Transcripts For CSPAN3 Landmark Cases Supreme Court Landmark Case Yick Wo V. Hopkins 20240712

Unconstitutional dramas behind 12 Historic Supreme Court discussions. Quite often in many of our most famous decisions, the court made a unpopular decision. Lets go through a few cases that illustrate dramatically and visually what it means to live and a society with different people who stick together because they believe in the rule of law good evening and welcome to landmark cases tonight were going to look at 1886 case in which the Supreme Court ruled the equal protection guarantees apply not just to citizens but noncitizen s in the next 90 minutes will learn about what led to the case and the effect of its decision on American Society our two guests will help us understand all of this a professor of american. ,. , she will help us to understand the issues around chinese immigration and the chinese exclusion act in the. The president and founder of the organization that creates historical material for has. Give us the most basic facts about this case. So the decision came 18 years after the First Amendment was ratified. People with laundromats had to apply for a permit. Theres no criteria for the permit to be granted. As a turned out all the Chinese People who applied for the permanent were rejected, although whites got it. This was a criminal offense. This case was appealed to the u. S. Supreme court. The c premier court held that this was unconstitutional. They found that the standards by which the permits were denied were completely arbitrarily, and implemented with a evil eye and an equal hand. Violated the 14th amendment. This was a case after the ratification that found that eastern law violated those laws. It has applications for us today. Later in the program youre going to tell us about some big recent cases that are case law. Whats one instance . One instance is the guantanamo go, aliens, non citizens at one time ago bay have protections. Its the 150th anniversary of the amendment. They have the 14th amendment as case law. Lets look at a little bit of it. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the United States. Later it says nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within his jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Why is this a landmark case . You know a lot of people assume that the 14th amendment applies to citizens. By saying it applies to persons, it means that territorially every person is protected by the constitution. Its huge because its a equal rights provision. This program, if youre a regular viewer of the series, the best part about it is your interaction. In 24 hours will take your phone calls around the country. We also have twitter feed with landmark cases. We already have a robust conversation going on at cbs cspans facebook page. You can be part of the conversation. We are going to learn from you about chinese immigration in the late 19th century. What was the impetus for so many chinese coming to the west coast of the u. S. . Large numbers of chinese start coming to california in the 18 fifties. They come for the California Gold rush. The same reason everyone is showing up in california. People from the eastern United States, southern United States, people from chile, the british isles. Hundreds of thousands of people are showing up in california and it includes the chinese. They arent alone incoming and theyre coming for the same reasons as everyone else. What kinds of numbers are we talking about over the last couple of decades of the 19th century . In the 18 fifties this upwards of 25,000 chinese that come. Not a huge number one compared to the overall population. The chinese comprise about 25 of the mining population, and by the mid 18 fifties theyre the largest non white group in the mining district. What kind of work did they find . Chinese were received in the gold fields with ambivalence. There wasnt racial conflict everywhere. People worked side by side and got along. There was also conflict that was borne out of competition. The easiest way to compete with someone else is to hurl a racial slur, that they dont belong here, not americans. So many chinese were attacked. Local districts passed laws say that chinese couldnt have first claims at a district so they try to drive Chinese People out of the oil fields. But they let them back in to do jobs in the mine fields that minors didnt want to do. Typically cooking food, and washing clothes. Those were considered womens job, domestic work. There were few women in the fields. Thats how chinese came to work in the occupations. So how did chinese laborers fit into the railroads . When the railroad starts to be constructed in the 18 sixties, many surface lines are being depleted. So whites and chinese are out of work. Chinese are hired to work on the railroad, in part because Railroad Companies things but they are better workers than white minors that dont take to discipline. They drank, walk off the job, things like. This chinese become a preferred labor force for the railroad. They also recruit workers and china for the construction of the railroad. What is the size of the chinese population in northern california, San Francisco area . That 1880 its probably 10 of the state population. The chinese tend to be working age man. Most of them dont bring families to the country. What is life like for them . Its hard. They work hard, theres a lot of discrimination. In San Francisco chinatown they work not just in restaurants and laundry mats, but they work in mills, they have jobs for some large companies, they do truck work, infrastructural work. They come under increase attack by people who act like workers to say the chinese are taking jobs away from whites. Theres a lot of violence against chinese. There are mob that run the streets, burn chinese homes, attack people on the streets. Mobs of kids that will throw stones at random people walking by. Its an ugly scene. Did the chinese immigrants assimilate . Do you know but theyre english Language Skills and if they worked to become part of society . Yes and no. Some of them try to learn english. There are school set up in San Francisco, chinatown, to learn english set up for young adult men. They want to do