted, and records of the Transatlantic Passenger As-
sociation show that in the 22 years, 1899-1910, as many
as 37 steerage passengers were carried to Europe for
every 100 brought to the United States.”62 This of course
refers to all outgoing aliens and not merely to those leav-
ing the country for a temporary sojourn abroad.
Domiciled Orientals reveal an even greater tendency
than Europeans to revisit their native lands. During the
two years of record under the 1924 Act, 63.1 per cent
of all Chinese aliens and 63.2 per cent of all Japanese
aliens admitted to the United States (through transits ex-
cepted) were returning residents. These figures do not
include the reentry of United States citizens of Oriental
ancestry. During the two year period in question, 2,659
United States citizens (Chinese) entered the country, and
about half of this number were resident citizens returning
from temporary visits abroad. Unfortunately the Com-
missioner General's reports do not indicate the number
62	Annual Report, 1920. pp. 36-37.
100Re-entry from Visits Abroad	101
of United States citizens of Japanese ancestry who leave
the country for temporary visits to Japan. Undoubtedly
the number is considerably lower than for the Chinese.
Although both Oriental groups show a pronounced
habit of revisiting the Orient, still the Chinese show an
even greater tendency in this respect than the Japanese.
During the two years under the 1924 Act (1925 and
1926), a total of 3,732 domiciled Chinese aliens returned
from temporary visits abroad. This number constitutes
83 per thousand of the total Chinese alien population in
the United States in 1920. During the same two years,
5,264 alien Japanese residents returned, or a ratio of 24
per thousand of the total alien Japanese population in the
country in 1920.63
Dr. S. Yoshioka, who is at present in the United States
studying the health conditions of Japanese farmers along the
Pacific Coast, has supplied the following data from his unpublished
manuscript concerning 302 families and their return visits to
Japan. These families are scattered throughout Washington, Oregon-
and California and therefore afforded a. fair sampling of the
frequency with which the agricultural population revisit their
native land. The average length of time the heads of the 302
families were resident in America was 23.6 years. None was less
than 10 years or more than 35.
302 families gave information
168 visited Japan 1 time
32 visited Japan 2 times
6	visited Japan 3 times
1	visited Japan 4 times
95 visited Japan 0 times
Undoubtedly, most of the temporary visiting abroad
of domiciled Orientals is in connection with family affairs
rather than for business or sight seeing. The unnatural
63	Figures include Hawaii.102
Oriental Exclusion
composition of the Chinese population in America is an
important cause of much of the return travel to China. As
indicated by the foregoing charts, the resident Chinese
population is largely composed of fractional parts of
families, adult males whose wives and minor children live
in China. Then, too, much of the work in which the
Chinese are engaged is of such a character—small business
establishments with lots of help or seasonal contract em-
ployment—as to give time for travel abroad. Practically
every mature Chinese male has made at least one or two
return trips to his native land. The Japanese do not
visit their homeland quite so much, largely because their
population in the United States is more nearly normal.
A large part of the Japanese temporary visits to Japan in
the past has been to secure wives. The organization of
special tourist parties of men became a common type of
business after the Japanese Government in 1920 stopped
issuing passports to “picture brides.” This male tourist
custom was known as the “kankodan system.”
The Act of 1924 considerably reduced the volume of
temporary travel to the Orient. The law seems to have
affected the Japanese even more than the Chinese. For
the two normal years prior to the passing of the Immi-
gration Act, namely, 1922 and 1923, 13,18764 Japanese
returned from temporary visits abroad. This, of course,
includes returns to Hawaii as well as to continental United
States. In contrast to this the total number of Japanese
reentering the country for the two years that the ex-
clusion law has been in effect, namely, 1925 and 1926,
was only 5,26465 or a drop of about 60 per cent. The
number of Chinese reentering for these two periods is
64	Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration 1922, pp.
136 and 140; 1923, pp. 152 and 154.
65	IMd., 1925, p. 24, and 1926, p. 8.Re-entry from Visits Abroad	103
4,806 and 3,732/6 respectively, or a decline of only 20
per cent.
The sudden drop in the number of returning Japanese
residents following the passage of the 1924 law is un-
doubtedly due to the fact that it is now impossible to bring
alien Japanese wives back to the United States. Conse-
quently, the motive for temporary travel to the Orient has
been greatly curtailed. This is evidenced by the fact that
a number of the previous promotors of Japanese tourist
parties have now turned to other occupations. Also, it
is more difficult now to secure reentry permits, at least a
considerable number of would-bel applicants are unable to
qualify for return permits in accordance with the 1924
Act.
Prior to the passing of the 1924 law, it was com-
paratively easy for domiciled Chinese or Japanese to se-
cure reentry certificates. Under the old Exclusion Law,
the Chinese were and still are divided into two groups,
laborers and exempts. Laborers were allowed to reenter
the country on laborer's return certificates. The pro-
cedure has always been carefully guarded with this class.
Certain property requirements were imposed as a pre-
requisite for the issuance of a laborer’s return certificate.
A legal residence had to be proven either by presentation
of a certificate of registration under the 1894 Act or by
proof of a previous return on a laborer's or merchant’s
return certificate. The maximum time that a laborer’s
return certificate allowed the holder to remain out of
the country was two years.67
With the Chinese exempt classes, the procedure un-
der the Exclusion Act was much less exacting. It was
66	Ibid., 1922, p. 143, 1923, p. 158, 1925, p. 24, and 1926, p. 8.
67	Section 7, Act of September 13, 1888.104
Oriental Exclusion
merely necessary to prove exempt status for a period of
one year in order to secure a merchant’s return certifi-
cate. The legal residence qualification was met practically
by proof of mercantile status, and once the return cer-
tificate was granted it was good for any length of visit
abroad.
“A recent decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of
United States v. Chin Fong, holds that Chinese applying for return
certificates or readmission to the United States upon the ground
that they have been engaged in this country as merchants shall
be required to establish only that they maintained such status for
a period of one year immediately preceding such application for
return certificate or departure from the United States, the question
of their lawful domicile, if in issue, to be determined by judicial
process and not by administrative officers/’ (Annual Report of the
Commissioner General of Immigration, 1920, p. 302.)
With the Japanese, the procedure under the Gentle-
men's Agreement was even more simple and probably more
effective. The domiciled Japanese wishing to leave the
country for a temporary period simply went to the near-
est Japanese Consulate and presented his last entry Jap-
anese passport, or, in lieu of this, evidence to prove his
continuous residence in the country for a period of 5
years, and he was issued a certificate upon presentation of
which the Japanese Government issued a new passport.68
If upon leaving, he did not declare his intention of re-
turning, but subsequently decided to do so, the Japanese
Government required him to secure from the Japanese
Consulate in America a certificate of legal residence. The
Japanese Association usually assisted the Consulate in
securing information concerning residence qualifications.
68	The Japanese Consul also communicated with the foreign office in Japan
supplying information on the basis of which the new passport was granted or
refused.Re-entry from Visits Abroad	105
The Immigration Act of 1924, Section 10 (b), has
quite considerably altered the situation for both Chinese
and Japanese as regards temporary departures from the
country. The new Act introduced three features that
were not included in administrative practice under either
the Chinese Exclusion Law or the Gentlemen's Agree-
ment. These are: (1) proof of original legal entry;
(2) limitation of stay abroad; (3) previous entry for a
permanent residence. While a return permit is not a
sina qua non condition of reentry,69 still the possession of
one is a very considerable safeguard, and at the same
time eliminates the trouble of securing a nonquota vise
from the American Consul abroad.
Complaints against the operation of the Immigration
Act of 1924, as far as it affects returning resident Ori-
entals, are mild in comparison with those against some
of its other features. In some respects, the Japanese
prefer the present requirements to those in operation un-
der the Gentlemen's Agreement. There seems to be less
difficulty now in getting past the medical inspectors and
the general requirements of the 1917 Immigration Act
with a return permit than there was with the Japanese
passport. On the other hand, there are some complaints
against the enforcement of Section 10 of the new law
which may now be briefly considered. The chief com-
plaint arises in connection with the necessity of having
to prove original legal entry before a return permit is
issued. In this respect, however, the Chinese are better
off than the Japanese. At present the Department accepts
as evidence of original legal entry for Chinese of the
merchant class merely evidence that the applicant has
69	Section 10 (f) Immigration Act of 1924.106
Oriental Exclusion
previously been legally admitted to the country on a
merchant's return certificate.70
Chinese laborers, as far as their return privileges
are concerned, are practically unaffected by the 1924 Act.
A Chinese laborer, wishing to go abroad for a temporary
visit, must secure a laborer’s return certificate as a con-
dition of reentry. In order to obtain this, he must prove
legal residence, either by showing original legal entry to
the country or by submitting an 1894 registration certifi-
cate. He must further, in accordance with the Chinese
Exclusion Law, prove that he possesses property or debts
due him to the value of $1000. The return certificate
is granted by the local immigration commissioner at the
port from which he embarks and through which he must
enter upon his return.71
It is interesting to note that under the present pro-
cedure, the Chinese laborer has, as far as time is concerned,
an advantage over all other Orientals in the matter of se-
curing reentry permission. Not being under the 1924
Act, he secures his return certificate under the old pro-
cedure and, therefore, does not have to wait until Wash-
ington authorities are satisfied with the proof of his
original legal entry. The advantage which the laborer
thus possesses over the Chinese merchant is illustrated
in the following case submitted by way of protest against
the present manner of enforcing the 1924 Act.
“Wong Loy, admitted as the wife of a citizen in 1910.
Application was made for a laborer’s return certificate and was
granted by the present Administration at Angel Island in April,
70	This is based on the Chin Fong* Decision 55215-726, Department In-
structions to Local Commissioner, January 6, 1926. This privilege has been
revoked by a new ruling issued by the Department of Labor since the fore-
going was written.
71	See Rule 14. Treaty, Laws and Rules Governing the Admission of
Chinese, October. 1926.Re-entry from Visits Abroad	107
1924. In the following year (July, 1925), another application for
a similar return certificate was filed, but the commissioner held
that this woman would have to secure a Return Permit entailing a
delay of approximately 3 months, although she was anxious to
proceed to China and had given up her employment in anticipation
of her trip, and notwithstanding the fact that a similar certificate
had been issued by the same officers just one year previous. This
applicant was subjected to a delay of at least six weeks and to a
loss of her earings during that period because of an extremely
technical attitude assumed by the Commissioner at Angel Island,
which was later proven to be wrong through my appeal to Wash-
ington, and as a result of which she was granted a laborer’s return
certificate originally applied for.”72
The Japanese suffer considerable hardship from the
requirement that proof of original legal entry is essential
to the issuance of a return permit. “Previous admission,
however legal, as a non-immigrant or as a student under
Section 4 (e) is not considered as a previous lawful ad-
mission for the purposes of Section 4 (b) of the Act.”73
Many Japanese who entered Hawaii years ago and crossed
to the mainland prior to 1907, the year the President’s
Proclamation forbade further migration of Japanese labor-
ers from Hawaii to continental United States, have dif-
ficulty now	in	proving original legal	entry.	Records of
early entries	to	Hawaii are not very	complete, and	pass-
ports in many instances were not stamped upon arrival
at the mainland. Consequently, most Japanese who enter-
ed continental United States by way of Hawaii are now
unable to secure return permits. If they visit Japan, they
must takes chances on being re-admitted on nonquota
visas.74 In this connection, they must convince the Ameri-
72	A letter to Honorable Beverly L. Hoghead, November 13, 1926, written
by the attorney for the Chinese Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco.
73	Instructions	to	United States Consul abroad.
74	It is not	at	all uncommon for domiciled	Japanese	who are	refused
Return Permits on account of inability to prove original legal entry to go to
Japan without return permits and take chances on being readmitted upon
return.108
Oriental Exclusion
can Consul in Japan of the validity of their claim of
original legal entry; they must also be able to persuade
the immigration officials at port of entry that their claim
is valid. Usually such persons are denied admission by
Boards of Special Inquiry, but on appeal to Washington,
are admitted if they can prove legal entry to the United
States prior to 1907.
A second complaint against Section 10 of the Im-
migration Act is in connection with the time required
to obtain return permits even when the record is clear.
In this respect, however, Japanese are in the same posi-
tion as other aliens, but the Chinese merchant has to prove
his mercantile status in addition to legal entry. The ord-
inary time required to secure a return permit is for resi-
dents on the Pacific Coast from three weeks to a month.
The procedure is as follows:	The	ordinary alien, wishing
to secure a return permit, goes to an immigration office
and secures an application blank which he fills out ac-
cording to instructions and sends to Washington. If his
entry is clear, the permit is mailed to the immigration of-
ficer who gives it to the applicant. In addition to this,
however, the Chinese must, under the Chinese exclusion
law, prove their exempt status.75 The investigation of
mercantile status requires the supporting evidence of two
witnesses other than Chinese to the fact that the applicant
has been engaged in business for a period of not less
than one year prior to the date of his application.76 Until
recently, the administrative practice has been, first, to
await notice from Washington of legal entry status; then
75	The Chinese are further restricted in being permitted to enter the
United States only at prescribed ports. For instance Chinese residents of
Seattle wishing to visit Vancouver, British Columbia, must go and return
by boat through the port of Seattle. .They cannot go by train or automobile
the same as other aliens. Local Chinese merchants complain bitterly against
this discrimination.
76	Rule 17, Loc. Cit., p. 72.Rd-Entry from Visits Abroad
109
to conduct local investigation of mercantile status, and
finally, to advise the Bureau of the result and await the
issuance of the permit. This required from one to two
for three month's time, depending on the nature of the
investiation and the location of the applicant. The pro-
cedure has now been changed, however, by the ruling
that mercantile status may be pre-investigated and the re-
commendation sent to Washington with the first applica-
tion, thus saving time in the issuance of a permit.
The time limit of the permit is another point of
trouble, but this is for the most part confined to the Chi-
nese. The return permit when issued, is good for one
year's absence. This time, however, may be extended for
one or more six months' periods, providing the holder
can satisfy the Department that his reason for asking an
extension is valid. The Chinese complain that a year is
too short a period for travel to China. The time involved
in crossing the Pacific together with the very slow trans-
portation in China, makes it quite difficult for a return to
be made within a year's time. The Japanese seem to have
little complaint in this regard. Most travelers, who leave
with return permits find a year sufficient for their pur-
poses, and there seems to be little difficulty, when sickness
or other conditions arise, to have the time extended.
One of the leading problems arising from the reentry
privilege is in connection with Japanese who went to Japan
prior to 1924 and who were unable to return before the
new Act went into effect. This class is the cause of
considerable administrative difficulty. They come to the
United States with nonquota visas, but they have diffi-
culty in proving upon arrival original legal entry.
The procedure is illustrated by the case of a Japanese
who returned to Seattle on November 30, 1925. The ap~110
Oriental Exclusion
plicant carried a nonquota vise issued by an American
Consul in Japan. The case was brought before the Board
of Special Inquiry and was refused entrance on the ground
that the applicant was “an alien ineligible to citizenship
and not entitled to the nonquota vise presented.” The
applicant produced letters to show that he had been in
the United States in 1906. He also showed that he had
returned to Japan in 1922. He could not, however, pro-
duce a return certificate from a Japanese Consul. This
was taken to imply that he had left the United States
with the intention of remaining in Japan. The case was
appealed to Washington, but the appeal was rejected.
In connection with such cases, the administrative prac-
tice is indicated in the following excerpt from instruc-
tions sent to American Consuls abroad:
“Even in the case of a visit abroad of six months or less,
inquiry should be made into the legality of the original entry of
the alien. Previous admission, however legal, as a nonimmigrant
or as a student under Section 4 (e) is not considered as previous
lawful admission for the purposes of Section 4 (b) of the Act.”
“After an absence, the burden of proof is on the returning
alien to show (a) that he was previously lawfully admitted to the
United States, (b) that he went abroad with the intention of
returning to reside in the United States, (c) that he has established
domicile in the United States, and (d) that his stay abroad, if
protracted, was caused by justifiable reasons over which the alien
had little or no control.”
“The longer the interval of time the alien has remained abroad
on a visit, the more exacting is the inquiry into the four points
outlined in paragraph No. 120. Practically every case of an alien
returning from abroad from a protracted visit is made the subject
of an in vestigation by the Board of Special Inquiry at the port
of entry and many are referred on appeal to the Secretary of
Labor. It may be said in general terms that after a visit abroad
of a year or more, the policy of that Department is to deny non-Re-entry from Visits Abroad	111
quota status unless conclusive evidence on all four points is sub-
mitted by the alien.”
There is another type of applicant for admission to
the United States which has given rise to administrative
problems, namely, infants born during the temporary so-
journ abroad of the mother. On this point M. E.
Mitchell, a prominent attorney in San Francicso, writes
as follows:
“A year or so after the 1924 Immigration Act went into effect,
Japanese mothers began to return from Japan with their infants
conceived in the United States but born abroad during the temporary
absence of the mothers. In the first case of this kind at San Fran-
cisco, the Department of Labor directed the landing of the mother
and child under bonds for a temporary period. This matter was
taken up in Washington by the Japanese Embassy with the result that
such children if they return to the United States with their mothers,
are now. granted outright landing. A similar ruling was applied to
the children of eligible aliens prior to this, and exetended later to
the Japanese. I presume that it now applies to all aliens. When the
change was first made, these infants and their mothers were landed
on appeals to Washington, but this was changed so that they are
now landed directly by local immigration officials. Recently, a case
arose which further stretched this ruling. A Japanese mother con-
ceived in the United States, returned to Japan for a visit where
she gave birth to a child, and then came back to the United States
without the child. She again returned to Japan, and brought the
child back with her the second trip. Both mother and child were
landed outright on appead.”77
The return of United States citizens of Oriental an-
cestry gives rise to administrative difficulties. These re-
turning citizens are of two general classes. First, those
returning after protracted visits abroad, some of whom
were taken as infants to the Orient years ago by their
parents and now as adults are seeking to reenter the
77	Letter March 23, 1927.112
Oriental Exclusion
United States.	They are admitted on presentation of
birth certificates or other evidence sufficient to establish
their claim to citizenship. The second class of citizens
(Chinese78 or Japanese) are those who go abroad with
United States passports, to obtain which, of course, it
is necessary to prove citizenship status.
In regard to the first class of citizens referred to, M. E.
Mitchell writes: “There is very little trouble at San Francisco
if children are accompanied by their parents. Trouble arises where
the children have been sent to Japan possibly when quite young,
and, after ten or fifteen years abroad, seek to return, and be landed
as United States citizens. Frequently in such cases, the parents are
dead or in Japan. Usually relatives in the United States supply
satisfactory evidence of birth and identity. I know of only one
case where a substitution was made. In this instance, I am told,
there were two sisters, one born in the United States and the
other born in Japan. The one born here was taken to Japan where
she died. The one born in Japan was brought here in frlace of
the one born in the United States. An investigation was made,
early school records supplied, and the girl landed. The facts were
found out by the Japanese in the community where the girl was
taken, and there was a strenuous objection to the fact that they
had been affecting the fraud. These objections were carried into
action, and the girl returned to Japan within a few weeks.”79
Concerning the second type of citizen, Mr Mitchell con-
tinues: “There is a Japanese now detained in the Immigration
Station, who, I am certain, was born in the United States. Shortly
after his birth, he was taken to Japan but came back to join his
father residing near Seattle in 1919. At that time, the Gentlemen’s
Agreement was in effect, and in order for a child to come to the
United States, it was necessary to have either a Japanese passport,
an American passport if born in the United States, or a certificate
showing birth in this country. The birth of this boy was not reg-
istered with the county officials, so he came back to the United
78	Chinese, as a rule, go abroad temporarily with citizens’ Return Certifi-
cates issued in accordance with Rule 16, Treaty, Laws and Rules Govern-
ing the Admission of Chinese, 1926.
79	Letter, March 23, 1927.Re-entry from Visits Abroad
113
States in 1919 with a Japanese passport. His mother stated at that
time that this son was born in Japan. The boy went to Japan for
a visit about six months ago. He was refused an American pass-
port in Seattle, but the matter was taken up in Washingon, D. C.,
affidavits furnished, and a passport issued. He returned to San
Francisco, December 29, 1926, and has been held in detention since
that time. The case was investigated in Seattle, witnesses examined,
records produced showing quite clearly the presence of both
parents in the United States at the time of the birth—in fact every-
thing points to United States citizenship except the statement of
the mother in 1919, which is easily explained. Nevertheless ,the
boy was denied landing here. The case was appealed. Since this
letter was started, we have received word to the effect that the
appeal had been sustained, and the boy will be landed immediately.”80
Complaints are sometimes made that return permits
issued by the United States Government are not a prima
facie guarantee of reentry, even granting the identity of
the holder. While in practice most holders of Return
Permits are admitted without delay, still some whose
cases arouse suspicion are subjected to another investiga-
tion of status. This matter has been discussed in the last
two reports of the Commissioner General of Immigration.
His recommendation is as follows:
“A permit to reenter the United States, once issued to an
alien resident, should be prima facie evidence of his right to
return, barring fraud or disease. We should treat the alien who is
legally within our gates with the utmost fairness. To give an alien
a permit to reenter which he has a right to believe entitled him to
readmission, and then to bar him because of some requirement—
which he has previously met and passed—is an injustice of which
no> government should be guilty, and gives rise to a great deal of
justifiable criticism of our governmental methods.”81
80 Ibid.,
S1	Annual Report, 1926, p. 22.CHAPTER X.
Temporary Visitors
A large and cosmopolitan class of admissibles is that
known as temporary visitors. This includes aliens seek-
ing entry to the United States “temporarily as tourists
or temporarily for business or pleasure.”82 The time limit
for such visits is not definitely fixed by the Bureau.
Inspectors and Boards of Special Inquiry are granted
considerable leeway to assign time limits in accordance
with the merits and requirements of individual cases, and
extensions are allowed! when requests seem valid.83
Chinese temporarily visiting the United States are re-
quired to hold Section 6 Certificates bearing a United
States Consular's vise indicating the nature and purpose of
the visit. Likewise Japanese tourists travel with their
Government's passports stamped with the appropriate
visas. The procedure is quite similar’ to that existing un-
der the Chinese Exclusion Law and the Gentlemen's
Agreement. The changes wrought by the new act lie
principally in the more exacting administrative practice.
Under previous procedure no time limits were imposed
on temporary visitors, nor were bonds exacted as a guar-
antee of bona fide status. Furthermore the investigations
now given at the ports of entry are more thorough than
S2	Section 3 (2) Immigration Act of 1924.
83	Rule 3 Subdivision H, Immigration Laws and Rules of March 1, 1927,
authorizes admission “for a reasonable fixed period on condition that such
alien shall maintain such status of a non-immigration during his temporary
stay in the United States and voluntarily depart therefrom at the expiration
of the time fixed and allowed”. Rule 24, Subdivision E, Ibid., states “In no
instance however shall the stay of an alien, admitted for a temporary visit be
extended for a period in excess of one year from the date of original entry.”
This merely indicates the authority granted to local commissioners. The
Bureau on appeals frequently does grant longer extensions.
114Temporary Visitors
115
formerly. Of course under the regime of the Gentlemen's
Agreement Japanese tourists holding their Government's
passports were subject only to the general immigration
laws. But now each applicant for admission is inspected
with reference to his admissibility under the Immigration
Act of 1924.
Since the Immigration Act took effect July 1, 1924,
815 Chinese and 1,603 Japanese have entered the United
States as “temporary visitors." Fewer Chinese of this
class entered in 1926 than in 1925, 393 as against 492.
The figures for the Japanese, however, are just the re-
verse, 952 and 651. This is one class of admissibles
wherein the number of Japanese exceeds the number of
Chinese. Obviously the reason for this lies in the com-
parative economic and political conditions of the two
countries. China has been so pre-occupied during the
last two years with her internal struggles that compara-
tively few of her tourist class of people have had oppor-
tunity for foreign travel. On the other hand, Japan's
increasing participation in the larger economic and social
order is stimulating her upper classes to wider and more
frequent sojourns abroad.
The temporary visitor class, of course, comprises a
widej variety of types of travelers. The rigid restrictions
imposed by the Immigration Act on the immigrant alien,
or permanent classes of immigrants, undoubtedly has
caused many persons to visit the country as temporary
visitors who would otherwise have come as permanent
residents. Facts are not available to show the extent
to which the restrictions have operated in this way. It
is quite probable, however, that a considerable number of
persons who are now debarred as immigrants are using
this opportunity of seeing friends and relatives.116
Oriental Exclusion
Comparatively speaking, the temporary visitor class
of admissibles creates but few problems to administrative
officers. Most of the Oriental visitors belong to the up-
per economic and social classes and therefore travel first
class. As a rule, such passengers are inspected on board
ship by both medical and immigration officers and are
admitted without delay. Those who travel in classes
other than first are required to go to the detention sta-
tion for medical inspection, but this, in most cases, does
not constitute a serious hardship nor does it take up much
time.
“Japanese coming to San Francisco as visitors, either for
business or pleasure, are landed for the most part, without difficulty.
Local immigration officers are permitted to exercise their discretion
in such cases, and a certain per cent are landed under bonds of
$500.00 each. Mistakes have been made. Some landed under bonds
should have been landed without bonds, and no doubt, others
landed without bonds should have been required to furnish this
guarantee of departure. I cannot say that I have any particular
criticism in this respect for if discretion is permitted, as it must
be in matters of this kind, errors of judgment are sure to follow.
Several visitors coming to San Francisco have been denied landing
and deported. In these cases, there existed doubts as to whether
the Japanese really intended to do that which they stated.. The im-
migration officers felt that they would remain here permanently
and denied them admission. Appeals to the Department of Labor
were taken but the local rulings upheld.” (Personal letter from
M. E. Mitchell, dated March 23, 1927.)
Immigration officers carefully guard against admit-
ting travelers who are likely to attempt to stay permanent-
ly. The Japanese Government is apparently trying to pro-
tect the rights of bona fide travelers by using discretion
in the issuance of passports. The writer is informed that
the Foreign Office does not issue passports to parents,Temporary Visitors
117
wives or children of domiciled Japanese until convinced
that residence has been established and the claim is
meritorious. As a rule domiciled Japanese wishing to
bring their relatives to this country for a visit must have
their status investigated by the Japanese Consulate or,
as more frequently happens, by some local organization
in a position to know the facts. The information is com-
municated to the Foreign Office and serves as a basis for
the issuance or denial of the passport.
But nevertheless questionable cases frequently come
to the attention of immigration officers.
For instance, a young Japanese girl who claimed to be seven-
teen years of age arrived at a Pacific port a short time ago with a
passport issued by the Japanese Government and bearing a nonim-
migrant vise from the American Consul at Tokyo. The girl claimed
she was about to visit her uncle in California. Her youth and
manner however aroused the suspicion that she was coming to the
country to marry and remain here as an immigrant alien. In the
course of the hearing before the Board of Special Inquiry it de-
veloped that the “uncle”, who the girl claimed was married and had
a family resident in California, was merely a detached student. This
evidence seemed to corroborate the suspicion held by the inspector
who had detained her, so the Board denied her admission. The motion
to debar reveals the practice in such cases. The officer said, “I am not
satisfied as to the object of the applicant’s migration to the United
States. While she claims to be seventeen years and eleven months
old, she appears to be much younger. The relative to whom she is
destined has no home here as he is simply staying with other
relatives. I move to exclude the applicant as likely to become a
public charge.”84
The case was appealed to the Department of Labor
but the appeal was rejected and the transportation com-
84	This basis for exclusion is very	frequently	used when other grounds	are
questionable even though there may be	but slight	reason for suspicion	that	the
applicant would become a public charge. This girl had traveled first class.
She claimed to be the daughter of a	prominent	physician in Tokyo	but	she
had only $50 in cash upon her arrival.	Case No.	4630/1-11.118
Oriental Exclusion
pany, in accordance with the law, was ordered to deport
the girl to Japan providing the same accommodation as
she had previously used.
The extent to which temporary visiting will be used
as a means of solving the marriage problem occasioned by
the	1924 Act remains to	be seen. It is	quite possible	un-
der	the existing law for	young	women	to come	from	the
Orient and marry aliens domiciled in this country. Im-
migration authorities are acting with caution and discretion
when they try to prevent such unions because they realize
that once such marriages are consummated, the suffering
caused by the inevitable separation later on will be greater
than the hardship entailed in preventing the marriage in
the first place. Marriage under such circumstances can
never solve the marital problem at present confronting
domiciled Chinese and Japanese. While, theoretically, it
may be possible for wives, by making frequent visits to
the country, to spend most of their time with their domi-
ciled husbands, as a practical procedure it is out of the
question.
Another type of problem	associated with	the tem-
porary visitor privilege is that of change of status during
the	course of the visit.	The	law at	present	does	not
permit a nonimmigrant traveler to change his status to that
of a nonquota immigrant even though he might be legally
entitled in the first	place to	enter the country	as	such.
The following cases	illustrate	the situation.
1.	“Some months	ago Chan	Sui Way was landed	at the
Port of Seattle under	File 1201613111 by virtue of a	Certificate
under Section 6 of the Act of the Treaty between the United
States and China. Shortly after his arrival, he became interested
with Tai Sang Tong Company, importers and exporters, at 838
Washington Street, San Francisco, California. He was landed atTemporary Visitors
119
Seattle, Washington, under a bond of $500.00. In September last he
was notified by Edw. L. Haff, Acting Commissioner of Immigration
at the Port of San Francisco, that his application for permission
to remain in the United States as a merchant and as a member of
the firm of Tai Sang Tong & Company was denied, and that he
was not allowed to change his status as a Section 6 Traveler to
that of a local merchant. The letter signed by Mr. Haff goes on
to state’’:
‘As you were admitted to the United States for a temporary
period only, you must govern yourself accordingly. The bonds in
your case requires that you leave the United States not later than
November 2, and that you give at least 5 days notice in writing to
the Commissioner of Immigration at Seattle, Washington, as to
the steamer and date of your intended departure.’
“The case was submitted to the Assistant Secretary of Labor,
Mr. W. W. Husband who finally decided that the man must be
deported. ‘You will, therefore, note that the immigration officials
have firmly made up their minds not to allow Chinese of the exempt
class who come here as travelers, visitors or tourists ... to
change such status to one entitling them to remain in the country
permanently.”85
2.	About a year ago a Section 6 Chinese woman traveler
entered United States from Nanaimo, B. C., and went to visit
friends in Fresno, California. During her visit, she married a
Chinese merchant of that city and subsequently asked for per-
mission to remain in the country permanently. The Bureau, however,
ordered her to return to Canada and apply for a visa as the wife
of a merchant. This procedure indicates the present position of the
Bureau with reference to change of status during the course of a
temporary visit.
Considerable difficulty arises in connection with
tourists who overstay the time limit of their visas. The
question has two sides. There is the bona fide high class
traveler who for some reason or other neglects, or fails
to secure extension privileges and as a consequence is
85	Cited by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco in a com-
munication addressed to the Commonwealth Club of California, November 13,
1927.120
Oriental Exclusion
arrested and detained in the immigration detention station.
A short time ago, a Japanese physician came to the United
States in a semi-official capacity to investigate the health
problems of the Japanese people resident here. His work
took him longer than he had expected so he petitioned
the Bureau at Washington for an extension of time. Im-
migration officers were advised that he had taken up
practice as a physician, consequently he was arrested and
incarcerated in the immigration station as a violator of
the Immigration Law. The incarceration happily was of
short duration as the circumstances were soon satisfac-
torily explained, and the man was released on bond. The
incident, however, shows how problems arise in connec-
tion with the administration of the law.
On the other hand, there are many cases of direct
intention to defraud. Recently three Chinese Section 6
Travelers came to Seattle from Vancouver, B. C. Shortly
afterwards they accepted jobs with a cannery contractor
and were shipped to Alaska to work in a cannery. Immi-
gration inspectors hearing of the deceit wired officers at
Ketchikan, and the men are now under arrest awaiting
deportation.
The exaction of bonds gives rise to some complaint
among travelers. It is frequently difficult to secure a
bondsman, and the task usually involves some time. In
the meantime, the traveler is kept in the detention station
which as a rule is not a luxurious or comfortable place.
This sort of treatment is offensive to legitimate and bona
fide travelers, but from an administrative point of view
it seems to be unavoidable. A case will illustrate the
problem.
During the summer of 1926, several Japanese artisans
arrived in Seattle holding nonimmigrant visas bearingTemporary Visitors
121
temporary visitor’s stamps. These men were en route
to Philadelphia to direct the construction of the Japanese
exhibit at the Sesqui-Centennial Fair. The immigration
inspector, not being advised of their legitimate objective,
held them in the detention station awaiting further in-
formation of their bona fide status. The information
came within a day or so, but the experience of being held
prisoners in a country which they had come to befriend,
aroused their indignation, and it was with difficulty that
they could be persuaded to continue to their destination.
This instance is trivial in itself, but it illustrates a not
uncommon attitude, namely, chagrin on the part of high
class tourists at being treated with suspicion and com-
pelled to undergo inconvenience and discomfort. Experi-
ence, however, with the necessary precautions in the en-
forcement of restrictive immigration has already begun
to modify the disagreeable phases of the situation. Most
of the upper class type of travelers prearrange to have
some friend or organization verify their bona fide status,
and in addition most travelers now carry credentials which
serve as proof of the legitimate nature of their visit.
Actors and other public entertainers are a class of
temporary visitors that are dealt with separately by im-
migration officials. Most applicants of this class are
Chinese. During the first ten months of the fiscal year
commencing July 1, 1926, 82 Chinese actors were ad-
mitted at the port of Seattle. Local commissioners have
no authority to admit this class of visitor. They are re-
ported directly to the Bureau at Washington and admission
is granted after special bonds and other guarantees are
supplied by the managers of the troupes as assurance that
the visitors will leave within the time provisions granted.
Of course the effect of the 1924 law as regards the122
Oriental Exclusion
temporary visitor’s privilege is practically the same for
Orientals as for other aliens except that immigration of-
ficers perhaps use greater caution in dealing with aliens
ineligible to citizenship, because of the assumption that
they might be more tempted to abuse this privilege on
account of the rigid nature of the exclusion law.
What the effect of the Act will be upon future tour-
ist travel from the Orient remains to be seen. The Chi-
nese commercial organizations argue that the treatment
which high class business men receive when visiting this
country is likely to create such ah attitude of resentment
as to direct business and travel to European countries.
There are no facts available at present to prove or dis-
prove the validity of this argument.CHAPTER XI.
The Treaty Merchant
The status of this class in the case of both Chinese
and Japanese was defined by treaties consummated prior
to the Immigration Act of 1924,—the Chinese by the
Treaty of 188086 and the Japanese by the Treaty of 1911.87
The Act of 1924 took cognizance of these treaties to the
extent that it included among the admissible classes of
aliens ineligible to citizenship, Section 3 (6) “an alien en-
titled to enter the United States solely to carry on trade
under and in pursuance of a present existing treaty of
commerce and navigation.”
Departmental regulations have ascribed to the term
“merchant,” when applied to the Chinese, a somewhat
different meaning from that used with reference to the
Japanese. The administrative practice in vogue under the
Chinese Exclusion Law has been continued, with certain
S6 Article 2 of the Treaty of 1880 states that “Chinese subjects, whether
proceeding to the United States as teachers, students, merchants, or for
curiosity, together with their body and household servants, shall be allowed
to go and come of their own free will and accord, shall be accorded all the
rights, privileges and exemptions which are accorded to the subjects and
citizens of the most favored nation”. The Act of 1882 as amended by the
Act of 1884 defined the term “merchant” restricting the meaning to exclude
“hucksters, peddlers.” The Act of 1893 further defined the term “merchant”
as “a person engaged in buying and selling merchandise at a fixed place of
business, which business is conducted in his name, and who during the time
he claims to be engaged as a merchant, does not engage in the performance
of any manual labor except such as is necessary in the conduct of his business
as a merchant.” (Treaty, Laws and Rules Governing the Admission of Chinese,
October 1, 1926).
s7 The Treaty of 1911 between Japan and the United States, supplementing
the Treaty of 1894 granted:	“The citizens or subjects of each of the High
Contracting Parties shall have liberty to enter, travel and reside in the
territory of the other to carry on trade, wholesale and retail, to own or
lease and occupy houses, manufactories, warehouses and shops, to employ
agents of their own choice, to lease land for residential and commercial pur-
poses, and generally to do anything incident to or necessary for trade upon
the same terms as native citizens or subjects. (Treaties of the United States,
Vol. Ill, p. 2712).