business, they want to be able to talk to their neighbors. There are chinese who learn english. The classes are given by missionaries. I would say that they dont owe become christians but they do try to learn english. The difference with chinese immigration is for the meant to go abroad and women to stay at home. Once they get here life is so hard and violent that who would want to bring your wife to a situation like that . What about the popular media of the day . How did they deal with the chinese immigrant in california . It varies. Some is straight reporting. Some is ugly cartoons depicting the chinese as a problem. Their emergence something known as the chinese problem. A race question. What do we do with this race . There were a lot of political cartoons published in the National Press about the socalled chinese question. Our case is about local law. We will learn about how the legal infrastructure was used to help the majority population control or contain chinese immigrants. Next up is Florida Appeals Court judge cirillo who talks about the legal challenges faced by chinese immigrants in the United States. They were very much the subject of discriminatory at victories. Im reminded of the people in seoul. 1854. Early Supreme Court case. The chinese witnesses saw murder. They testified honestly and what they saw. The defense attorney appealed. Theres a law that whites and indians dont testify. Theres only three classes of people in the world. Whites, black, mongolians, indians included chinese. Chinese were mongolian. s indians were mongolian. s the california Supreme Court but the argument. If we let them testify against a white man, next thing you know theyd run for the legislature, theyd vote, they might even become judges. What a terrible thing that would be. A very racist type of decision. Its set the tone of california history for the first hundred years. What can you add to judge lows story . Thats an important case. Hes absolutely right i want to point out that they are using a lot that was created to prevent indians to testify in a court of law. Just as in this case, chinese were added to the anti misogyny shun statutes, which were written to prevent blacks and indians from marrying white people. Chinese were excluded from schools, but they were the first. The first to be swayed from schools were blacks and mottos. So california schools had a bad record in terms of how they treated people of color. Even as it entered the union of state. Most people have heard of chinese exclusion laws. What were they . A series of laws written in the 18 eighties. The laws put limitation on immigration of people from asia to the United States, also people who left had trouble returning. They have to carry these papers at all times to ensure that they were here lawfully. This lasted until the 1960s, but limited immigration from china, and limited how Chinese People could exist within the United States. Would you explain how the chinese became so involved in the laundry business in San Francisco . So as i said this started in the gold mining towns doing watch for people. It carried over into the cities. There are many chinese laundries. The chinese didnt own all of them. They were all over the city. They tend to set up a laundry in a neighborhood where it would be convenient to use it. So the specific laundromat wasnt in china town. It was south of market street. At this time, so the regulation of the law did what . What was responsible for . The law said allnew laundromats had to be constructed out of brick or stone but existing laundromats mid out of stone, they practically all were, could only continue to operate if they got a permit from the city. This is what led to the charade really where they approved all the permit applications that white people made they denied all the chinese. So in a way this isnt really about fire safety. It was one of quite a number of municipal ordinances used to harass the chinese. If we make life so miserable for them, if we make it impossible for them to make a living maybe they will leave. So enter one of the proprietors of laundry in San Francisco. He had been running it for 20 years you said his name correctly. In fact when the original case was filed they didnt get the guys name right that should see how much they cared about the People Living in the jurisdiction. He was a laundromat owner and he refused to pay a fine of ten dollars because he was denied his permit. He was then sentenced to a prison because he wouldnt pay his fine. He tried hibiscus corpus. The Supreme Court of california rejected. The u. S. Supreme court said they would overturn, it was discriminatory. He was representing a number of chinese laundromat owners. He took the case on but in fact there were a group of people protesting this. I thought about this. These are people not in their home country and not in a country with the same rule of law. They chose a legal path to protest. What does this mean about the confidence in the american system . The chinese were very savvy, they were organized, and they knew the laws of the countries they were living in it may not have been the loss of their own country but they knew that they were living in a foreign country and they wanted to play by the rules. They knew the laws. Mr. Li when he ran the laundromat was duly licensed, he had his laundry mats inspected. They learn the rules and they want to play by the rules now this case wasnt random, it was a test case. The chinese were organized the and doubly cpp tried to test the constitutional itty of laws they believed are discriminatory the chinese brought test cases. They were well organized and backed by a Organization Called the 26 companies. A coalition of the merchant leaders of the community, that represented chinese. Mutual aid organizations that all immigrants have in their own towns. The chinese leaders had money, and they were supported by the chinese consulate which supported them. The challenge these cases in the court because they didnt have the vote. The law said that chinese couldnt natural wise a citizens they couldnt elect people. Hopkins was the sheriff at issue whos responsible for enforcing fire law. Not much is known about him. Me raised a fair point there are several