123124
Oriental Exclusion
modifications, under the Act of 1924. Accordingly the
term “merchant," as applied to the Chinese, includes do-
mestic as well as international traders.88 With respect
to the Japanese, however, the executive practice has thus
far restricted the meaning of the term “merchant" to
persons engaged in international trade or commerce.
“In order to obtain a visa under the statutory and treaty
provisions referred to the applicant must now show that he is
going to the United States in the course of a business which in-
volves, substantially, trade or commerce between the United States
and the territory stipulated in the treaty. For example, one going
to the United States as a member or agent of a commercial con-
cern in his own country, in transactions involving commerce be-
tween the two countries, or one going to the United States with a
stock of goods produced in his own country, to be sold in the
United States and to be replenished from other goods produced in
his own country, would be entitled to the benefits of the statutory
and treaty provisions in question.”
“The distinction to be observed is between the two countries
and the case of an immigrant or settler who seeks to come without
such a relation to commerce, but who may thereafter engage in
purely local transactions which lie outside the purposes of the
commercial treaty. ”S9
The Act of 1924, together with the departmental rules
and regulations associated therewith, has considerably
affected the Chinese merchant class. While technically
the same classes of merchants are admissible now as
formerly still administrative procedure has become more
severe.
88	Wong Chai Chong, Circuit Court No. 4522, August 3, 1925. In this
decision the Court held that an assistant manager in a Chinese restaurant
was a merchant according to the terms of the treaty with China and was
therefore entitled to bring his wife and minor children to this country.
89	“State Department’s General Instruction Consular” No. 926. The Jap-
anese have not forced a court interpretation of the relation of Sec. 3 (6) of
the Immigration Act to the provision enunciated in the Treaty of 1911. How-
ever in the Pawnbroker Test Case, No. 211, May 26,	1924, the United
States Supreme Court held that a purely local retail service was included in
the provisions of the treaty.The Treaty Merchant
125
“The rules and regulations have conspired more and more to
make the exempt classes conform to absurd technicalities!..................
the Chinese are justly outraged, not because their laborers have been
excluded nor even primarily because they have been ill treated, but
because their honorable men and women have been harrassed and
insulted within our own borders when they attempt to depart from
or return to the United States.”90
This statement has reference to the increasing severity
of administrative procedure since the new law went into
effect. In particular it refers to the more cautious in-
terpretation of the meaning of the term merchant. In
the past the administrative problem in this regard was to
distinguish between merchants and laborers while now it
is to distinguish between different classes of merchants.
Again under the Chinese Exclusion Law little attention
was given to the question of maintenance of status. It
was always necessary for a merchant, wishing to bring
his wife or children to the United States, or to secure a
return certificate for temporary travel abroad, to prove
his exempt status as a merchant. But a Section 6 merch-
ant might enter the country with his wife and children and
subsequently revert to the status of laborer without penal-
ty. Under Section 3 (6) of the 1924 Act new comers
are expected to maintain their mercantile status during
their residence in the country, failing to do this they are
subject to deportation.
Japanese aliens belonging to the merchant class have
undergone a considerable change of status. During the
period of the Gentlemen's Agreement when the burden of
interpretation and administration was placed upon the
Japanese Government the term “merchant” was, in ac-
90	A letter from the Chinese Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco,
November 13, 1926, to Hon. Beverly L. Hoghead of the Board of Governors
of the Commonwealth Club of California.126
Oriental Exclusion
cordance with the Treaty of 1911,91 interpreted literally
as applied to retail and wholesale dealers without reference
to international or domestic commerce. Under this in-
terpretation many more merchants were allowed to come
to the country than are now permitted under the present
interpretation of the 1924 Act. Small merchants who
were in charge of independent establishments had little
difficulty in qualifying for passports. On the other hand
managers of foreign branches of Japanese firms produced
an administrative problem. Technically they did not come
within the meaning of the treaty as bona fide merchants.
In actual administrative practice however they were clas-
sified and treated as such, but their employees were re-
fused passports because they fell within the category of
“laborers”—the class which Japan has promised to keep
out of the country. The Immigration Act of 1924, while
excluding small domestic merchants, has nevertheless
clarified the position of the bona fide international trader,
as the Department of Labor has ruled that not only the
management but also the staff, including stenographers
and servants, are now admissible.92 Consequently Japanese
merchants of this class are in a much better position now
than they were under the Gentlemen’s Agreement.
Under present departmental rules and judicial de-
cisions the Chinese merchant class has an advantage over
the Japanese. They are protected to some extent by the
procedure of the Chinese Exclusion Law, which is less
exacting than that of the Immigration Act of 1924. The
Chinese merchant class, therefore, are not agitating for
the repeal of the old Exclusion Law. Their objection
lies in being included within the further restrictions of
91	37 Stat. 1504.
92	This privilege, of course, is limited to clear cases of reputable inter-
national traders. Border line cases are dealt with more cautiously.The Treaty Merchant
127
the 1924 Act. Back in 1923 when the new exclusion law
was being considered by Congress, a special committtee of
the China Club of Seattle investigated the complaints of
the Chinese in regard to the impending bill and reported
in part as follows:
“The Chinese complain of our proposal to include them in
our general immigration provisions and supercede the Exclusion
Law by provisions denying admission to them as being ineligible to
citizenship. They say that they have submitted for forty years as the
one people on earth to be made the object of an exclusion law by
us and that the‘gracious’ proposal to now exclude them in our
general immigration plan is only made because it gives opportunity
to further limit their admission.”93
The law of 1924 effected a very sudden decline in
the number of Chinese and Japanese merchants annually
admitted to the country. Detailed comparative data are
not available as the Bureau has adopted a new system
of classification since the 1924 Act became effective. The
two tables listed below, however, afford a general idea
of the movements of the merchant classes during the last
ten years.
From an administrative standpoint there seems to
be practically no difficulty so far as the high class merch-
ants are concerned. They travel first class, are inspected
on board ship like merchants of other nationalities and
are landed from the ship without delay. For the first
year of the 1924 Act a number of Section 6 Chinese
merchants arrived who were denied admission on the
grounds» that they were laborers. A United States Court
decision,94 however, cleared the way for Section 6 merch-
ants and more careful instructions to the United States
93	February 8, 1923.
94	Wong Tat Hing, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 4383,
June 1, 1925.128
Oriental Exclusion
Consuls abroad have apparently solved the problem with
respect to this class of admissibles. At the present time
a very small number of Section 6 merchants apply for
admission. Only fourteen were admitted at the port of
Seattle during the last ten months, July 1, 1926, to May
17, 1927.
TABLE 13
Alien Chinese of the merchant classes admitted, fiscal years ended
June 30, 1917 to 1926
Year	vSection 6 Merchants	Returning Merchants	Merchants’ Wives	Merchants’ Children	Total
1917	180	691	111	583	1,565
1918	129	520	88	302	1,039
1919	138	512	91	214	955
1920	105	525	166	478	1,274
1921	287	702	271	1,045	2,305
1922	649	764	301	1,059	2,773
1923	497	980	319	1,058	2,854
1924	452	1,229	273	823	2,777
1925					75
1926					424
These tables are compiled from the Annual Reports of the
Commissioner General of Immigration. The figures for the Jap-
anese are taken from the classification of occupations of all Jap-
anese aliens admitted and departed. This includes temporary as
well as permanent arrivals and departures. Data are not available
whereby to make a more refined comparison. In 1925, 75, and
in 1926, 221 admissions were listed under the general heading: “To
carry on trade under existing treaty.” This is a blanket category
and includes wives and minor children of merchants as well as the
merchants themselves. The corresponding figures for the Chinese
for these two years are 75 and 424, respectively.
Likewise the high class Japanese merchant presents no
administrative problem, but trouble occasionally arises in
connection with border line cases. In June, 1926, aThe Treaty Merchant
129
TABLE 14
Alien Japanese of the merchant classes admitted and departed,
fiscal years ended June 30, 1917 to 1926
Year	Continental U.S.		Hawaii	
	Admitted	Departed	Admitted	Departed
Bankers:				
1917		42	24		
1918		69	32		”2
1919		54	35	”2	1
1920		45	66	4	1
1921		78	72	2	1
1922		60	72	3	3
1923		61	62	9	6
1924		61	62	2	1
1925		45	44	2	1
1926		51	50	2	4
Merchants & Dealers:				
1917		693	671	118	118
1918			863	924	117	148
1919		1,052	1,012	75	170
1920		1,215	1,184	116	170
1921		989	1,161	115	150
1922		928	1,075	125	82
1923		898 .	877	135	92
1924		1,240	966	152	93
1925		518	749	65	62
1926		672	765	87	63
Japanese alien arrived at the port of Seattle holding a
Japanese Government passport, visaed by the American
consul at Kobe as of “Treaty of Commerce” class. The
man was held for a Board of Special Inquiry investigation.
It developed that he had been employed by a Portland
Japanese firm in its branch store in Japan and was com-
ing over to work in the Portland store. The company
in question does a comparatively small exporting and
importing business. In the course of the investigation ef-130
Oriental Exclusion
forts were made to ascertain the financial and practical
relation which the applicant had to the firm he wished
to join. Stress was laid upon the size of the business,
the nature and amount of importing and exporting. The
Board, suspecting that the applicant was coming to work
as a laborer in the establishment, denied admission on
three grounds: (1) as an alien ineligible to citizenship,
(2) as a person likely to become a public charge and (3)
as an assisted alien.95
Failure to maintain mercantile status gives rise to ad-
ministrative problems. The Bureau does not require
merchants to make periodic reports such as are required
of nonquota students, but inspectors usually try to keep
check on doubtful cases, and upon failure to maintain
nonimmigrant status the alien is requested to leave
the country. Occasionally persons admitted as the em-
ployees of international firms fail to report at the firms
to which they are destined.	Others leave the firms and
it is difficult to locate them. In doubtful cases bonds are
usually required as a guarantee of bona fide intentions.
Immigration inspectors report that a number of young
domiciled alien Japanese become attached to commercial
establishments engaged in foreign trade in order to ob-
tain the privilege of bringing their wives to the country.
Some who are not married leave the country and later
on apply for admission as nonimmigrant merchants thus
sacrificing their domicile status in order to bring their
newly acquired brides into the United States.
The most serious administrative problems arise in
9' It is customary to deny admission on as many grounds as possible. Note
the administrative use of Section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1917 in
denying admission on the grounds that the defendant was likely to become a
public charge, when there was nothing in the record to jutsify such a con-
elusion. Board of Special Inquiry, No. 5319/2-3.The Treaty Merchant
131
connection with the admissibility of the wives and minor
children of merchants. This subject has however already
been dealt with, so little further need be said. The prob-
lem is almost exclusively confined to the Chinese, and
represents two phases: (1) wives and children coming to
join husband or father already domiciled in the country,
(2) wives and children coming to the country at the same
time as the treaty merchant husband or father.
The right of treaty merchants to bring their wives and
children to the United States was grudgingly conceded by the
Department of Labor on May 25, 1925, after much money and time
had been spent in fighting the case through the Supreme Court.
(Sum Shee et al v. Nagle, 69 L. ed. 642.) This case is very im-
portant for the reason that it expresses the attitudq of £he Depart-
ment of Labor on the entire subject of exclusion. It is an attitude
that reads into the law every possible interpretation which will
make the exclusion of Orientals more nearly complete. Attention
should be called to the memorandum of the views of the Depart-
ment of State raised in the case of Cheung Sum Shee v. Nagle.
The following is the summary of the position held by the States’
Solicitor and endorsed by the Secretary of State, February 19, 1925.
“By way of summary, the following points are emphasized:
First. For reasons which are hereinabove set forth, and
which have had the support of the Supreme Court of the United
States, the wives and minor children of alien merchants entering
the United States for purposes of trade and commerce under a
present existing treaty of the	United	States	are themselves	clothed
with a treaty right to enter.
Scond. If such wives and minor children are clothed with
a treaty right to enter, it must be presumed that Congress had no
desire to impair that right.
Third. The evidence is abundant and convincing that Congress
itself not only had no desire	to	curtail that	treaty right, but also
deliberately undertook to respect	the	treaty	right to enter	of all
who were clothed therewith.132
Oriental Exclusion
Fourth. Inasmuch as the wives and minor children of alien
merchants possess by treaty a right to enter, they fall within the
reasonable scope of Section 3 (6) of the Act, and consequently
remain	unaffected by any provisions	of Section 5	thereof.
In	conclusion, emphasis must again be laid on	the seriousness
of the situation which would develop, if	in	addition to	the	re-
strictions upon immigration which Congress	had	the right to	impose,
it should be found that Congress by its legislation had violated a
treaty right heretofore sustained by the Supreme Court of the
United States to the prejudice of the rights of foreign traders and
of the interests of our own commerce. It is earnestly urged that
there is no provision of the Act which compels us to face such a
situation.”96
An anomalous feature of the present situation is that
a United States citizen merchant of Chinese or Japanese
ancestry is not permitted to bring his alien wife to reside
in the country although an alien merchant of the same
race is granted this privilege. In this respect the hard-
ship is	largely confined to the	Chinese as	very few	of
the native-born Japanese are as yet old enough to seek
wives from abroad, also the ratio of	the	sexes among	the
Japanese is more nearly equal.
“It	is interesting to note that	the Japanese	citizens of	the
United States have fewer rights because of the Immigration Act of
1924, than the Japanese aliens. I know of one perfect example of
this. This young man was born in California, educated in our public
schools and the University of California, and served in our army
in France during the World War. Also, he is a merchant engaged
in international trade. He married in Japan but can only have his
wife as a visitor with the time fixed when she must depart. If he
were not a citizen which, of course eliminates the services rendered
our country during wartime, he would be classified as an alien
trader, and permitted to bring a wife from Japan for as long a
time as he remained in business. In other words, he is penalized
because of his birth in the United States.”97
96	No. 769. Brief on Behalf of the Appellee.
97	Letter from M. E. Mitchell, March, 1927.The Treaty Merchant
133
The practical effect of the Act of 1924 upon the
treaty merchant class of Orientals has been to reduce very
considerably the number of arrivals. In so doing how-
ever it has raised the status of the international trader.
For this reason the Japanese of this class are in favor of
the present system. They do not wish to jeopardize the
smooth operation of international commerce by attempting
to gain admission for a few petty domestic dealers. China,
on the other hand, being less highly organized on an in-
ternational trading basis, has fewer persons who could
qualify as merchants under the general regulations per-
taining to Section 3 (6) of the Immigration Act of 1924.CHAPTER XII.
Students
The term “student” has been defined by the Depart-
ment of Labor as follows:
“A bona fide student within the meaning of subdivision (e),
Section 4, of the Immigration Act of 1924 is a person at least 15
years of age who has qualified to enter, and has definitely arranged
to enter, an accredited school, college, academy, seminary, or
university particularly designated by him and approved by the
Secretary of Labor, and who seeks to enter the United States
temporarily for the sole purpose of pursuing a definite course of
study at such institution, and who shall voluntarily depart from the
United States upon the completition of such course of study.”98
The following table indicates the number of non-
quota students admitted to the country since the 1924
Act became effective:
Year	All Races Chinese Japanese
1925	.......................... 1,462	328	62
1926	.......................... 1,920	327	107
Student immigrants comprise but 6 per cent of the
total number of immigrant aliens admitted during the
fiscal year 1926. Chinese students constitute 23.9 per
cent of the total number of Chinese immigrant aliens
admitted during this year, and the Japanese students 17.9
per cent of the Japanese immigrant aliens. It is obvious,
therefore, that from a mere numerical standpoint, the
Oriental student question is a relatively more important
part of Oriental immigration than European students are
of European immigration.
98	Rule 9, Subdivision (a), Immigration Laws and Rules of March 1, 1927.
134Students
135
During the last two fiscal years the number of Chi-
nese students entering the country has declined to about
half of the yearly average for the four-year period im-
mediately preceding the new law. The decline, however,
may be the result of the unsettled conditions in China as
well as of the restrictions imposed by the 1924 Act. Com-
partive statistics for Japanese students are not available;
it is quite probable, however, that the number of entries
has diminished in the same degree as that of the Chinese.
The Institute of International Education has compiled
data on the number of foreign Oriental students registered
in colleges and universities in the country during the past
five academic years."
1921-2 1922-3 1923-4 1924-5 1925-6
China ....................1,255	1,507	1,467	1,561	1,317
Japan ................... 532	658	708	793	685
These figures include the enrollment of all alien Chi- •
nese and Japanese students and not merely the nonquota
students who entered since the 1924 law became effective.
The larger number of Chinese than Japanese students is
at least partially due to the indemnity scholarship system.
It is estimated that about one-third of the total number
of Chinese students entering the country each year are
Boxer Indemnity students.100
The Immigration Act of 1924 effected a considerable
change in the procedure governing the admissibility of
Oriental students. Chinese students, throughout the en-
tire history of the Chinese Exclusion Law, have been
included among the exempt classes. Their status was
"Bulletin No. 2, December 31, 1926.
100 See McNair, “The Chinese Abroad”, p. 256. This estimate corresponds
with the statistics of entry at the port of Seattle, During the past ten
months, July 1, 1926 to April 30, 1927, 175 Section 6 students and 66 Boxer
Indemnity students entered through this port.136
Oriental Exclusion
redefined from time to time by departmental rulings and
judicial decisions. While caution was always exercised
under the Chinese Exclusion Law to prevent laborers from
entering the country in the guise of students no provision
was made for checking up on the student after he was
once admitted. He was free to change his status, although
not legally supposed to. He might remain in the country
indefinitely after the completion of his course of study.
He might travel abroad and return on a traveler's return
certificate.
Professor McNair has compiled an excellent brief history of
the various definitions and interpretations relative to Chinese under
the Exclusion Law. The definition of a student made by the
Solicitor of the Treasury, June 15, 1900, was a “person who intends
to pursue some of the higher branches of study, or one who seeks
to be fitted for some particular profession or occupation for which
facilities of study are not afforded in his own country; one for
whose support and maintenance in this country,as a student, pro-
vision has been made, and who upon completion of his studies,
expects to return to China.” Treaty, Laws, and Regulations Relat-
ing to the Exclusion of Chinese, 38 (16). “One year later, in June,
1901, it was further pronounced that a 'Chinese person coming to
the United States, and applying for admission upon the ground that
he intends to study the English language, is not a student within
the meaning of the Chinese exclusion laws’. ... A student,
according to the rules in force in 1920, is ‘a person who pursues
some regular course of study, including the higher branches of
learning but not excluding the elementary or preparatory branches,
if undertaken in good faith, and for whose maintenance and support
as students in the United States adequate financial provision has
been made or satisfactorily assured, and who, upon the conclusion
of his studies, departs from the United States unless then found
to be qualified to remain.’” Rule 8, (1) Treaty Laws, etc., 1920,
42. Quoted by McNair op. citpp. 251-254.
During the period of the Gentlemen's Agreement, the
task of regulating Japanese student admissions was withinStudents
137
the control of the Japanese Government. The actual pro-
cedure adopted is not known as no printed regulations are
available. Japanese officials say, however, that the Jap-
anese Government maintained strict regulations with ref-
erence to the issuance of students' passports. Two qual-
ifications were always imposed: the applicant was required
to show, first; that he had the educational qualifications
to fit him for college or university work, that is, he had
to be a middle school, or high school graduate; second;
that his financial support was adequate to maintain him
during his school period abroad. No checking up, how-
ever, was made after he was admitted to the United States.
He was allowed to change status at will and to remain
in the country as long as he wished just as Chinese or
other foreign students were permitted to do.
The 1924 law, therefore, introduced four funda-
mental changes in the status of the Oriental student over
that in vogue under previous procedure: (1) the intend-
ing student must obtain admission to an accredited educa-
tional institution in America as a prerequisite to the is-
suance of a nonquota vise; (2) he must prove to the sat-
isfaction of the American Consul abroad that he has
adequate financial support to maintain him during the
contemplated period of study abroad; (3) during the
period of his foreign education, he must regularly attend
an accredited institution and carry a minimum number of
school hour credits; (4) he must leave the country at the
expiration of his student vise or course of study. These
four fundamental requirements give rise to various prob-
lems of administrative, educational, and human nature
types.
While evidence of financial competency to maintain student’s
status was required under the Chinese Exclusion Law and the138
Oriental Exclusion
Gentlemen’s Agreement administrative procedure obviously was not
so strict as at present. M. E. Mitchell, April 11, 1927, writes
from San Francisco, “I have asked local immigration officers what
would be their ruling if a student, properly accepted by an
accredited school, states that in order to carry on his education he
must supply himself wholly or in part with money earned while he
is attending school. The reply was that such a case would be
denied here because there would exist a doubt as to whether the
student is coming to the United States solely for the purpose of
study. Any relief in cases of this kind would have to come from
Washington by appealing to the authorities there for landing.”
According to the present procedure, an Oriental stu-
dent wishing to come to the United States for advanced
study applies for admission to one of the schools on the
list approved by the Department of Labor. In the event
that the institution in question accepts the student for
registration, he obtains from his government a passport,
if he be a Japanese student, or a Section 6 Certificate,
if he be a Chinese student. He then goes to an Ameri-
can Consul to obtain a nonquota student’s vise. The Con-
sul inspects the credentials submitted by the accredited
school to which the student expects to go; he also investi-
gates the student’s knowledge of English and his financial
status. This latter phase of the investigation seems to
receive considerable attention at the present time. Rela-
tives or friends who stand ready to support the student
financially are required to show proof of their ability to
do so and to make affidavits of their bona fide intention.
“The experience of the Bureau in the past two and one-half
years is to the effect that many nonquota immigrant students
gain admission to the United States totally unfit, because of in-
sufficient knowledge of the English language, to at once enter the
school to which destined and from which they have secured cer-
ticates of admission. These students cause much concern to the
Bureau and to the schools, and therefore it is considered advisableStudents
139
to request the Department of State to instruct consular officers
that greater care should be exercised in the issuance of such visas
and where the school has omitted to state in the certificate of
admission the amount of English required by the student, and the
prospective student is clearly unable to enter classes conducted in
the English language, that the issuance of such visa be withheld
until it can be definitely ascertained whether the school will be
able to accept a nonEnglish speaking student. Therefore, it is
requested that all schools indicate in the certificate of admission
the exact knowledge of the English language a student must have
before he can be accepted.” (An excerpt from instructions sent
to accredited schools by the Commissioner General of Immigration,
April, 1927.)
Once his credentials are clear, and he has passed the
ship's medical examination, the student sails for a United
States port. If he travels first class and his credentials
are clear he is usually admitted without delay; but if he
travels in classes other than first, he is required to go
to the immigration station for medical inspection.
M. E. Mitchell of San Francisco writes:
“At the present time, the policy of the medical examiners
of immigrants at San Francisco is to send all steerage passengers
to the Immigration Station for medical examination who are not
returning from temporary visits abroad with Reentry Permits.
This means that students coming for the first time as steerage
passengers are sent to the Station even though they may pass
the immigration examination without any difficulty. This is an in-
convenience although not a real hardship in most cases, for
generally speaking, the medical examination is passed on the day
following arrival. Immigration inspection follows medical ex-
amination but unless a case presents complicaitons this is completed
within a short time. If the officers wish to communicate with the
schools before landing, this is done by telegrams. I do not believe
that as far as Japanese and Korean students are concerned the
immigration examination at San Francisco of steerage passengers
is any more severe than it is of those coming in the first or second140
Oriental Exclusion
cabins. No doubt many will consider medical examination at the
Station rather than on shipboard a hardship but, as I see it, this
can neither be avoided nor criticised. The Chinese probably have
a different situation to deal with. A considerable amount of work is
involved in each Chinese case so that if a Chinese is sent to the
Station his examination is delayed. I do not know how quickly
Chinese student cases are taken up but in other cases there have
been, in the past, delays of several weeks before examinations are
made. No doubt if a Chinese student is detained for even a part
of this time awaiting examination, he has cause for complaint.
The tendency of the immigration officials has been to be more strict
with Chinese than with other Orientals so that Chinese students may
be confronted with difficulties not experienced by Japanese or
Koreans.”101
Conditions at the port of Seattle are quite similar to
those just described for San Francisco. Most Oriental
students travel first class and thus escape the more rigid
examination given to steerage passengers. The majority
of Chinese students arriving at the port of Seattle come in
large groups. Of the 175 Section 6 students admitted
at this port from July 1, 1926 to April 30, 1927, 113
came on a single boat in the month of September. There
are always, however, individual cases arriving through-
out the year. Some travel steerage and are detained
for medical examination. Even those who travel first
class, on some of the older Japanese boats, are held
for medical examination the same as steerage passengers.
Students who are thus detained for several days in the
immigration station, while their friends, who happen to
travel first class on another line are liberated, complain
bitterly against the “undemocracy of America.” The num-
ber of students, however, who have had such experiences
is comparatively small.
101Letter, April 11, 1927.Students
141
After passing the medical examination all students,
like other immigrants, are inspected by immigration offi-
cers. Two points are stressed in this investigation: (1)
to ascertain the student's knowledge of English as to
whether he is reasonably competent to pursue university
work, (2) to investigate his financial status to see whether
he has sufficient funds to continue his proposed course
of study. The investigations conducted by the consuls
abroad are forwarded to the immigration commissioner at
the port to which the student is destined. Consular in-
vestigations, however, are not accepted as prima facie
evidence of bona fide student status. The credentials must
satisfy local immigration officers before admission is
granted.102
“The question of the administration of the Immigration Act
of 1924 in regard to students is constantly coming up for almost
every steamer brings some students whose landing is delayed
generally because of his deficiency in English. I feel sure that the
local officers are criticised for their attitude but this is not just
because they are instructed by the Department to carefully examine
all students as to their financial backing, ability to speak English,
etc. I do not believe that this matter is handled properly either in
the United States or abroad but it seems to me that the local
immigration officials are not to blame—rather the authorities in
Washington are responsible. This is rather evident, it seems to me,
when one reads the law, the rules, and understands the instructions
issued to the local inspectors. It is evident that in the rules there
is an obvious attempt to legislate. The law says nothing about the
admission of a student to a recognized school prior to coming to
the United States but this requirement is specifically laid down in
the regulations.”103
102 A Japanese student who recently entered the United States from a
Canadian university presented his A.B. diploma which was written in Latin as
part of the evidence of his bona fide student status. The inspector in charge
was unable to read Latin so he held the student until a certified translation
of the document was procured for which the student had to pay $10.
103 Letter from M. E. Mitchell, May 19, 1927.142
Oriental Exclusion
According to the present departmental interpretation
of the law, Section 4 (e) students must be uncondition-
ally accepted for enrollment by the institutions to which
they are destined or they are detained by immigration au-
thorities. If the acceptance is outright they are allowed
to procede even when knowledge of English is obviously
deficient.
“This strict interpretation has led to hardships in some bona
fide cases. For example, the University of California accepts a
foreign student for registration only after he has passed an ex-
amination covering his working knowledge of the English language.
If a student comes to San Francisco to enter the University of
California, the authorities will not permit landing until he has been
accepted for enrollment. In a number of Japanese and also
Chinese cases this difficulty has been overcome by sending the
students to the University with some responsible person or with
an immigration guard where the examination was taken. The
students then returned to immigration detention and were released
when the University notified the immigration officers that the ex-
amination had been passed. I do not know what would happen if the
same procedure were applied by inspectors in ports situated far
away from the University. Certainly a matter of this kind needs
correcting.”104
One of the most difficult administrative problems in
connection with students in general and Oriental stu-
dents in particular is that of checking up on the student
during his educational career in the country. Occasionally
students are admitted who never report to the institution
which has accepted their registration. Others report but
fail to attend classes or drop out after a brief period of
attendance. Many schools fail to notify immigration of-
ficers of these facts with the result that a considerable
percentage of students are always out of touch with the
immigration authorities.
104	Letter from M. E. Mitchell, March 23, 1927.Students
143
“Under the present practice the schools are requested to
forward to the bureau (1) a notice of personal enrollment of the
nonquota student, together with his address and the name and
address of a reference in this country, and this information,
together with (2) notice of termination of attendance, is all the
reports require unless unusual circumstances arise in an individual
case. Many schools neglect to advise as to termination of attend-
ance, and the bureau frequently finds a student has been away
from the institution of learning for some time but no notice to
that affffect has been sent here. The bureau, therefore, requests
that in addition to the reports indicated above, a notice be sent
here immediately after the beginning of the fall and spring terms
as to whether any change has occurred in the information pre-
viously furnished by the cshool and whether the alien is still in
attendance for a full course of work.”105
The officers assigned to student immigration at the
different ports of entry have great difficulty in keeping
track of many of their charges. Some students flit from
one institution to another in rapid succession without noti-
fying immigration authorities of their whereabouts and
the institutions themselves are not always prompt in ad-
vising the Bureau of the registrations or withdrawals of
their nonquota students.
Recently an Oriental student enrolled in a Bible school
in Oregon. He attended classes during the first session
of the school then withdrew and registered in the Uni-
versity of Washington. He was there less than a month;
he next appeared in Pacific College which he attended
for a short period; now his whereabouts are unknown.
Another Oriental student registered at the University of
Washington in the autumn of 1926. He failed in his
autumn examinations and withdrew from the University
and registered in a small college in Seattle where he stayed
two weeks and dropped out of classes without notice. A
105	Commissioner General’s Instructions to approved Schools. No. 1552.144
Oriental Exclusion
short while later, he appeared in the National Young
Men's Christian Association. He stayed about a week
and left for parts unknown.
The man hunts which the immigration authorities
have to undertake in regard to Oriental students are some-
times of a Scotland Yard nature. It is not at all uncom-
mon for officers to write to the American consul abroad
to get the student's address in America or to ascertain
whether he has returned to the Orient. The change in
names, especially among the Chinese, lends color as well
as trouble to this kind of detective work. Two cases will
illustrate the difficulty. (1) A Chinese student who gave
his passport name as Dzen Mien disappeared but was later
discovered as Szu Mien. He disappeared again and was
discovered a third time as Chen Grahm. (2) Another
Chinese student whose passport name was Ngan Kyih
Tsing registered in his college as Yen Khiy Tsing. He
left without notice and was later identified in New York
under the name of Leo K. T. Yen.
The problem of maintenance of student status as-
sumes a wide variety of forms. First, there is the stu-
dent who, on account of inadequate knowledge of Eng-
lish, is unable to carry the minimum educational load pre-
scribed by the Department of Labor. The institutions
complain that the Department's rulings are too rigid, at
least for the first year of a student’s foreign training.
They do not allow for a nursing period when the stu-
dent is becoming adjusted to the foreign environment.
Consequently many student? fail in their examinations and
are compelled either to move to other institutions, whose
requirements are less exacting, or to leave the country.
Occasionally long suffering professors pass weak studentsStudents
145
simply to permit them to qualify under the law to con-
tinue their education in the country.
On the other hand, immigration officers maintain
that many students come under their supervision who are
obviously unfitted both in regard to their knowledge
of English and in regular academic work to pursue the
regular course of college education. Officers in charge
can cite numerous cases of clearly inadequate preparation
for any sort of college or university work in this country.
They maintain that many institutions accept for registra-
tion Oriental students who are inadequately prepared for
college work.
The following cases present the problem from the
point of view of the immigration authorities.
1.	A Japanese student enrolled in an accredited university
in the autumn of 1925. He registered for 15 hours of work. He
failed, however, to make the required grade. For the succeeding
term, he registered for 10 hours but did not take the spring ex-
amination because “he knew he could not pass”. Investigation proved
that he had nominally been attending school from 11 a. m. to 2
p. m. with one hour for lunch. During the months of his stay from
July to March, he had been employed continuously. He was inter-
viewed and told that it was compulsory that he establish and main-
tain a continuous student status to be granted the privilege of
remaining in the United States. Failing to keep his promise to
attend the university during the summer term, a warrant was issued
for his arrest, and he was ordered deported. An attorney appeared
in the case, a bond wras executed, and the attorney assured the
Bureau that the student would enroll in the fall term and establish
and maintain a satisfactory student’s status. The deportation pro-
ceedings were held in abeyance to give the student a further
opportunity. The university, in which the student was about to
enroll, advised the Bureau that “the student was dropped from this
university because he failed in all of his work through the fall
and winter quarters of 1925. He is denied re-admission to this
university until he has improved his English.” The student enrolled146
Oriental Exclusion
in a small college for the fall term. Later the college advised that
he had failed in the subjects in which he had enrolled. The attorney
still requested further consideration for the student, appealing that
it would be an injustice to return this “very intelligent student to
his people with a sense of failure.” The student, however, vol-
untarily departed from the United States in March, 1925.106
2.	A Korean-Chinese student arrived at a Pacific port in
April, 1925, destined for a southern college where he had been
granted a scholarship. He did not advise the college of his arrival
in the country nor when he expected to attend school. He proceeded
East, visiting friends in Chicago, and New York. He finally
enrolled in the college in September. On November 10, he withdrew
from the college which had granted him admission and had given
him the scholarship and proceeded to New York. He was later
apprehended by the Department and in the course of the investi-
gation which followed, he stated that he was unable to carry the
12 hour load as he did not know enough of the English language.
He further stated that “it was not necessary for me to go to X
College because I went to college in Shanghai for one year, for
two years in Korea, three years in college altogether. X College
taught that all over again. There is nothing I could learn there”.
Asked specially about English, he said that when he left China for
the United States, he could speak only a few words of English.
His attention was called to the fact that he had stated under oath
in applying for a vise that he was able to speak English. He re-
plied through an interpreter, “I did not swear about that because I
could not speak English”. Some of the questions in the Board of
Special Inquiry hearing are as follows:
Q. “You previously stated that you knew everything that
was taught at X College and for that reason you did not want to
stay there. Is it true that you felt that X College could not teach
you anything?”
. A. “Yes.”
Q. “Could you not have studied English just as well at X
College as in New York?”
A. “New York is very much better to study English.”
106	Case submitted by an immigration inspector.Students
147
Q. “Have you ever done any ironing or pressing of clothes
in New York?”
A. “Yes, I do that for fun sometimes.”
Q. “Then you are willing to deceive the Government and lie
despite the fact	that you are a	preacher?”
A. “Well,	I respect the United States	Government	laws, and
I never try to	make a wrong	statement. I	did not know whether
I deceived the	United States	Government	or not. My	conscience
never dictates.”
A warrant of arrest and deportation was issued but the man
preferred to depart voluntarily.
These cases are	cited merely	to illustrate types	of
problems. They should not be taken as representative of
student behavior in general. As a matter of fact the great
majority of Oriental, as of other foreign students, are
bona fide and have no difficulty in maintaining student's
status. The following statement about foreign student be-
havior pertains to Oriental students as much as to others:
“In spite of the fact that it was felt the student provision
would be taken advantge of as an easy means of entering the
United States with the hope of ultimately securing permanent
admission, which belief	was caused partly by the fact	that	no
bonding provision existed for this class of cases, it has been
necessary to issue warrants for but 64 aliens who have failed to
maintain a satisfactory	student status.”	(Annual Report	of	the
Commissioner General of Immigration, 1926, p. 12.)
Monetary problems are sometimes a cause of failure
to maintain student	status. The	cost of living	in	the
United States is so much higher than is expected when
leaving the Orient that frequently students find their com-
petence inadequate to meet expenses. According to Rule
9, subdivision (d), a student abandons his status “who
engages in any business or occupation for profit or who
labors for hire.”107 This rule, however, does not prevent
107	Immigration Laws and Rules of March 1, 1927.148.
Oriental Exclusion
a student from supplementing his income provided he
maintains his student status. An excerpt from a letter
by Commissioner Husband to Stephen P. Duggan, dated
October 3, 1924, states “It is not believed that if a stu-
dent contributes to his own support by working, this would
necessarily disqualify him for admission nor is it believed
that he ought to be prohibited from working during va-
cation periods. The point is that he must be primarily
a student and not a worker for wages with his studies
as a secondary matter.”