arguments brought by these chinese immigrants. They lost them all. So in a sense it was a smart test case. It wasnt testing the power of congress to deny entry or deport people, it was testing the power of the state to deprive someone of a property or liberty interest. These were Small Businesses with a lawful business, they werent bothering anyone and this was a liberty interest to have a right at honest living this is where they prevailed. In all the other cases they lost. You are watching a landmark case. It still has implications today because it says that the due process applies to citizens and non citizens. Were gonna go to your call and then we will talk about what the court looked like in 1886 and with the court looked like lets listen to a current member of the Supreme Court as he talks about the importance of this case. So assuming that this law was passed for a legitimate purpose, which i have doubts about, was applied with a evil eye and unequal hand the metaphor that bothers me its a mixed metaphor. It should have been with evil eye and a malicious hand, politically to make it the same but he said it was discriminatory in its application. He had a lot of evidence for that. The number of chinese that were denied. A very strong case says that even though the law is valid and neutral, if an application its being applied, in order to hurt a particular race its void. Its a important principle. Thats how cases are decided today. Justice Sandra Kennedy on importance of equal justice. Today were going to begin with jim from omaha, nebraska, you are on landmark cases. Thank you for taking my call. You talked about the second sentence of the 14th amendment. You said non citizens and basically because of what it says, nor show any state deprive individual of property or life. The first sentence of the 14th amendment clearly states all persons, born or naturalized in the United States will be subject to the jurisdiction. They are citizens of the United States and the state where they reside. So my question to your guest is we use the same phrase, person, to describe a citizen of the United States. These amendments in the constitution and the constitution as a whole are for citizens of the innards, dates not individuals who come across the border thank you jim thanks for the call so my pocket constitution, any constitution provides rights to citizens, but rights apply to everyone, protection of law. The court has held that not citizens get lesser rates alien doesnt get to contribute to a political campaign. There are certain rates that dont apply to non citizens. But for the most part noncitizens and citizens have equal protection under the law. We have a tweet from darnell, were some chinese immigrants educated in law in order to argue their cases . They hired late lawyers to argue their cases. James you are on. Welcome. Thank you very much. Thanks for putting on these shows they are terrific my question is rather specific. Not related to the law, i live in an area that is basically a ghost town how many chinese as a percentage were able to make a Successful Living in gold mining . I dont think many. Did moaned went into something else. Chinese going into restaurants and laundry. Few people need money in gold. Did a decent percentage of Chinese People make money in the gold field. I think they did as well as anybody else. So not so well except for if you look at people so onto the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court looked like it did in our last case. The chief justice had been nominated by illicit grant. The Supreme Court justices were republicans except one. They were Samuel Freeman miller, also, lincoln he served the longest tenure of any Supreme Court Justice William woods, a grant appointee, harris gray, and arthur appointee, Stanley Matthews who wrote at the decision in this case, john harlan, and the johnson democrat was samuel blanche for it. What do we know about this court . So as a whole, the court was consistent that congress lacked the power to provide initial protections. John haaland said that laws discriminating and private businesses discriminating were part of slavery. Notice justice heartland didnt dissent, sorry he didnt write anything separately and then again in the case of freemen he argued that segregation was unconstitutional. He said what we can get protections for the friedman theres a race different from ours, Chinese People. So he was very progressive with respect to african americans, but not so much chinese. People this was a unanimous judgment for some of you learning about these cases, we have a companion book available. Its eight 95. We will get it to you quickly if youre interested. 20 moral is Supreme Court veteran has written about the case, it tells you about its current legacy. The case was argued on may 10th, 1886, so the Supreme Court was meeting in the old senate chamber. I think we have a picture of this very ornate room. Still available and in news in the United States capital. Whats unusual about this is theres no oral argument, they depended on briefs. Back then the court heard a lot more cases than they did. Today it wasnt feasible for every kissed be argued. Im sure he wanted to get out as much as possible and get the sentence off his head. I dont think they minded having this case solved outside of the papers. I think its very committed to apply Supreme Court, it wasnt until the sixties the people started to care about with the Supreme Court sent these cases were of relevance but most people didnt pay much heed to the Supreme Court there were no Supreme Court specials on cspan back in the 18 eighties so the arguments made by the laundromat owners were wet . They were saying that the law wasnt enforced in a consistent manner. The key point was arbitrariness. If you want a permit usually have to say i have good equipment, proper ventilation, that kind of thing the law and San Francisco had no standards theres no standard against which the permits should be granted it was unconstitutional will take more calls and then hear arguments made by the city high rubber. Thanks to guess for sharing their insights in this important case its clear that there are different interpretations here. Scotus implied that this