Various organizations in America assist students, par-
ticularly Oriental students, in securing employment during
vacation periods, also in spare hours during the college
term. The following excerpt from a letter by the Secre-
tary of the Japanese Students’ Christian Association in
North America to a Japanese student who wrote for ad-
vice, will throw light on the attitude and practice of such
organizations in regard	to	the financial difficulties	of
foreign students.
“I have your good letter of the 19th instant and I am taking
this first opportunity to answer it.”
“(1) Working part time during the academic year while
enrolled and carrying on regular work is not against the new
immigration law, according	to	the statement	given out by	the
Commissioner General of Immigration. A similar interpretation is
applied also to those who	work during the	summer months	to
support themselves. What	the	immigration	officers are rather
regent about is the fact that some students, so-called, wish to use
the status of students although their primary purpose is to come to
work in this country. Therefore, in order to go in harmony with the
current immigration law students must maintain the status of
regular student in order to be able to work part time or during
the summer.”
“(2) There will be plenty of summer work. If you will
kindly let me knoW what type of work you prefer, I may be ableStudents
149
to help you out. Do you care to go to some boys’ camp and assist
boys? In such case there will be very little pay, but it will be a
very good experience, both spiritually and physically.”
“(3) Perhaps you read in the Bulletin that we have no loan
fund. The present plan is to start one next year if the Financial
Drive is successful. The Foreign Student Loan Fund of the
Friendly Relations Committee is practically exhausted and unless
someone pays in the meantime there is nothing from which to
draw. On the other hand, I shall be very glad to be of help to
you, and I herewith enclose my check for $50, which I hope will
help you out until you receive remittance from Japan.”
“As to your friend who is to come to this country in the near
future, I very much doubt whether it is a good idea to encourage
him. According to what I gather from your letter, he will, first
of all, meet that perennial difficulty of language, without which
no Japanese student can finish his education adequately in this
country. In the second place, he will meet another perennial problem
—finance. In the light of my past experiences in meeting Japanese
students, I see many of them fail to accomplish anything simple
because they come to this country believing they can find “bricks”
on the streets. Even if one is willing to work, it is not an easy
task to carry on regular college work, at the same time earning
everything. This is more so in the case of mechanical engineers.”
Sex and family problems give rise to considerable
trouble with reference to maintenance of student status.
During a single week (in May, 1927) the officer in charge
of nonquota students at the port of Seattle had reported
to her six cases of Oriental students who had to abandon
college work as a result of pregnancy.108 Three of these
students had been surreptitiously married, the others were
unmarried.
Occasionally married couples come to the United
States without advising the immigration authorities of this
relationship and after admission fail to maintain their
student status.
108	This, of course, is an unusually large number within such a short
space of time. The problem, however, is important.150
Oriental Exclusion
About a year ago, a married couple, Chinese, left
China from different ports with student visas to attend
universities in this country. They satisfied the American
Consuls with their knowledge of the English language
and with their financial ability to maintain their student
status. The man was an American citizen of Chinese an-
cestry, the woman, an alien Chinese. Upon arrival in the
United States, the woman never reported to the institution
which had accepted her as a student, but instead they
took up residence together as husband and wife. When
the immigration officials finally located the pair, the
woman was pregnant and not in a physical condition to
enroll in an educational institution. Developments in the
case proved that the woman was in a condition of ad-
vanced pregnancy prior to her embarkation from China.
The child was born four months after her arrival in the
United States. There obviously had never been any in-
tention on her part to attend an accredited school. The
student privilege was employed as a means of getting
into her husband's country.
Another case of a somewhat similar nature will suf-
fice to illustrate this kind of problem. In November of
1924, two alleged Japanese students, one male and one
female, destined to the same university were admitted at
a Pacific port. Upon arrival, these students went to live
in different homes, each claiming to be unmarried. The
woman student was never able to qualify in any work
undertaken in the university to which she had been granted
admission prior to her departure from her native country.
The man carried the minimum registration required by
the Bureau.109 The immigration officer advised the wom-
10912 hours per week.Students
151
an student that it would be necessary for her to main-
tain student status in order to continue her residence in
the country. As a result, she registered at the university
but never attended classes. Subsequent investigation
proved that the couple had been married shortly after
their arrival in the United States, that the woman was
pregnant and consequently unable to establish a students
status. A son was born later on, and the couple vol-
untarily departed with their child to Japan.
The industrial student is one who is inadequately pro-
vided for in the present law. Rule 8, subdivision (f),
stipulates that “employers of skilled labor desirous of
training aliens in their establishments may be granted
such privilege by the Department provided the prospective
‘student laborers’ are admissible in every other respect
except that they migrate under contract, and provided
a bond is furnished for each such alien in the penalty of
not less than $500, guaranteeing that the alien will be em-
ployed in no other than a student capacity while within
the United States and will leave this country immediately
upon the conclusion of his course of training.110
This refers to the procedure in regard to students
in general. Exceptional caution, however, is taken with
reference to Oriental students belonging to races ex-
cluded on the basis of ineligiblity to citizenship. At pres-
ent there is only one industrial plant in the country with
which official arrangements have been made to admit
Oriental industrial students. When an accredited institu-
tion combines practical industrial work with regular class
work as part of the system of training, special arrange-
ments have to be made in each case for Oriental students
to be granted such educational privileges.
110	Immigration Laws and Rules of March 1, 1927, Rule 8, Subdivision F.152
Oriental Exclusion
It would appear th^t this is one part of Western edu-
cation which in the future will be given more attention,
especially by Chinese students. There is a growing atti-
tude among certain Chinese leaders that what their stu-
dents most require in the way of foreign education is
the practical rather than the scholastic or theoretical
training. At present, individual cases of industrial stu-
dents are handled by means of the temporary visitor vise
rather than by the nonquota student vise. The student
comes to the country as a temporary visitor destined to
study in a definite industrial establishment. A $500 bond
is required to guarantee his bona fide claim and a time
limit is prescribed on the vise.
The fact that nonquota students are not permitted
to change their status at the completion of their academic
course to that of minister or professor, exempts in Sec-
tion 4 (d),111 occasions some practical problems. Frank
Herron Smith, Superintendent of the Pacific Japanese
Mission, Berkeley, California, writes thus:
“There is a fifth result that is bothering me the past few
weeks. I require a force of 25 preachers and workers in our
churches and schools. The new law makes it practically impossible
to get a young preacher who came in on a student’s passport for
any of our work. The pastor at Bakersfield went to Japan last
January. I engaged a good man in Drew Theological Seminary
to take his place. Now I find that he has only a student’s passport
and cannot take work as a preacher. To secure a preacher’s passport
a man must have a license and have been engaged in regular church
work the preceding two years. That means that I must get my
workers from Japan. A man from Japan is of no use. These young
fellows with Americah educations are superior for the work here
111	Section 4 (d) “An immigrant who continuously for at least two years
immediately preceding the time of his application for admission to the United
States has been, and who seeks to enter the United States solely for the
purpose of carrying on the vocation of minister of any religious denomination.Students
153
in every way. I have appealed to Washington to get a special
permit for this man but have no reply yet.”“3
David A. Robertson, Assistant Director of the
American Council of Education, Washington, D. C., who
is generous in his praise of the way the Department of
Labor is administering Section 4 (e) of the Act of 1924,
draws attention to another problem resulting from in-
ability to change status.
“Foreign students who have completed their university work
are in difficulty when they wish to become teachers in the United
States because even if they leave the country to secure a new
vise they are frequently unable to give a record of two years as
teachers.” In regard to Section 4 (d) Mr. Robertson adds :	“I
think it unfortunate.......that the law specifies ‘professor’ rather
than teachers. This has operated to exclude teachers in elemen-
tary and secondary schools who have been much sought by the
Association of American University Women and professional
schools.”113
There is at least one point in the controversy over
the student situation upon which there is agreement : name-
ly the need of better undersanding of the educational
standards of the institutions on both sides of the Pacific.
The thousand or more accredited schools to which Ori-
ental students may apply for admission represent a wide
variation in standards and requirements. The student has
no way of knowing much, if anything, about the institu-
tion to which he is seeking admission. On the other hand
the accredited institutions in America have no knowledge
about the scholastic attainments of many of the students
who apply for admission. It is folly for an institution to
accept unconditionally a student for registration in higher
academic work when there is no way of rating the value
112	Letter, May 5, 1927.
113	Letter, May 27, 1927.154
Oriental Exclusion
of the credentials which he submits of his previous
training.
The opinions of persons having intimate knowledge
of Oriental students and their problems are valuable in this
regard.
Charles D. Hurrey, General Secretary of the Com-
mittee on Foreign Relations Among Foreign Students,
writes:
“An underlying difficulty affecting Oriental students is the
ignorance of American university authorities regarding the educa-
tional attainment of Oriental students: there is no standard appar-
ently by which to evaluate the work done in Japan or China so
as intelligently to classify the student upon arrival here. Naturally
this ignorance of conditions in the Orient makes it very difficult
for an institution in this country to send a letter to a prospective
Oriental student assuring him that he will be accepted.”
“The remedy for this would seem to lie in making sure that
the various colleges in this country know how to rate the student
from the Orient. There is a tendency on the part of Oriental
students to enroll in a limited number of well known American
universities and later to discover that they would have been much
happier in smaller col leges.”114
Sarah Ellis, National Secretary of the Young Wom-
en’s Christian Association, Department of Immigration and
Foreign Communities, summarizes the situation from the
point of view of her organization as follows:
“I think up to the present, there has been a good deal of
experimenting and a breadth of interpretation or a lack of breadth
of interpretation of the immigration law, depending upon the in-
dividual officer in power. As I think of the student situation,
there are just a few things which seem worth while our thinking
about.”
“. Preparation for application for visa in the student’s home
country, probably an examining board would meet this require-
114 Letter, April 5, 1927.Students
155
ment. This would stimulate students to a more purposeful prepa-
ration of English and institutions abroad to provide better English
courses.”
“2. Some provision might be worked out whereby an insti-
tution’s acceptance of a student would carry with it a provision
for directing his preparatory work in case he needed such prepa-
ration. This plan is not so good as No. 1, for a student might
find even with this preparation he could not carry the advanced
work of the original institution.”
“3. There have been cases of students having been accepted
by a particular institution who later have found that the course
of study in some other institution fits their needs better, and wish
to change schools. If the Bureau of Immigration is gotten in
touch with, either by the student or the institution to which he
first came, and if the school to which he desires to go is one on
the list accepted by the Department of Labor, there is every proba-
bility of the Bureau’s being agreeable to such change.”
“4. When a student has come to this country for a stated
period, if before the expiration of the time in case he wishes to
extend his time of study, he makes application to the Bureau of
Immigration for such extension, the chances are such extension
would be given and there would be no difficulty.”
“I am not taking the position that the law is just, nor that
the student fails to live up to the requirements made of him by
the law, but I do feel that this whole subject should be studied
by all people concerned, so that the student might go forth with
his work without the fear of molestation and at the same time
the educational institution might see clearly what attitude to take
toward this whole question.”115
115 Letter, April 27,	1927.CHAPTER XIII.
Illegal Entry and Deporation
Reference has already been made to the manner in
which exclusion creates a stimulus to illegal entry. The
Commissioner General of Immigration writes:
“Alien smuggling and the illegal entry of aliens without the
aid of smugglers have always followed in the wake of restrictive
immigration legislation, and, very naturally, as such laws became
more and more drastic the problem of enforcing them grew in-
creasingly difficult. For a long time this problem, especially on
the land boundaries, was largely confined to evasions and attempted
evasions of the Chinese exclusion law, but in later years aliens
of all races who, for one reason or another, could not enter the
country in a legal way have resorted to border running in ever-
increasing numbers.”116
Illegal entry is of three general forms: first, mis-
representation of facts at the port of entry; second, sur-
reptitious entry elsewhere than through the regular ports;
and third, entry as nonimmigrants and failure to leave the
country afterwards. Whatever the form of unlawful en-
try, effective administration of exclusion legislation re-
quires that ways and means shall be established to punish
or deport those who enter the country through backdoor
methods. “Restrictive immigration legislation can never
be enforced successfully until provision is made to penalize
aliens who enter in violation of law.”117 The entire his-
tory of Chinese exclusion is a record of methods used
to combat illegal entry. Experience with the Chinese has
116	Annual Report, 1924, p. 13. See also 1925 Report, p. 14; and 1923,
P- 1.
117	Ibid., 1924, p. 14
156Illegal Entry and Deportation	157
proven that unlawful entry assumes the characteristics of a
business enterprise organized and managed along com-
petent business lines.
It is impossible to determine the extent of surrep-
titious entry. Estimates at best are merely guesses. The
Commissioner General reports that 20 per cent of the
applications for return permits were rejected in 1925 on
account of failure to prove original legal entry.118 Statis-
tics of deportations probably bear but little relation to
the amount of surreptitious entry.
TABLE 15
Aliens deported after entering the United States119
Year	Chinese	Japanese
1917		99	63
1918		105	52
1919		86	137
1920		55	50
1921		341	71
1922		390	113
1923		224	109
1924		301	65
1925		261	83
1926		311	69
This table covers all deportations including those for
physical and mental disabilities, poverty, crime, prostitu-
tion, etc., in addition to those entering without inspection.
There seems to be general agreement that smuggling
118	Annual Report of the Commissioner General' of Immigration, 1925, p.
12. Immigration inspectors estimate that from thirty to fifty per cent of all
Chinese in the country hare entered illegally. This of course includes those
who entered by misrepresentation as well as those who came by surreptitious
entry.
119	Compiled from the Annual Reports of the Commissioner General of
Immigration, Table XVIII, pp. 86-88, in the 1917 Report and similar tables
for other years.158
Oriental Exclusion
or surreptitious entry of Orientals has been carried on to
a less extent during the last few years than formerly. In
his 1926 Report,120 the Commissioner General of Immi-
gration says:
“The smuggling of Chinese over the land boundaries, which
was a vexatious problem in the past, has been greatly reduced
through the vigorous and effective campaign of the border patrol/’
The reason however for the decline in Chinese smug-
gling may be partially due to causes other than effective
patrol work. For instance, in 1923 the inspector in charge
of the Jacksonville (Fla.) District writes:
“It is noteworthy that for reasons for a long time not under-
stood there appeared to have been a sudden cessation of Chinese
smuggling, and while it was feared for some time that new tactics
were being employed whereby Chinese aliens were successfully
eluding our officers, it now appears that this let-up was due to
the more profitable and ready supply of aliens of other nationality
who paid cash at time of embarkation, while the Chinamen con-
tinued to operate on a c.o.d. basis.”121
It is a common belief among immigration officials that
on the whole there is less surreptitious entry of Japanese
than of Chinese. The above table of deportations is in
harmony with this belief. In discussing deportations in
his annual report in 1918, the Commissioner of Immigra-
tion, San Francisco, says:
“Notwithstanding the increased number of Japanese immi-
grants admitted, it is worthy of mention that fewer cases were
reported to this office as subject to deportation than were con-
sidered last year; which fact strongly contrasts with the Chinese,
concerning whom a greater. number were investigated with a view
to deportation, despite the decreased immigration from that
source.”122
120	p. 8.
121	Annual Report, 1923, p. 21.
122	Ibid., 1918, p. 294.Illegal Entry and Deportation	159
The commmon alleged source of Japanese unlawful
entry has been across the Mexican border. During the
period of the Gentlemen's Agreement, Japan adopted the
policy of preventing independent emigration to Mexico in
response to the protest in California that many Japanese
were illicitly entering the country from that source. Since
1924, therefore, when Japan is no longer under the moral
obligations entailed in the Gentlemen’s Agreement, the prer
sumption has been that she would permit extensive emi-
gration to Mexico, and many might thus gain entrance
through this backdoor into the United States. This how-
ever does not seem to be the case. The Acting Director
of District No. 31, Los Angeles, writes as follows:
“The chief problem with reference to Oriental immigration in
this district has to do with the smuggling of Chinese and Japanese
from Mexico. These aliens proceed from China and Japan to
Mexico and may thereafter enter the United States surreptitiously.
The writer does not believe the Immigration Act of 1924 has mate-
rially affected the number of such entries, but the act in question
has had a great deal to do, of course, with increased smuggling
of European aliens who have been unable to secure proper creden-
tials to proceed from Europe to the United States direct and who
have gone to Mexico for the purpose of smuggling into this country
at the first available opportunity.”123
A prominent Japanese of Los Angeles writes:
“The smuggling of the Japanese across the Mexican border,
in my opinion, has become much less than it used to be. One
reason is, that the Japanese government is making it very hard to
come to Mexico, and if ever a Japanese smuggler is found, nine
cases out of ten, he is not from Japan but from the South Amer-
ican continent........Under the Gentlemen’s Agreement the Japanese
government made it a policy not to permit any independent emi-
gration to Mexico. The nullification of said Agreement by the
United States in the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1924,
123 Letter April 14, 1927.160
Oriental Exclusion
logically left the Japanese government to take its own course so
far as the Mexican emigration is concerned. However, the Japanese
government thought it best to cooperate as much as possible with
the United States in the legislation of the latter in order that the
international relations should be kept on good terms. Japan has
made her emigration to Mexico doubly stringent on this account
and whenever applications are made to the Japanese Consulate for
certificates required in sending for relatives from Japan, the Con-
sulate sends one of its staff to the Mexican side, and unless he
is fully satisfied with the condition that a particular Japanese
person is in need of the assistance of his relatives in their firmly
established business, the Consulate does not give him a certificate,
which is the basis of the issuance of a passport by the Japaneee
government/’124
M. E. Mitchell of San Francisco draws attention to
the fact that the depressed state of economic conditions
in Mexico and Cuba has tended to discourage Oriental
immigration to those countries which may account in
part for the relatively slight problem of surreptitious entry
from those sources.
“At the present time a very limited number of Chinese go
in transit through the United States to Mexico and Cuba. A part
of this number are former residents returning from a visit to
China. All such aliens pass through this country under guard—
they are not permitted to land under bonds other than those fur-
nished in all such cases by the railroad company. It is believed
that in the past many Orientals (Chinese and Japanese) have
unlawfully gained admission to the United States from Mexico
and Cuba.”125
The methods employed to enter the country by other
than the legal entrances are numerous. In coming direct
from the Orient the alien may conceal himself as a stow-
away, working either individually or under the direction
of an organized ring, and gain entrance to the country
124	Quoted in a letter by M. E. Mitchell to the writer, April 23, 1927.
125	IMd., April 23, 1927.Illegal Entry and Deportation	161
without the knowledge of the management of the boat
or of the immigration officers. A recent example of such
a method of entry has come to public notice during
March of this year when eleven Japanese were arrested
at Portland, Oregon, and Aberdeen, Washington, in what
was referred to in the papers as:	“A Giant Japanese
Alien Smuggling Ring.” It appears that the stowaways
were under the care of certain members of the ship’s
crew. Immigration officials obtained advice of the prob-
able attempt at smuggling and were on hand when the
boat landed. According to reports, three Japanese ac-
complices waited in parked automobiles for the arrival of
the boat on which the stowaways were in hiding. The
officers however frustrated the plan and arrests followed
as soon as the boat docked.
A considerable amount of illegal entry has in the past
come through desertions from crews during land leave.126
“At one time there were from three to five thousand such
seamen (Chinese) in the port of New York alone, having been
discharged from vessels on which their arrival occurred while
such vessels were laid up awaiting an improvement in shipping
conditions. The presence of so many idle and in many cases
destitute Chinese seamen in New York at one t:me was a matter
of grave concern not only to the bureau but to the local state and
city authorities. Now that, according to reports, many of these
Chinese have drifted into employment in neighboring manufacturing
plants the problem has become even more acute.............. While these
Chinese are proper subjects for deportation, both under our Chinese
exclusion laws and our general immigration act, it would cost
probably as much as half a million dollars to deport them, and
the funds are not available.”127
126	Provision is made for the arrest and deportation of any alien seaman
who remains in this country more than sixty days. Rule 6, Subdivision 1,
Immigration Laws and Rules of March 1, 1927. Masters of vessels are not
held responsible for the shore leave of seamen unless the alien is brought to
the United States in violation of the Immigration Act. Rule 22, Par. 9, 10,
11, 12.
127	Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration, 1922, p. 12.162
Oriental Exclusion
Methods of land smuggling have greatly changed
with the coming of the automobile and aeroplane. These
rapid forms of transportation make the problem of border
patrol a very difficult one. As I write, the newspapers
report the tragic killing of an aviator by an immigration
officer in an attempt to thwart what is alleged to be an
organized system of smuggling Chinese aliens across the
Mexican boundary line by means of the aeroplane. The
newspaper comment reads:
“Daugherty and seven other airmen, arrested at the air depot,
are accused by the immigration officials of being members of a
large, well financed, smuggling organization, with its headquarters
in the remote mountains beyond Tia Juana and with its local
terminal at Eagle Airport. Definite information is in his posses-
sion that ten Chinese were flown across the border early yesterday
morning, and landed in a barley field outside the city, Walter E.
Carr, Director of Immigration for this district, said today/’128
This episode illustrates the problem of combating
smuggling under the present systems of communications.
Boundary lines are becoming dimmer and the points of
entrance more numerous with every step in the develop-
ment of modern transportation. To meet the situation
created by recent restrictive legislation as well as by the
improved facilities of transportation, Congress appropri-
ated a fund of one million dollars for “the establishment
and maintenance of an immigration border patrol
force.”129 By means of this fund a force of 450 patrol
inspectors was organized and equipped to guard the
Mexican and Canadian border lines.
It is obvious that control of illegal entry can be
most effectively handled by international cooperation. The
new kind of invader can not be held back by the efforts
128	San Francisco Chronicle, May 2, 1927.
129	Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration, 1925, p. 14,Illegal Entry and Deportation	163
of a border patrol force alone. The Commissioner Gen-
eral of Immigration takes cognizance of this fact in his
following remark:	“No account of the activities of the
border patrol would be complete if it did not make men-
tion of the cooperation furnished by the officials of the
Canadian and Mexican governments along the interna-
tional frontiers. Much of the success achieved by the
border patrol has been made possible by the good will
and assistance which its officers have met with from
officials along the international boundaries in their efforts
to protect this country against the illegal entry of
aliens.”130 If a similar form of cooperation could be
worked out with the government of China (as soon as
China evolves a responsible government) the problem of
illegal entry would undoubtedly tend to diminish.131
After illegal entry is once obtained the procedure of
expulsion is rather slow and costly. Years ago, under
the Chinese Exclusion Law, the procedure in deporting
a Chinese was confined to the United States courts.
Chinese were arrested on judicial warrants while other
immigrants were arrested on departmental warrants. The
court's system of arrests was slow and tended to operate
in favor of the defendant. Cases were appealed with
great frequency and new evidence was allowed to be in-
troduced in the appeal. Consequently many Chinese
gained citizenship by judicial decrees when the immigra-
tion authorities were unable to prove that the defendant’s
claim to citizenship was groundless.132
A Supreme Court decision in 1912, however, placed
Chinese on the same basis as other immigrants with ref-
130	Ibid., 1925, p. 21.
131	Japan is already voluntarily cooperating.
132	Note the famous McGettrick certificates. By this judicial means about
1,100 Chinese persons were discharged as citizens while there is reason to
believe that fully 90 per cent had been smuggled into the United States. See
Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration, 1908, p. 222.164
Oriental Exclusion
erence to procedure in deportation.133 That is, when an
alien is suspected of being in the country illegally, im-
migration inspectors investigate and report their findings
to the Department of Labor, which, if the evidence is
sufficient, issues a warrant for arrest. A hearing is then
conducted by a Board of Special Inquiry and the briefs
are sent to the Department of Labor, which issues a de-
portation order or order of release depending upon the
nature of the evidence. At present the case does not
come into the United States courts unless the attorney
for the defendant has been successful in obtaining a
writ of habeas corpus. In the vast majority of cases
therefore, the procedure in deportation under depart-
mental administration is more rapid than under judicial
warrant.
Considerable delay arises in connection with securing
permission to deport to the country of which the alien
claims to be a citizen. This problem does not arise if
the alien is a citizen of China or Japan, but Chinese and
Japanese who claim Canadian citizenship occasion much
delay in deportation proceedings, it being necessary to
verify the claim and to obtain from the Canadian gov-
ernment a passport for readmission. A case now pending
in the Seattle station will illustrate the problem. A young
Chinese girl, Canadian-born, crossed the international
boundary somewhere in Montana. She was subsequently
arrested as a prostitute in a town in Washington. She
was subject to deportation both on account of illegal
entry and on account of her immoral life. A warrant
was issued by the Department for her arrest and later
for her deportation. But at present the officers are en-
gaged in obtaining the consent of the Canadian govern-
133	wong You y. United States, 223 U. S., 67.Illegal Entry and Deportation	165
ment to take the girl back as a Canadian citizen. In the
meantime the girl is a prisoner in the Seattle immigra-
tion station. The case has continued for about two
months and is not yet settled. Deportation is therefore
a costly business.
Certain recommendations have been made by the
Department in connection with the problem of deporta-
tions. These may be briefly reviewed. First, the Com-
missioner General of Immigration in his 1925 report
advocates, “the appropriation of funds, to provide for a
country-wide registration of all aliens now in the United
States, with provision for future similar registration of
newcomers within a stipulated time after entry." The
Commissioner argues that registration is necessary for
the control of the problem of immigration and it is the
only means by which the number of aliens illegally in
the country may be ascertained. He considers that it
would eliminate the greatest incentive to unlawful entry
and at the same time it would be of value to the law-
abiding part of the alien population.134 Another recom-
mendation made by the Commissioner in his 1926 report
is that, “Some penalty in addition to deportation should
be imposed upon those who attempt to gain admission
surreptitiously or by false and misleading statements."135
At the present time an alien who enters surreptitiously must
be apprehended within three years after date of entry in
order to be subject to deportation. A third recommenda-
tion made by the Commissioner in his 1926 report is that
a law should be enacted, “providing for the forfeiture and
seizure by the Immigration Service of vehicles used in
smuggling, or attempting to smuggle, aliens into the United
States. A measure similar to the one under which cus-
134 Log. Cit., p. 26.
iss Log. Cit., p. 24.166	Oriental	Exclusion
toms seizures are now made should be enacted and would
unquestionably prove not only a great deterrent to smug-
gling activities but also be of great assistance to immi-
gration and border patrol officers in providing vehicles
for their use in the performance of their duties.”136
130	Loc. Citp. 23.CHAPTER XIV
Effect of Exclusion Upon Oriental Communities
In the United States
The first effect of exclusion as indicated by the
Chinese experience and in some respects also by Japanese
immigration under the Gentlemen’s Agreement, is a de-
crease in the resident alien population. In other words
exclusion tends to expel the resident population of the
race in question in addition to preventing newcomers
from entering. This is well illustrated in the case of the
Chinese. Every decennial census since 1880 indicates a
substantial reduction over the preceding decade in the
number of Chinese in the country, notwithstanding the
number that are supposed to have gained illegal entry.
There are, according to the census reports, actually fewer
Chinese in the country today than there were sixty years
ago (1870—63,199; 1920—61,639). During the ten-year
period from 1890 to 1900, the first decade after a rigid
exclusion policy had been established, the Chinese popu-
lation declined 17,625, and the next decade, 18,332. From
1910 to 1920 the decline was less pronounced, but sub-
stantial nevertheless, amounting to 9,892.137
The effect of the Gentlemen's Agreement upon the
resident Japanese population of the United States is well
summarized by Buell:	“In the 15 years in which the
Gentlemen's Agreement was in force, the total number of
Japanese who entered and departed from the continental
United States was 120,317 and 111,636. These admis-
137	Abstract of the Fourteenth Census of the United States, 1920, p. 94.
167168
Oriental Exclusion
sions were non-laborers and the three classes of laborers
admissible under the Agreement. If Hawaii should be
included, the total admissions during this period were
171,584 and the total departures were 155,488, making
a total net increase of 16,096—a net increase for Hawaii
of 7,415, and for the continental United States of 8,681.
The total number of men admitted into the United States,
including Hawaii during this period was 97,877, while
the total number of men departed was 120,614, a net de-
crease of 22,737. The total number of women who
entered was 73,707, while the total number of women
who departed was 34,874, making a net increase ot
women of 38,833.”138
No one knows to what extent the 1924 law will
affect the growth or decline of the resident Chinese and
Japanese population in this country. During the two
fiscal years of its operation, however, 1925 and 1926, the
excess of departures over arrivals was for the Chinese
659, and for the Japanese 9,694. The immediate effect
of the law has been toN increase slightly the exodus of
Chinese and to convert an average yearly gain of Japanese
immigration of 1,649 for the past 8 years into an average
loss of 4,847 for each of the years the law has been
in effect.
A further effect of the 1924 law is reflected in the
following table showing location of permanent future
domicile of Chinese and Japanese immigrants.
It will be observed that a larger percentage of both
Chinese and Japanese immigrants are now taking up resi-
dence in New York State which in most cases means in
New York City. This is undoubtedly due to the more
careful selection of immigrants occasioned by the 1924
138	Peace	Foundation	Pamphlets,	Vol.	VII,	Nos.	5-6,	p.	291.Effects of Exclusion
169
TABLE 16
Percentage of immigrants taking up residence in Pacific Coast
States139 and in New York State
Chinese	Japanese
Year	Pac. Coast States	New York State	Pac. Coast States	New York State
1923	56.4	11.1	50.1	5.2
1924	53.3	11.1	55.8	5.3
1925	53.1	10.1	31.4	13.0
1926	38.3	17.9	42.9	27.3
Act. Most of the permanent entries, especially Japanese,
now belong to the treaty merchant class and consequently
go to the centers of international trade.
Let us now examine the effect of the reduced immi-
gration stream upon the economic and social organization
of the Oriental communities in the United States. It is
well known that as soon as the Chinese Exclusion Law
stopped the flow of immigrants, the doimciled population
began to scatter, forming little “China towns” in all the
large cities of the country. The percentage of the total
Chinese population resident in California dropped from
approximately 100 per cent in 1860 to 46.7 per cent in
1920. When the flow of newcomers was stopped the
domiciled Chinese business men were forced to look to
Americans for customers and this necessitated a wider
distribution throughout the country as the forms of busi-
ness in which the Chinese participated were of a rather
limited variety.
The Japanese experience in this country has been
139	California, Oregon and Washington.170
Oriental Exclusion
different. The Gentlemen’s Agreement did not preclude
their acting in accordance with their racial habit of bring-
ing their wives and children with them. The result was
that prior to 1924 the Japanese population in this country
was an expanding one, both as a result of natural increase
and of immigration. This expanding population furnished
the necessary conditions for an inwardly organized eco-
nomic life. The Japanese community in America was to
a large extent a complete economic and social structure.
It provided for all the occupational classes from the
basic industrial group up through the service and pro-
fessional groups. The local Japanese community pros-
pered by doing business with Americans just as one
nation might prosper by trading with another.
The first effect therefore of the 1924 Act was a cur-
tailment of the normal expansion of the Japanese com-
munity due to the sudden change from a positive to a
negative type of migration. This decline in population
has produced a business depression among the commer-
cial and professional classes of resident Japanese. Per-
sons engaged in the basic industries are still as well off
as ever except insofar as they may be affected by the
alien land laws. But the small trader and the profes-
sional classes are now in a condition of economic depres-
sion. Business failures among the small traders are very
common. The writer has been informed that 37 Japanese
business establishments failed in Seattle during the past
year and 16 of the more important establishments are
recorded as having gone into bankruptcy or having volun-
tarily closed during 1926.
This business depression among small merchants can-
not however be attributed entirely to the effect of the
exclusion law. It is partially due to the tendency of
the Japanese engaged in agriculture and other basic in-Effects of Exclusion
171
dustries to transfer more and more of their business from
their own nationals to Americans. This recognized ten-
dency is due to three factors: first, with the growing
up of the second generation there is more demand for
American commodities and of course more acquaintance
with American customs; second, the automobile has made
it possible for the small farmer to go to the town or city
to do his shopping, so he no longer relies upon the travel-
ing Japanese merchant who used to visit the agricultural
communities and camps to take orders and deliver pro-
ducts; in the third place, part of the interest in doing
business with Americans rather than with Japanese is
the result of a studied policy. Japanese farmers and
others have found by experience that doing business with
Americans, especially with those who are hostile to them,
is the most effective way of winning good will and of
allaying race prejudice.
The social organization of the Japanese community
also seems to be changing as a result of the new situa-
tion. The Japanese Association has lost much of its old
time morale as well as its raison d'etre. During the period
of the Gentlemen’s Agreement the Japanese Association
performed a semi-official function between the Japanese
community in the United States and Japan. The Asso-
ciation assisted the Japanese Consulate in the administra-
tion of the Gentlemen’s Agreement by investigating claims
for return certificates and by keeping a record of all
Japanese activities in this country. The Association fur-
ther served as a sort of matrimonial agency for the
Japanese bachelors in America who were desirous of
getting wives from Japan during the period of the “pic-
ture-bride regime.” The Association investigated the
qualifications of the bride seeker and assisted in the con-172
Oriental Exclusion
summation of the marriage. Now that the new law is
in effect these international functions have disappeared
and with their disappearance has come a decided drop in
the morale of the organization in this country and also
a change in its policy. The Japanese Association is now
for the most part concerned with local communal prob-
lems of a social welfare nature. It is directing its atten-
tion more and more to the problems connected with the
second generation.
There seems to have been quite a rapid development
of Japanese language schools during the last few years
and it is felt by some Japanese leaders that these are
the result of the excluion law.
“Before the Exclusion Law was enacted most of Japanese
parents thought that Japanese language is not needed, only English
is useful and the old folks were also studying English language
so hard, but after that law passed parents began to feel uneasy
about American lives, and they wanted to go back to their home
land, leaving the children on American soil. In that case, in order
to correspond with each other in one language, they study Jap-
anese dialect. Ever since, the Japanese language schools were
built like mushrooms wherever the Japanese community is founded
with over fifty families. This is the reaction to the Japanese
Exclusion Law. In Fresno two Japanese language schools, Madera
1 (new), Sanger 2 (new), Clovis 1 (new), Sunny Side 1 (new),
Biola 1 (new), Strawberry District 1 (new), Fowler 1 (new),
Delrey 1 (new), Reedley 1 (new), Selma 1 (new). Old ones:
Parlier 1, Monmos 1, Bowles 1, Visalia 1, Hanford 1; other newly
built: Visalia 1, Hanford 1 (Buddhist’s supervision), and Bakers-
field. And there are several other plans all over the community.”140
It is doubtful, however, whether much of this in-
crease in the number of language schools is not due to
the natural increase of child population. In Seattle the
language school increased from an enrollemnt of 257 in
140 Letter from a Japanese pastor, April 26, 1927.Effects of Exclusion
173
December, 1922, to 548 in December, 1926, an increase of
about 50 per cent. But in the meantime the enrollment
of Japanese children in the public schools of the city
increased from 1,057 to 1,889, an increase of 78 per
cent.141
Effect of Exclusion on International Trade. It is
practically impossible to measure the effect of exclusion
on international trade. Foreign commerce is affected by
a great complex of forces and no one can say to what
extent changes in commerce are due to any particular
cause. Our exports to Japan and China fluctuate from
year to year but the tendency since 1923 has been
downward.
It may be worth while to consider the opinions of
some prominent business men on the matter. Even
though the opinions expressed do not prove anything,
they at least represent significant attitudes.
There is of course a wide variety of opinion as to
the effect of exclusion on trade. From our brief investi-
gation, however, it would seem as though the Japanese
business men in America believe that the law does not
affect international commerce, while the American busi-
ness men seem to hold the opposite opinion. A prominent
American lawyer from San Francisco writes as follows
as a result of his conversation with a number of particu-
larly prominent and reliable Japanese:
“Everyone believes that the Immigration Act has affected
international trade very little...... Japan relies on the United
States for certain commodities such as cotton of a particular
variety and in turn we are the best market for her silk exports.