apply to non citizens fair and equal government, however, this was no why did the Panel Members believe that this is so . Thank you. So i think that the name of the keys has more than one meaning. One of the reasons that the court extended this was to extend economic rights. The right to pursue the occupation, a trade, or living. That is also why we have the wording for a person, right . He legal person may not be human. Being a legal person could be a corporation. There is a lot of interest in the case as a property case. As my colleague mentioned before, the right to have a business. But i think it has also come to stand as a case about discrimination, about arbitrary application of the law. And i think that its very telling that in the decision, the justices said that even if its not explicit in the, law if its manifestation is discriminatory than its discriminatory send us a question on twitter, and your comment on that . So this took a different meaning in the 20th century. So then 20 years later you get ferguson and you just wonder how that the court do both . If you have an uneven eye and hand, in a separate, breath separate but equal thats why its been suggested that this wasnt a race case, it had nothing to do with them being chinese. That can play a huge role in the case. If you look at it that way the chronology makes sense. Now the case takes on a different meeting the course can set it aside because of the anonymity behind it more on the anonymity of the court chief Justice Harris back then there wasnt as much dissenting as there is today today the Supreme Court hears 60 to 70 cases per year. Its not very hard working whats important here is there wasnt a vigorous agreement in other cases, there were dissents, and they were vocal about them here everyone is on the same page. So what did the arguments on this side of San Francisco about . They tried to argue that the laundry mats operated by a chinese were unsafe they were incredible they didnt determine if they were safe all the white laundry owners have the exact same structures as the chinese londoners. This is what we call a pretext. Class legislation to protect a fevered group, not a law promised health and safety concerns. And our notes says that photography was invasive back then can you tell us about that . It was rare to have a photograph attached to a brief. They try to show that this was a problem. One of the members of the court had previously been on the california court. He had experience, and he understood that this was a good legal argument but hes not the main reason why the permits were being denied. West virginia law rather defiant immigrant groups as likely to resort to the courts as were the chinese . If not, was there a cultural tradition in china to encourage them to recourse to the courts . I think it has nothing to do with their background. Its a tactic they adopted because like i said before they dont have access to the boat they studied the law, and they knew that they were being discriminated against decide justice through the courts. There are other cases where immigrant groups went to the courts for justice. Im thinking of my or v. In nebraska its a case of german language schools thats one case i can think of offhand can you think of any others josh . A defense fund group up in the forties and fifties to chip away at the equal but separate doctrine. Even with the franchise, the still lacked the political power. Courts were viewed as reinforcing representation of these powerless minority groups and next question comes by phone. John in west palm beach, florida hello i havent watched the series much because i had to turn it off it seems like you have liberal cases with liberal commentaries mrs. May, am i telling your name properly . Now. I in china. Im an american john. Do you have a question for us . I have a comment and question. Ill be brief. You made a comment about how the white men drank and the chinese woodworker thats a bigoted statement im irish the irish headed west to build the railroad if the chinese were here illegally, how in the world could be open businesses . I know this is the 18 eighties and its not like today and i dont hear anyone mentioning that. Was that argued in the Supreme Court . To your first comment, thats not my opinion, thats what was said by the real road companies. That wasnt my opinion. That was the opinion of the Railroad Companies. They werent targeting irish as a ethnic group. They were targeting former gold miners who had a more adventurous spirit, rather than wanting to work hours on a clock for the railroad. As for your second question, the chinese exclusion act isnt passed until 1840. To before that there were no restrictions on chinese and. Jury the warrant illegal they needed to pass through and interrogation and receive, they were mightily interrogated they sometimes had to sit for days or weeks before immigration officials who asked questions to see if theyre legitimate or not. You could come in if you are a merchant, a certificate mission in china that said youre a merchant exclusion act was into or if you were a laundry owner here before 1880 then its legal these people werent here with that authorization they couldnt apply for citizenship they were restricted from . That the exclusion act of 1882 excluded all chinese from naturalization this is a variation of that question from matt how were not citizens treated under u. S. Before this landmark case . Chief Justice Roger tiny held that they could never be citizens of didnt states never have the same rights a citizen within instance before the Fourth Amendment the constitution didnt specify whos a citizen it was a open question. Then it said that all of those, or american in the state that they reside so a chinese child would become the chinese citizen but not the parent. Thats why the exclusionary act excluded all foreign subjects from ever becoming u. S. Citizens. Next is a call from brandon watching us from south bend, indiana. Hi brandon. Im actually a first time watcher and caller. Great. Glad to have you. Whats your question . Brandon, are you there . Yes. Sorry looking back at history and a case such as this involving chinese immigrants, there are still chinese immigrants, thats what