Sentiment, it is said, is not one of the direct factors on which
trade is dependent. I am told also that the resentment against the
141 Data Supplied by the Superintendent of Schools, Seattle, April 1927.174
Oriental Exclusion
United States which arose in 1924 has died down to a very large
degree, and, therefore, the tendency not to buy goods made in
Aemrica which arose at that time has disappeared. It has been
pointed out to me that the industrial centers in Japan and the
prefectures from which the greater number of Japanese immi-
grants to the United States have come are located in different
parts of the Empire. The industrial centers are interested in inter-
national trade but not directly interested to any degree in immi-
gration and this, it is stated, has served to lessen the effect of the
Immigration Act on trade relations.”
“The Secretary of the Japanese Chamber of Commerce in San
Francisco told me that they are exerting every effort to restrain
agitation which they know has a harmful effect on international
trade. He believes that the resentment caused by the Immigration
Act has faded to the point where it now has almost no influence
on trade with the United States.”142
Prominent Japanese who are engaged extensively in
international trade seem fairly united in the belief that
the exclusion law has not materially affected trade. Their
opinions, however, may be the expression of a wish more
than the statement of a fact. There is no doubt but that
international traders are exceedingly cautious about saying
anything that might disturb the trade relations between
the two countries. Opinions of American business men
are somewhat different. The chairman of the Foreign
Trade Bureau of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, him-
self a prominent manufacturer and exporter to the Orient,
writes as follows:
“My personal opinion is that it (the 1924 Act) had a very
serious effect and caused considerable buying that would have been
done in the United States to be done elsewhere. A lot of business
that was formerly going to the United States was undoubtedly kept
at home, as immediately after the Exclusion Law was passed Japan
started a campaign to patronize home industries............ I remember
standing in Osaka before a very prominent corner and noticing a
142 Letter April 14, 1927.Effects of Exclusion
175
billboard in Japanese with one particular character that I recog-
nized meaning ‘Japan.’ I asked our agent what that billboard said.
His answer was, ‘That is a billboard put up by the government
asking the people to buy goods made at home and help pay foreign
loans’.”143
The effect of the law on Chinese trade is even more
uncertain. The Chinese have too many other things
engaging their attention at the present time to give much
thought to exclusion in America. However, if sentiment
against the 1924 Act expressed by domiciled Chinese could
be transferred to China there is little doubt but that it
would affect trade. It is well known how effective the
Chinese boycott of 1905 was in reducing the volume of
commerce between the two nations.144 There is no ques-
tion but that the resentment of the Chinese commercial
communities at the present time is as bitter toward the
system of administering the exclusion laws as it was at
any time in the past. Local Chinese know, however, that
a boycott would injure them personally probably more
than anyone else. They are therefore opposed to such
a method of getting redress. In protesting against the
law, however, the Chinese business men maintain that it
has bad effects on trade. The manager of the Chinese
Chamber of Commerce writes as follows:
“The Exclusion Law, the Immigration Law of 1924, together
with the treatment of the Chinese at this port for the past three
years have lessened the trade and commerce between China, Japan
and the United States. The Chinese Chamber of Commerce, speak-
ing for the great commercial community of the Pacific Coast
relative to the laws and rules promulgated against us, only ask
modification of the severity of this enforcement at the port of
143	Letter May 3, 1927
144	In the Annual Report for 1907 of the Commissioner General of Immigra-
tion, p. 143, there appears the following statement:	“The exports of the
United States to China, according to our statistics, fell from 53,000,000 in the
fiscal year 1905 to $44,000,000 in 1906 and to $26,000,000 in 1907.”176
Oriental Exclusion
San Francisco. We repeatedly ask ourselves why the oldest friend
in the Orient to the American people should be cursed with the
Immigration L,aw of 1924, with the Exclusion Law already in
force and effect. One or the other would have been sufficient.
...... Let the American government do as it pleases, we as a
nation seem powerless to resist.............. Our grievances are not
personal or political. We justly contend that if a Chinese mer-
chant, his wife or children apply to land at this port that they
should be fairly and justly treated and their cases safeguarded by
their right of justice and equity, guaranteed by the old treaties
and the natural right of fairness and interest.”145
145 Letter, April 28, 1927.CHAPTER XV.
Conclusion
We have reached the end of our brief study of exclu-
sion. I shall now summarize what appear to be some of the
outstanding aspects of the problem. We have seen that
exclusion is a movement of recent times; that it started
with the development of steam and electric communication
during the last half of the 19th century, and is still con-
fined to the eastern fringe of Occidental civilization.
As the Western world has extended its economic and
political domains closer to the reach of Asia a fear of
being engulfed by a tidal wave of Asiatic immigration
has swept over the entire frontier belt of Western domi-
nance. In the initial stage of this process there was a
short period when the presence of the colored races was
considered by the white pioneers as essential to the de-
velopment of the resources at hand. But with the passing
of pioneer conditions and the emergence of established
marginal communities, each bound to the urban centers
of the Atlantic seaboard by economic and political ties,
a fear of Asiatic invasion arose finding expression in na-
tional legislation restricting Oriental immigration.
Thus the exclusion movement which started locally
has become of national significance. Furthermore the
movement is still gaining in scope. Each year brings
forth some new endeavor to extend the territorial range
of the exclusion idea. But while the exclusion movement
is expanding to more countries along the eastern shores
of the Pacific there is evidence that a new epoch is dawn-
177178
Oriental Exclusion
ing in commonwealth formation. The Pacific coast com-
munities of North America, which heretofore were willing
to play the role of outposts to the metropolitan centers of
the Atlantic commonwealth, are now beginning to look to
cities across the Pacific as the next stage in their future
development. (The modern race for supremacy is be-
tween economic regions and urban centers, even more
than between national or political entities as such. And
there is a nascent attitude among the larger cities on
the Pacific rim that their future is bound up with the
cities that face them across the Pacific more than with
the Western centers upon which they formerly depended.
As this attitude grows, interest in Pacific amity and
international good-will is likely to increase pari passu.
This country has had almost half a century’s ex-
perience with exclusion legislation. And from a practical
standpoint the experience on the whole has been success-
ful. The original purpose of exclusion was to escape
the economic competition of Asiatic coolie labor. Ex-
clusion has accomplished this result. Chinese immigration
has been stemmed and the resident population of that race
has declined in number and scattered throughout the
country. Anti-Chinese sentiment has subsided almost to
the point of non-existence.
However exclusion has not solved the problem from
the standpoint of the Chinese. They have never accepted
it as a just and equitable method of dealing with immigra-
tion restriction.146 This is one ‘ reason why Chinese ex-
clusion continues to be such a difficult administrative
problem. The enforcement of Chinese exclusion has
146 As a practical necessity, the Chinese in the United States accept the
principle of the exclusion of coolie labor but they seriously oppose what they
consider to be efforts on the part of immigration officials to exclude all mem-
bers of their race.Conclusion
179
been costly far out of proportion to the numbers apply-
ing for admission. Nor is the cost to be measured in
monetary terms alone. The resentment engendered through
the enforcement of the; law is of far greater significance
than the actual money spent in attaining the objective.
If this resentment has not reacted against the international
balance sheet it is simply because China has meanwhile
been in a condition of political lethargy or turmoil. It
is hardly likely that a politically organized China will
continue to disregard the sentiments of her nationals dom-
iciled in or traveling through a foreign country.
The Immigration Act of 1924 has been in effect too
short a time to warrant any prediction as to its ultimate
significance. But judging from two and a half year’s
experience of its operation one might hazard the conjec-
ture that in its practical outcome the act will do for
Japanese immigration what the Exclusion Act of 1882
did for Chinese immigration. That is it will so reduce
and select the stream of Japanese immigration that the
Japanese problem in this country will cease to be of public
concern. Already there has been a noticeable decline in
anti-Japanese sentiment. The Japanese residents of this
country will, in all probability as the years pass, become
more widely distributed throughout the Union. Since the
1924 law went into effect the percentage of Chinese and
Japanese immigrants taking up permanent residence in
the Pacific Coast States has shown a considerable
decline.147
Japanese exclusion has, up to the present, involved
small monetary cost or trouble from an administrative
standpoint. The reason for this lies in the fact that the
Japanese Government considers international amity of too
147 See Appendix, Table F.180
Oriental Exclusion
great importance to allow the individual problems of her
subjects to interfere. But the smooth operation of the
enforcement of Japanese exclusion should not be taken
as an indication that the problem is solved. The Japanese
are even farther than the Chinese from accepting the
status quo as the final solution.
Exclusion differs from restriction principally in the
mental attitudes involved. The practical results of the
two methods are about the same. Each limits the num-
ber of arrivals. Each presents about the same kind of
individual and administrative problems. Exclusion, how-
ever, differs radically from restriction from the stand-
point of group attitudes. Exclusion discriminates in a
manner that is offensive to the racial and national dignity
of the group excluded. This is especially true when ex-
clusion is based on the principle of ineligibility to citizen-
ship. For then it conveys the obnoxious implication that
the people excluded are biologically inferior.
Both China and Japan, according to the repeated ut-
terances of their representative leaders, accept the princi-
ple of immigration restriction. They realize that it is
in the interests of all concerned to prevent a too rapid
intermingling of the races. They do object, however, to
being discriminated against on the basis of race when
such discrimination is unnecessary to achieve the end de-
sired. There seems to be no fundamental difference of
opinion regarding the objective. The conflict arises in
connection with the method employed. It has been pointed
out on numerous occasions that the quota principle, as
at present applied to Europeans, if applied to Asiatics,
would admit such a negligible number that the practical
end of exclusion would be achieved and without the
sacrifice of international good-will.Conclusion
181
Exclusion is no longer a solution of the problem of
economic competition with races living on a lower eco-
nomic level. The exclusion of one race invites the immi-
gration of another whose standard of living may be equal-
ly low and whose racial traits may be equally divergent.
The exclusion of the Chinese stimulated the immigration
of the Japanese, and the exclusion of the Japanese in turn
is causing an increased immigration from Mexico. Even
when exclusion becomes general, excluding all races r or
peoples whose standards of living are low, the economic
competition of such people is not escaped. Capital tends
to migrate to the sources of cheap labor when such labor
cannot migrate to the sources of capital.
“Taking the world as a whole, the widespread development
of home manufactures to meet needs formerly supplied by im-
ported goods is by general consent one of the outstanding features
of the post-war economic situation, and this is perhaps the most
important permanent factor tending either , to limit the volume or
to modify the character of British export trade.”
“The number of cotton spindles in Japan, China, India and
Brazil in 1913 was about 10 millions; by 1924 the number had
risen to nearly 18 millions. Between 1913 and 1922 the number
of cotton power looms in India and Japan rose from 120,000 to
200,000. The annual production of steel just before the war in
Japan, China, India and Australia was 360,000 tons. In 1922 it
was 858,000 tons.” (Committee on Industry and Trade—Survey
of Overseas Markets. London, 1926, pp. 9-10.)
Human migration must be controlled. In our modern
world of high fluidity there is too much random move-
ment. To allow human beings to migrate at will from
one part of the world to another is to invite waste and
to precipitate conflict. On the other hand, it must be
remembered that in a dynamic highly specialized world
migration seems to be the only feasible way of maintain-182
Oriental Exclusion
in g economic equilibrium and of exploiting the resources
of undeveloped regions.148 There is need at present as
never before of a sound and rational immigration policy
acceptable to all nations concerned.
The old system of control is passing. Modern com-
munications are erasing or rendering obsolete most of the
old territorial boundary lines. The task of guarding politi-
cal frontiers becomes more difficult and costly with
the introduction of each new form of transportation. The
control of human migration can no longer be successfully
achieved by merely a defensive policy of guarding national
boundary lines. The entire problem should be handled
by international machinery based upon principles having
international acceptance.
This idea is partially expressed by President Coolidge
in his statement regarding the Immigration Act of 1924:
. .. “We have had for many years an understanding
with Japan by which the Japanese Government has vol-
untarily undertaken to prevent the emigration of laborers
to the United States, and in view of this historic relation
and of the feeling which inspired it, it would have been
much better in my judgment, and more effective in the
actual control of immigration, if we had continued to in-
vite that co-operation which Japan was ready to give and
had thus avoided creating any ground for misapprehension
by an unnecessary statutory enactment.”
148 See Harry Jerome’s splendid study, Migration and Business Cycles,
National Bureau of 'Economic Research, Inc., New York, 1926.APPENDIX
TABLE A
Orientals in the United States, (Census data).
Continental United States
Year	Chinese	Japanese
Continental United States: I860		34,933 63,199	
1870			55
1880		105,465	148
1890			107,488	2,039
1900			89,863	24,326
1910		71,531	72,157
1920		61,639	111,010
Hawaii:		
1890		15,301	12,360
1900		25,767	61,111
1910		21,674	79,675
1920.			23,507	109,247
183TABLE B	h-
2
Number of Japanese residents in North America and Hawaii—1909-1924
(Figures obtained by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Tokyo, Japan—1925)
	1909	1913	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
United States Male	 Female		69,769 6,945	67,169 10,456	88,483 42,736	88,706 36,579	80,892 42,480	84,580 46,055	84,112 47,281	82,087 49,270
Total. . .	76,714	77,625	131,219	125,285	123,372	130,635	131,393	131,357
Hawaii Male	 Female....	44,617 21,143	56,256 31,305	64,806 49,977	60,617 47,492	64,733 48,666	65,723 50,446	66,684 52,148	68,615 54,421
Total. . .	65,760	87,561	114,783	108,109	113,399	116,169	118,832	123,036
Canada Male		7,717 1,137	9,615 2,637	11,251 5,399	11,844 5,844	12,608 6,019	12,012 6,700	13,253 6,476	12,748 6,412
Female....								
Total. ..	8,854	12,252	16,650	17,688	18,627	18,712	19,729	19,160
Mexico Male		2,327 138	2,572 165	1,836 362	2,246 361	1,907 269	2,070 297	2,232 949	2,301 1,009
Female									
Total. ..	2,465	2,737	2,198	2,607	2,176	2,367	3,181	3,310
Oriental ExclusionAppendix
185
TABLE C
Immigration to and emigration from the United States by years
and countries.1
Year	China		Japan	
	Entered	Departed	Entered	Departed
1853 Prior to		42			
1853 		42			
1854 		13,100 3,526 4,733 5,944 5,128 3,457 5,467 7,518			
1855 					
1856 					
1857 					
1858 					
1859 					
I860 					
1861				1	
1862 		3,633 7,214 2,975 2,942 2,385			
1863	.				
1864 . 					
1865 . . .				
1866 . 				7	
1867		3,863 5,157 12,874 15,740		67	
1868 . 					
1869 				63	
1870				48	
1871		7,135 7,788		78	
1872				17	
1873		20,292 13,776 16,437 22,781		9	
1874				21	
1875				3	
1876				4	
1877		10,594 8,992 9,604 5,802 11,890 39,579 8,031 279		7	
1878				2	
1879				4	
1880				4	
1881				11	
1882 . 				5	
1883 . 				27	
1884... 				20	
1885	22		49	
1886... 		40		194	
1887 . .	10		229	
1888		26		404	
1889.. 		118		640	
1890 . ...	1,716 2,836		691	
1891 . 				1,136	
1892					186
Oriental Exclusion
TABLE C—continued
Year
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
China
Entered
472
1,170
539
1,441
3,363
2,071
1,660
1,247
2.459
1.649
2,209
4,309
2,166
1,544
961
1,397
1,943
1,968
1.460
1,765
2,105
2,502
2,660
2.460
2,237
1,795
1,964
2,330
4,009
4,406
4,986
6,992
1,937
1,751
Departed
3.923
3.411
2,371
2,762
2,609
2,303
2,112
2,011
2,203
1,871
2,352
2,199
3,102
5,451
6,362
3,715
3,847
3.412
2,989
Japan
Entered
1,380
1,931
1,150
1,110
1,526
2,230
2,844
12,635
5,269
14,270
19,968
14,264
10,331
13,835
30,226
15.803
3,111
2,720
4,520
6,114
8,281
8,929
8,613
8,680
8,991
10,213
10,064
9,432
7,878
6,716
5,809
8,801
723
654
Departed
3.431
3,819
4,366
3,354
1,485
731
756
840
770
750
1,583
2,195
4,249
4,375
4,368
2,869
2,155
1,212
1,208
1 For 1820 to 1867 the figures are for alien passengers arriving; for
1868 to 1903, for immigrants arriving; for 1904 to 1906, for aliens admitted;
and for 1907 to 1926, for immigrants aliens admitted. The years from 1820
to 1831, and 1844 to 1849, inclusive, are those ending September 30; from
1833 to 1843 and 1851 to 1867, those ending December 31; and 1869 to 1926
those ending June 30. The other periods cover 15 months er ding December
31, 1832; 9 months ending December 31, 1843; 15 months, ending December
31, 1850; and 6 months ending June 30,	1868. Data for years prior to
1906 cover countries whence aliens came; and, for years following, countries
of last permanent residence. (Annual Report of the Commissioner General of
Immigration, 1926, pp. 170-181.)Appendix
187
TABLE D
Chinese and Japanese immigrant aliens admitted and emigrant aliens
departed, with excess admissions or departures, fiscal years
ended June 30, 1911 to 19261
Year	Chinese				Japanese			
	Ad- mitted	De- parted	Loss or gain		Ad- mitted	De- parted	Loss or gain	
1899	1,638				3,395			
1900	1,250				12,628			
1901	2,452				5,249			
1902	1,631				14,455			
1903	2,192				20,041			
1904	4,327				14,382			
1905	1,971				11,021			
1906	1,485				14,243			
1907	770				30,824			
1908	1,263	3, $98	—	2,635	16,418	5,323	+ 11,095	
1909	1,841	3,397	—	1,556	3,275	3,903	—	628
1910	1,770	2,383	—	613	2,798	4,377	—	1,579
1911	1,307	2,716	—	1,409	4,575	3,351	+	1,224
1912	1,608	2,549	—	941	6,172	1,501	+	4,671
1913	2,022	2,250	—	228	8,302	733	+	7,569
1914	2,354	2,059	+	295	8,941	794	+	8,147
1915	2,469	1,959	+	510	8,609	825	+	7,784
1916	2,239	2,148	+	91	8,711	780	+	7,931
1917	1,843	1,799	+	44	8,925	722	+	8,203
1918	1,576	2,239		663	10,168	1,558	+	8,610
1919	1,697	2,062	—	365	10,056	2,127	+	7,929
1920	2,148	2,961	.+	813	9,279	4,238	+	5,041
1921	4,017	5,253		1,236	7,531	4,352	+	3,179
1922	4,465	6,146	—	1,681	6,361	4,353	+	2,008
1923	4,074	3,788	+	286	5,652	2,844	+	2,808
1924	4,670	3,736	+	934	8,481	2,120	+	6,361
1925	1,721	3,263		1,542	682	1,170		488
1926	1,375	2,873	—	1 *498	598	1,201	—	603
1 Excess of admissions indicated by plus sign ( + ), of departures by minus
sign (—). Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration, 1926,
pp. 182-185. Alien arrivals previous to July 1, 1898 were not recorded by
race or people.. Alien departures previous to	July 1,	3 908 were not re-
corded by race or people.TABLE E
Chinese admitted to the United States, fiscal years ended June 30, 1918 to 1926, by ports.