this country was built on. How do we applied these lessons that we learned from this case . Thats something that we want to talk but in this program. How do we applied lessons from this case to our Society Today . I think its important that americans understand that the protections of institutions apply to a persons living in the United States, regardless of immigrant status. The same thing with the bill of rights. First ten amendments they speak of persons, not just citizens, the First Amendment applies to all persons. So we have a tradition in this country that goes back to the reading of the constitution, including the construction of amendments that recognizes that theres a Large Population in the u. S. That arent all citizens. Not just the former sleeves or african americans, but also people from immigrant backgrounds. So speaking to the specifics of this case, there was a treaty that guarantees privileges and immunities. So thats a part of the story so the plaintiffs, many of the arguments concern the treaty, that under treaty rates chinese have the right pursuit and occupation indian estates this was signed in entity eight hes a free sailor, from massachusetts, sent to china in 1861 appointed by lincoln to be the representative of the native states for china. He was appalled at the way that britain and other european powers treated the chinese he wasnt a fan of taking them by the throat he wanted to have a more friendly relationship with china. He lobbied other ambassadors, and he made friends with chinese ministers, and in 1867 china appointed him to be their representative, to negotiate better treaties with western countries. He led a group of diplomats which included a british diplomat, a french diplomat, and several chinese ministers to the United States and they went on to europe. So the treaty that was signed, was called the treaty of friendship and, amity friendship and trade, there was a provision that nationals of each country would enjoy privilege and equal protection and protections. It included the right to immigrate and pursue a occupation or trade, and have the same protections as of the people in the country. It seems like an important thing to mention. Other immigrants might not. This was one of the first treaties, between the first into treaties that were signed, sentiment the United States turned against asian americans. This allowed the government to put restrictions on the immigration of chinese aliens it also allowed them to protect the privileges and immunities of chinese. Even though he is here, he stopped protected by virtue of the treaty. So the International Aspect of the case figures prominently in the Supreme Court decision we heard arguments on each side of the case. The opinion was assigned to justice Stanley Matthews. Can you tell us much about him . Not a particular lee known justice. He was nominated by hayes in 1880, one rejected, renominated by president your foot in much of 1880. One conferred by a 22 to 23 vote. The narrowest for a justice. This case was his greatest contribution to the court i cant think of what else hes done. This contribution is significant because it implies that equal rights applies to none citizens, rule of law as well. People cant be denied certain laws because of their skin color. Heres a little bit of Justice Matthews decision. It was a unanimous decision that he made on behalf of the court. Here is what he wrote. No reason for it is shown. The conclusion cant be resisted, that no reason for it exists except hostility to the race and nationality to which the petitioners belong. And which in the eye of the law, and the Public Administration which enforces it is a denial of the equal protection of the laws in violation of the 14th amendment of the constitution. More of that is discriminatory enforcement the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in its appearance. Yet if it is applied and administered by Public Authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand so its practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their, writes the denial of equal justice is still within prohibition of the constitution. So what was the countrys reaction to this decision . Do you know . Was it a big deal at the time . Im not sure that it was. The chinese were happy. I know justice field was happy because he had long pursued an agenda of economic rates and restraining governments interference in peoples economic rates but i dont think it received a lot of attention we saw editorials and california that people werent happy about. Probably not surprising in the context of the papers that we have. California had been long nursing a grudge because the chinese. They discriminated against them its a time when chinese exclusion had recently been passed there is still a lot of agitation about getting rid of the chinese. The chinese exclusion laws will be upheld by the Supreme Court, but not until it is 69. A fair deal of uncertainty. Before we leave this part of it, when we read the provisions of the decision, its not consistent with other things coming out of the court at that time. Can you help us to understand the courts mentality, psychology, thinking about these kinds of cases . This case was decided at the beginning of what is called a progressive era. Before this era, states usually had a relaxed approach to economics. Did let businesses do what they. Which during this time there is a Progressive Movement to regulate safety, the biggest a position where the courts. Federal and state courts. Courts began to find legislation unconstitutional. This became known as substantive to process many day later so this case fits within the chronology. You have a Business Owner if you tried to refer to it as a racial equality case it sticks out as authority sore thumb. If the courts tracking down a law based on a evil eye how can they call laws separate but legitimate. I think that helps, even though its eight early on opinion welcome to our conversation about a case that provides rate to non citizens. Sonia youre on. Thanks for taking my call. I guess you mentioned that at the time when the case was handed down, there wasnt a lot of reaction from people outside the Chinese Community but im wondering, since francisco and california was becoming so multicultural, did it help that it was there at all . If there hadnt been a strong Chinese Community, they may not have had the resources necessary to get this to court. At a time when a lot of states were hoping to join the u. S. , did it snowball . Did it become clear that aliens would have more rates in the 20th century, or with this have been best if it was in a place less multicultural . Thank you. Its hard to think of california being multicultural in San Francisco in the late 19th century. Chinese make up only 10 of the population, the black population is fairly small, unfortunately most native americans have already been wiped out i dont know if we can really say its a multicultural population the chinese are almost uniformly despised by the white population they dont have a lot of allies in San Francisco. Sad to say a last the case was a bit of a blimp. In the years following this case, they aim directly at chinese immigrants. Indeed, the 1840 to act was renewed another ten years and then made permanent so until 1865, you had a blanket ban on chinese immigrants. So this case is a celebrated outlier, and it didnt do much good until almost half a century later you just give a synopsis of things were going to delve more into in our remaining 35 minutes with so many people preaching about wasnt rights, history is a easy way to show how far we come most laws are committed to build a society where people are protected bill you are welcome my question is does this extend to United States territories like guantanamo . Also does it extend to United States consulate. People working in consulates, and prisoners at guantanamo. Im sure there are different rules that govern there. Does this extent to where americans are in control . Thats a very complicated question. The short answer is the constitution doesnt apply in territories like the American Samoa or guantanamo. There are similar cases called and slur cases which held that people born abroad arent citizens by birth. To this day if you were born in guantanamo you are not a natural citizen. Youre not a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment as far as u. S. Citizens living abroad, it anywhere a u. S. Citizen goes the u. S. Government protects them. If you go to japan and commit a crime you are entitled to a jury trial the final part, does this apply to Guantanamo Bay, there was a case where it was argued that hibiscus corpus applies to guantanamo. Justice kennedy spoke earlier, hes not one to mix metaphors. None citizens get rates, even though theyre upset the boundaries of the United States anymore for that question . Well when the United States acquired the territories it did after the spanish american war there was a question posed by the insular cases, mostly just, the way that the question was framed was does the constitution follow the flag. The Supreme Court said maybe. We get to decide what it does and when it doesnt so what parts of the constitution apply to the territories is arbitrary. For example they didnt have the right to a jury trial not even in puerto rico. The invented a new category called the national. Neither alien nor a citizen. Joe is in michigan. Welcome. Hello. Was the chinese exclusion act ever tested . If so, . What happened what was the result . The question is was the chinese exclusion act tested in the court . Yes. There was one case in 1893. The case considered whether or chinese personally did to obtain a certificate of residency to maintain its place and then it states. Also, the exclusion, one after the other they upheld the exclusionary qualities. It was the only case with the chinese percent one. And all the other cases involving immigration in china, there were victories for the United States government. Lets take a comment welcome. Id like to say whoever came up with the idea for the show needs a pay raise. My question is how do rulings in the 1800s affect law today . Have there been enough rulings in the 19 where the rulers in the 1800s arent that hed much. Im sure this is what law clerks do. Oh wait for your answer. There have been about 125 citations. We will get to that. I was a former law clerk. I am suited to answer this question. Generally for this idea, even if the statute is neutral on its face, courts can find a proper motivation. Ill give you another prominent example texas is ban on side of me. So when she said so to me law was neutral, violates accustomed to shun, that is whether the law applies to heterosexuals and cheese alike will determine whether or not it is constitutional. This case is often cited, although in a broader way than was decided 1886. You said this was the only case that the chinese one. The first big one that they. One thank you. So the life change for the chinese immigrants in San Francisco after the . No, it got worse, actually. Notwithstanding the decision because with the exclusion laws being passed in 1882, it didnt end there was actually an uptake of violence against chinese because the racist in the nativist wanted the chinese are not of the country so there was the worst violence against chinese in the 19th century it actually happened in the 18 eighties. There were massacres. The most famous was in rock springs, wyoming, were nearly 30 chinese were killed. People who worked in the coal mines. 