Places of entry	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924	1925	1926
San Francisco		1,905	2,168	2,776	4,461	4,499	4,892	4,893	2,832	2,261
Seattle		672	721	840	1,405	2,111	2,901	3,585	2,319	2,403
Honolulu		409	307	424	666	1,335	1,403	1,187	526	308
Boston		24	25	155	6	236	511	367	148	111
New York		94	73	231	292	503	530	344	223	190
Montreal		7	4	59	775					
New Orleans		13	5	6	5	’ ' *6	”ii	' ’ *8		’ ’ 2
Mexican border		38	16	11	54	418	142	121	’ 65	58
Canadian border						841	163	172	124	118
Portland				“98	• • 'j					
Other places of entry....	"4	21	90	21	' 23	5	‘ ii	’ 6	’ 8
Norfolk, Va					138	26		4		
Newport News, Va					292	24		2		
Philadelphia					201	3				
Note the decline in the number of entries at the port of San Francisco since the act of 1924 became
effective. In 1926 Seattle had more entries than San Francisco.
Oriental ExclusionAppendix
189
TABLE F
Immigrant aliens admitted, for the two years specified fiscal years
before and the two specified years after the Immigration Act of 1924
became effective—by states of intended future permanent residence.
Compiled from Table 80, Annual Report, for 1926 and from similar
tables in other reports.
Location	1920 ai	id 1921	1925 and 1926	
	Total	Percent	Total	Percent
Chinese—				
California		2,623	42.5	865	27.9
District of Columbia		109	1.7	24	.8
Hawaii			268	4.3	98	3.2
Illinois		265	4.3	182	5.9
Massachusetts		262	4.2	161	5.2
Michigan		56	.9	70	2.3
New York		760	12.3	422	13.6
Ohio		90	1.6	96	3.1
Oregon		83	1.4	73	2.3
Pennsylvania		374	6.1	116	3.8
Washington		221	3.6	504	16.3
Other States		1,054	17.1	485	15.6
Japanese—				
California		6,793	40.5	256	20.
District of Columbia		67	.4	76	5.9
Hawaii		4,291	25.6	335	26.1
Illinois			143	.8	15	1.2
Massachusetts		76	.4	14	1.1
Michigan		18	.1	7	.6
New York		960	5.7	252	19.7
Ohio		34	.2	9	.7
Oregon		589	3.5	38	2.9
Pennsylvania		61	.4	16	1.3
Washington			2,516	14.9	177	13.8
Other States		1,262	7.5	85	6.7TABLE G	h-
o
Net increase or decrease of population by arrival and departure of Chinese and Japanese immigrant aliens,
fiscal years ended June 30, 1911 to 1926, by sex.
Chinese
Year	Admitted		Departed		Increase or decrease			Net in- crease or decrease
	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female		
1911		1,124	183	2,660	56	-1,536	+	127	-1,409
1912		1,367	241	2,483	66	-1,116	+	175	- 941
1913		1,692	330	2,204	46	- 512	+	284	- 228
1914		2,052	302	2,005	54	+ 47	+	248	+ 295
1915		2,182	287	1,918	41	+ 264	+	246	+ 510
1916		1,962	277	2,093	55	- 131	+	222	+ 91
1917		1,563	280	1,735	64	- 172	+	216	+ 44
1918		1,276	300	2,156	83	- 880	+	217	- 663
1919		1,425	272	1,979	83	- 554	+	189	- 365
1920		1,719	429	2,844	117	-1,125	+	312	- 813
1921		3,304	713	5,112	141	-1,808	+	572	-1,236
1922		3,622	843	5,943	203	-2,321	+	640	-1,681
1923		3,239	835	3,625	163	- 386	+	672	+ 286
1924			3,732	938	3,553	183	+ 179	+	755	+ 934
1925		1,526	195	3,124	139	-1,598	+	56	-1,542
1926		1,182	193	2,746	127	-1,564	+	66	-1,498
Totals		32,967	6,618	46,180	1,621	-13,213	+4,997		-8,216
Oriental ExclusionTABLE G—continued
Japanese
Year	Admitted		Departed		Increase or decrease		Net in- pfpQCA Af
	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female	V-/1 C/CLoC/ decrease
1911		1,409 1,930 3,157 3,292 3,762	3,166	2,721	630	-1,312	+2,536	+ 1,224
1912			4,242	1,167	334	+ 763	+3,908	+4,671
1913 			5,145	561	172	+2,596	+4,973	+ 7,569
1914			5,649	615	179	+2,677	+5,470	+8,147
1915			4,847 4,678 4,763	676	149	+3,086	+4,698	+ 7,784
1916		4,033 4,162 4,821		635	145	+3,398	+4,533	+ 7,931
1917				581	141	+3,581	+4,622	+8,203
1918 			5,347 5,489	1,215 1,715	343	+3,606	+5,004	+8,610
1919		4,567 3,414 3,147 2,683			412	+2,852	+5,077	+ 7,929
1920			5,865	3,181	1,057	+ 233	+4,808	+5,041
1921			4,384	3,249	1,103	- 102	+3,281	+3,179
1922			3,678	3,086	1,267	- 403	+2,411	+2,008
1923 		2,489 3,784	3,163 4,697	2,043	801	+ 446	+2,362	+2,808
1924				1,537	583	+2,247	+4,114	+6,361
1925		368	314	837	333	- 469	- 19	- 488
1926		425	173	830	371	- 405	- 198	- 603
							
Totals		47,443	65,600	24,649	8,020	+22,794	+57,580	+80,374
							
Compiled from the Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration, 1926, table 86, p. 209-211.
AppendixTABLE H
Age distribution of Chinese and Japanese immigrant aliens admitted, fiscal years
ended June 30, 1917 to 19261
Year	Chinese				Japanese			
	Number admitted	Under 16 years	16 to 44 years	45 years and over	Number admitted	Under 16 years	16 to 44 years	45 years and over
1917		1,843	135	1,481	227	8,925	716	7,663	546
1918		1,576	129	1,178	269	10,168	1,417	8,228	523
1919		1,697	172	1,278	247	10,056	1,397	8,018	641
1920		2,148	242	1,712	194	9,279	1,342	7,462	475
1921		4,017	415	3,344	258	7,531	1,227	5,778	526
1922		4,465	641	3,570	434	6,361	1,049	4,845	467
1923		4,074	434	3,084	556	5,651	935	4,107	610
1924		4,670	396	3,459	815	8,481	1,375	6,115	991
1925		1,721	76	1,246	399	682	69	546	67
1926		1,375	128	1,001	246	598	63	492	43
1 Compiled from the Annual Reports of the Commissioner General of Immigration, table vii, p. 20, 1917, and similar
tables for other years. For the year 1917 the age groups are “under 14 years” and “14 to 44 years”.
Oriental ExclusionTABLE I
Chinese claiming American citizenship by birth, or to be the wives or children of American citizens, ad-
mitted, fiscal years ended June 30, 1917-19261
Year	Foreign-born wives of natives	Foreign-born children of natives		Native born		Total
			Raw natives2	Native3 bom	Status not4 determined	
1917		110	905	19	904	151	2,089
1918		132	331	13	492	98	1,066
1919		91	260	15	471	179	1,016
1920		141	843	15	691	191	1,881
1921			290	2,067	22	812	302	3,493
1922.					396	2,292	25	1,239	278	4,230
1923		387	2,399	27	1,610	515	4,938
1924		396	2,136	11	1,912	476	4,931
19255							3,023
19265						47’.	2,396
1 Compiled from the Annual Reports of the Commissioner General of Immigration, table 3, p. 157, 1924 and similar
tables for other years.
2	No record of departure (known as raw natives).
3	Status as native born determined by United States Government previous to present application for admission.
4	Status not previously determined.
5 Complete data for 1925 and 1926 not available.
vO
CO
AppendixTABLE J
Chinese aliens of the merchant classes admitted, fiscal years ended, June 30, 1917-19261
Year	Section 6 merchants	Returning merchants	Merchants’ wives	Merchants* children	Totals
1917		180	691	111	583	1,565
1918		129	520	88	302	1,039
1919		138	512	91	214	955
1920		105	525	166	478	1,274
1921		287	702	271	1,045	2,305
1922			649	764	301	1,059	2,773
1923		497	980	319	1,058	23854
1924		452	1,229	273	823	2,777
1925						75
1926		 . . .					424
1 Compiled from the Annual Reports of the Commissioner General of Immigration. Table 2, p. 137, 1917, and similar
tables for other years. Only totals given for 1925 and 1926 as no listing of seperate classes is made in those reports.
These totals, however, do hot include “Returning Merchants.”
Oriental ExclusionTABLE K
Chinese students admitted and debarred fiscal years, ended June 30, 1917-19261
			Admitted					Debarred		
Year	Sec. 6 Students		Ret’ng £	Jtudents	Total ad- mitted	Sec. 6 Students		Ret’ng Students		Total
	Male	Female	Male	Female		Male	Female	Male	Female	de- barred
1917		158	15	49	1	223	3	1			4
1918.		165	28	32		225	3				4
1919		363	31	47	"l	443	1				1
1920			390	43	75	4	512	1				2
1921		710	54	69	5	838	3				3
1922			547	71	60	4	682	4				5
1923		464	49	60	3	576	12				12
192	4	 192	5		483	76	78	5	642 328	13				17
1926....						327					
1 Compiled from table 2, p. 137 of the 1917 Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration and similar
tables for other years. Complete data for 1925 and 1926 not available.
VO
AppendixImmigration Act of 1924
Exclusion From United States
Sec.	13.	(a)	No immigrant shall be admitted to the United
States unless he (1) has an unexpired immigration visa or was
born subsequent to the issuance of the immigration visa of the
accompanying parent, (2) is of the nationality specified in the visa
in the immigration visa, (3) is a non-quota immigrant if specified
in the visa in the immigration visa as such, and (4) is otherwise
admissible under the immigration laws.
(b)	In	such	classes of cases	and under such	conditions as
may be by regulations prescribed immigrants who have been legally
admitted to the United States and who depart therefrom tempor-
arily may be admitted to the United States without being required
to obtain an immigration visa.
(c)	No alien ineligible to citizenship shall be admitted to the
United States unless such alien (1) is admissible as a non-quota
immigrant under the provision of subdivision (b), (d) or (e) of
section 4,—
“Sec. 4........(b) An immigrant previously lawfully admitted
to the United States, who is returning from a temporary visit
abroad;....
(d)	An	immigrant who	continuously for	at least two
years immediately preceding the time of his application for
admission to the United States has been, and who seeks to
enter the United States solely for the purpose of, carrying
on	the	vocation of minister	of any religious	denomination,
or professor of a college, academy, seminary, or university;
and his wife, and his unmarried children under 18 years of
age, if accompanying or following to join him; or
(e)	An immigrant who is a bona fide student at least 15
years of age and who seeks to enter the United States solely
for the purpose of study at an accredited school, college,
academy, seminary, or university, particularly designated by
him and approved by the Secretary of Labor, which shall
196Immigration Act of 1924
197
have agreed to report to the Secretary of Labor the termi-
nation of attendance of each immigrant student, and if any
such institution of learning fails to make such reports
promptly the approval shall be withdrawn.”
or (2) is the wife, or the unmarried child under 18 years of age
of an immigrant admissible under such subdivision (d), and is
accompanying or following to join him, or (3) is not an immi-
grant as defined in section 3.—
“Sec. 3. When used in this Act the term ‘immigrant’ means
any alien departing from any place outside the United States
destined for the United States, except (1) a government
official, his family, attendants, servants, and employees, (2)
an alien visiting the United States temporarily as a tourist
or temporarily for business or pleasure, (3) an alien in con-
tinuous transit through the United States, (4) an alien law-
fully admitted to the United States who later goes in transit
from one part of the United States to another through
foreign contiguous territory, (5) a bona fide alien seaman
serving as such on a vessel arriving at a port of the United
States and seeking to enter temporarily the United States
solely in the pursuit of his calling as a seaman, and (6) an
alien entitled to enter the United States solely to carry on
trade under and in pursuance of the provisions of a present
existing treaty of commerce and navigation.”
Deportation
Sec. 14. Any alien who at any time after entering the United
States is found to have been at the time of entry not entitled
under this Act to enter the United States, or to have remained
therein for a longer time than permitted under this Act or regula-
tions made thereunder, shall be taken into custody and deported
in the same manner as provided for in sections 19 and 20 of the
Immigration Act of 1917 :	PROVIDED, That the Secretary of
Labor may, under such conditions and restrictions as to support
and care as he may deem necessary, permit permanently to remain
in the United States, any alien child who, when under sixteen years198
Oriental Exclusion
of age was heretofore temporarily admitted to the United States
and who is now within the United States and either of whose
parents is a citizen of the United States.
Maintenance of Exempt Status
Sec. 15. The admission to the United States of an alien
excepted from the class of immigrants by clause (2), (3), (4),
(5), or (6) of section 3,
“Sec. 3. . . . (2) an alien visiting the United States tempor-
arily as a tourist or temporarily for business or pleasure, (3)
an alien in continuous transit through the Untied States,
(4) an alien lawfully admitted to the United States who later
goes in transit from one part of the United States to an-
other through foreign contiguous territory, (5) a bona fide
alien seaman serving as such on a vessel arriving at a port
of the United States and seeking to enter temporarily the
United States solely in the pursuit of his calling as a seaman,
and (6) an alien entitled to enter the United States solely to
carry on trade under and in pursuance of the provisions of a
present existing treaty of commerce and navigation.”
or declared to be a non-quota immigrant by subdivision (e) of
section 4,—
“Sec. 4. . . . (e) An immigrant who is a bona fide student at
least 15 years of age and who seeks to enter the United
States 'solely for the purpose of study at an accredited school,
college, academy, seminary, or university, particularly desig-
nated by him and approved by the Secretary of Labor, which
shall have agreed to report to the Secretary of Labor the
termination of attendance of each immigrant student^ and if
any such institution of learning fails to make such reports
promptly the approval shall be withdrawn.”
shall be for such time as may be by regulations prescribed, and
under such conditions as may be by regulations prescribed (includ-
ing,	when	deemed	necessary for the classes	mentioned in	clauses
(2), (3),	(4), or	(6) of section 3,—
“Sec.	3. . . .	(2) an alien visiting	the United States	tempor-
arily	as a tourist or temporarily	for	business or pleasure,Immigration Act of 1924
199
(3)	an alien in continuous transit through the United States,
(4)	an alien lawfully admitted to the Unied States who later
goes in transit from one part of the United States to an-
other through foreign contiguous territory, ...	(6) an
alien entitled to enter the United States solely to carry on
trade under and in pursuance of the provisions of a present
existing treaty of commerce and navigation.”
the giving of bond with sufficient surety, in such sum and con-
taining such conditions as may be by regulations prescribed) to
insure that, at the expiration of such time or upon failure to
maintain the status under which admitted, he will depart from the
United States.
General Definitions
Sec. 28. As used in this Act—
(a) The term “United States,” when used in a geographical
sense, means the States, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii, the
District of Columbia, Porto Rico, and the Virgin Islands ,* and
the term “continental United States” means the States and the
District of Columbia;
(b)	The term “alien” includes any individual not a native-
born or naturalized citizen of the United States, but this definition
shall not be held to include Indians of the United States not taxed,
nor citizens of the islands under the jurisdiction of the United
States;
(c)	The term “ineligible to citizenship,” when used in refer-
ence to any individual, includes an individual who is debarred from
becoming a citizen of the United States under section 2169 of the
Revised Statutes, or under section 14 of the Act entitled “An Act
to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese,” approved
May 6, 1882, or under section 1996, 1997, or 1998 of the Revised
Statutes, as amended, or under section 2 of the Act entitled “An
Act to authorize the President to increase temporarily the Military
Establishment of the United States” approved May 18, 1917, as
amended, or under law amendatory of, supplementary to, or in
substitution for, any of such sections;200
Oriental Exclusion
(f)	The term “Immigration Act of 1917” means the Act of
February 5, 1917, entitled “An Act to regulate the immigration
of aliens to, and the residence of aliens in, the United States;”
(g)	The term “immigration laws” includes such Act, this
Act, and all laws, conventions, and treaties of the United States
relating to the immigration, exclusion, or expulsion of aliens;
(h)	The term “person” includes individuals, partnerships, cor-
porations, and associations;
(i)	The term “Commissioner General” means the Commis-
sioner General of Immigration.
(j) The term “application for admission” has reference to
the application for admission to the United States and not to the
application for the issuance of the immigration visa;
(k) The term “permit” means a permit issued under Sec-
tion 10;
(1) The term “unmarried,” when used in reference to any
individual as of any time, means an individual who at such time
is not married, whether or not previously married;
(m) The terms “child,” “father,” and “mother,” do not in-
clude a child or parent by adoption unless the adoption took place
before January 1, 1924;
(n) The terms “wife” and “husband” do not include a wife
or husband by reason of a proxy or picture marriage.325.252 M19o1
3 T35S 0ib5bfl64 5
HECKMAN
BINDERY INC.
JAN 95
JV6874	.M3	1928
Suzzallo/Allen Stacks