75 houses were burned down. The mob mutilated bodies and tortured them. It was just absolutely horrific. But all over the left the west coast, there were lynchings, they were mobs throwing people out of towns, sunset resolutions, get out of town by sunset. There were burnings in china town. People attacked everywhere. So things got a lot worse before they got better. You did the help the law help to protect them at all . Were any of those people prosecuted for these acts that they committed against the chinese . Occasionally, there would be arrests, but in general they were not prosecuted. In the rock springs case i just mentioned, there were whites who were arrested. First, they had a hard time arresting anybody because nobody would be a witness to say who were the suspects. But nobody was ever convicted in that case. Specifically, do you know what happened to the chinese laundries . Since they were the heart of this . Where they able to continue their business . They did continue. And chinese laundries sprung up all over the country. New york city had a lot of chinese laundries in the early 20th century. So from a legal perspective, more laws kept piling up that would try to insulate the white majority public from the effects of chinese immigration, and you made reference to this case and one act was one that was examined in a case in 1893. Here is a little bit of what the geary accident 1892. It expanded restrictions on chinese immigrants. It required them to carry a resident permit. And chinese immigrants are not allowed to be witness in legal trials and they could not receive bail if they were arrested. So were the chinese the only ones that had to carry than any papers in this country . Our Immigration Laws as you know today, began with Chinese Americans, there werent many Immigration Laws on the books before these revolutionary acts. And in 1893, the court upheld the provision and they said that the equal protection clause doesnt prevent person from being deported. So long as they have their paperwork in order so even if the constitution protected the laundromat to stay open, it did not protect the right to be deported if these laws require the certifications. Can i add to that . I think the two immigration cases, those were really landmark cases that changed the course not only of the chinese immigrants but for all immigrants. And they apply today. And in these cases, the court said that immigration is a matter of National Security. Before this time, immigration was understood to be under the commerce clause, to justify chinese exclusion and to justify the denial of equal protection they said immigration was a matter of National Security. That therefore it was outside the constitution. Its in the same basket of matters that congress regulates like declaring war, making treaties, having diplomatic relations with foreign countries. So in matters of entry and removal, aliens have no rights under the constitution. None. And this is what our current president has used, his socalled plenary power or executive power, over immigration to justify the executive orders that were issued when he took office. So this idea that immigration is a matter of National Security and therefore that aliens do not have rights in matters of entry and removal that comes from the chinese exclusion cases. It is undergirded our entire history. And it all began in the period of time that were talking about right now martin, iran, welcome. My name is martin, im from stark ville mississippi, i am an american chinese born and raised in the mississippi delta. My question is, how did the case in 1886 affect the americanborn chinese in mississippi . And ill mention one of the thing. My great grandfather helped build the Transcontinental Railroad back in the 18 sixties. How did your family get from the west coast of the United States down the mississippi, martin . Well they didnt come from the west coast they came directly as i understand it, from china to mississippi because cotton in the 19 forties and 19 fifties was king back then, and there were jobs here then, but even before then, they came after the railroad and the gold rush. Thank you very much for your call. Thats fascinating, pleased to meet you, sir. The important case for chinese born in america was not really yick wo it was a case that came a few years later. And in that case the court confirmed the meaning of the first clause of the 14th amendment, that all persons born are naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction and therefore our citizens of the United States. That case affirmed birthright citizenship for Chinese Americans born to chinese immigrants in the United States. In that case, the court did not have a big love for Chinese People. It said the wording of the constitutions pretty clear cut and if we deny it, the chinese, we jeopardize the citizenship of all the children of the europeans. And one point to add to that, won it came up with an important case which was to test the meaning of jurisdiction thereof. If you notice in yick wo the, they say that yick wo was subject of the emperor of china, and there was a very strong sense of the people of chinese descent were always loyal to the emperor. Indeed, years later the korematsu case which involved chinese detention, even if they had been in that United States for decades, it said it did not matter. If they were born here they were subject to jurisdiction. One of the effects of the Immigration Law targeting chinese citizens or chinese entry rather, was how they were processed, for their entry into the United States. We will learn about that next, you are going to be visiting with our cameras angel island. If you have been to San Francisco, you have heard about alcatraz well angel island is just north of that, in San Francisco bay. We visited there and talk to the chinese historical society, to tell us more about what it was like for chinese immigrants being processed there. Angel island becomes a checkpoint for immigrants. With the u. S. Does is they build barracks to house immigrants. This is a replica of those barracks. They made themselves at home in the barracks uninjured island. They had to. They didnt have a choice. They brought their clothes, their best clothes, because they wanted to present themselves well and appear like they were worthy of being here in the u. S. And they brought whatever it is they needed to occupy themselves during that time. They had Inspection Office where immigrants were interviewed because somebody here, in the u. S. , the chinese that was already here, had to sponsor and an immigrant in order for the u. S. To verify that you were in fact, a real relative. They would first ask all the questions to the sponsor and then the sponsory had to answer those questions. What the inspectors asked about was where they lived, how they live their lives in china, where the water source was. Which direction the house faced. Who lived in the house. If you got all the answers right, he was allowed entry onto u. S. Soil. If he didnt, he was deported. You had to go through a health inspection. The inspectors were looking for spread of all diseases that would be a threat to society here. And if you were found to have some disease, i believe you were not allowed entry. They did not get their interview right when they arrived. They had to wait their turn. Sometimes, that we period could could be months. Sometimes it was years, two years. They were not helpless, but they were trapped for a while on into island. Did the chinese exclusion laws helped to solidify the creation of china towns in major cities all around the United States . And did those become safe harbors for chinese . China towns are the byproduct of two things. On the one hand, there the price of segregation because chinese are not allowed to live anywhere else. Either by law or by custom. But at the same time, they become the thick community and they promote a closeness of people. Solidarity. So i think both of those things are the case. While we are talking about that, what is happening to them today around the United States. China towns are often close to downtown areas. Near Central Business districts, so the real estate is really valuable. There is a lot of pressure on chinese communities, buildings are bought by others. They want them infected. That is happening in los angeles right now. There are people fighting evictions in l. A. Chinatown. New york chinatown is right up against wall street so there is a lot of gentrification that goes on. Young professionals moving in. So there is a lot of pressure on these communities. That is how i would like to spend our last 15 or so minutes is talking about the 20th century history in all of this. Let me take a couple of quick calls and we will going to learn what happened legislatively on chinese Immigration Laws. Clifford, from california. You are on. Hello, i was wondering if the yick wo case and the 14th amendment have any effect on the dreamers today . Thank you, im going to reserve that for just a little bit. That is a good question. Dennis, clyde, of iowa, go ahead please. Thank you. I wanted to follow up on a suggestion i gleaned from the gentleman earlier when he seemed to indicate that yick wo can be understood better in relation to Economic Freedom or liberty as opposed to racial discrimination. Are you suggesting that yick wo was a harbinger or precursor of lochner . In other words, you could skip over and go straight to lochner . You referenced all my fever cases. For those who dont know, lochner versus the state of new york, was a baker in new york. And in your puzzlement how many hours a week a baker could work. This was actually a criminal statute. There is a test case there as well. And a baker deliberately worked more than 80 hours a week and was arrested in a very famous five four decision of the Supreme Court, the court struck down the new york law and found that it violated the liberty of contract, this is a liberty interest protected by the constitution. The lochner era as its often called majority, didnt really begin until the late 18 nineties in the early 1900s. But i think if you read the decision in yick wo, and if you read the third court decision, the court of appeals decision in a little case, it references class legislation that was passed with a pretext. I think there is a very strong economic liberty component to this decision, that is often i think not given its full do. If you try to read it as a racial equality decision, its tough to fit in with plessy and cases that came in subsequent years. You both made the point that anti chinese laws continued and anti chinese discrimination continued for about 60 more years, in the United States, in 1943, Congress Passed the magnuson act which allowed limited chinese immigration but only 105 visas to chinese immigrants. What progress did the magnuson act make for the chinese . I think the magnuson act has to be understood as a world war ii era act. China was a war ally in the United States, japan was making a lot of hay over the fact that to the chinese were excluded from the United States and they said, what kind of allies that . That excludes their people . So chinese exclusion was repealed as a war measure. And to kind of squelch that negative propaganda coming out of japan. But, it really wasnt to help the Chinese People to emigrate, because they imposed a quota of 105 a year. And that quota applied to not just to people in china, but to all Chinese People around the world. So if you were chinese in hong kong, a british territory, or chinese person in cuba, or wherever, you are subject to that 105 quota. But it was important because it repealed the ban on naturalization, so chinese who were in this country as lawful residents could now naturalists. And then also opened up the immigration of women, wives of chinese, who had not been able to come over to this country. It was important in that respect. 20 years later, Congress Passed the immigration and nationality act. What did it do . This was a significant law and perhaps the most important aspect of this law was to illuminate the quota system, where certain people from countries couldve ply based on whether their country was desirable or not. This law said that the issuance of visas would not be discriminated on the basis of nationality. And to bring this to the present day, that is a core component in the challenge to president trumps travel ban, of whether this amounts to nationality based discrimination in violation of the 1965 immigration and nationality act. In 2012, congress issued a formal apology to Chinese Americans for their struggles in emigrating to the United States. During the 19th and early 20th century. U. S. Representative judy chew of chinese descent, a california democrat sponsored the resolution. Here is her talking on the floor of the house talking about. Its the chinese, but my grandfather, did not have a legal rights to become naturalized citizens. He had been here illegally since 1904, but unlike non chinese immigrants, he was forced to register and carry a certificate of residents at all times for almost 40 years, or else be deported. He could only be saved if a white person vouched for him. These laws are why we ask for this expression of regret. Last october, the u. S. Senate did its part to write history by passing their own resolution of regret for these hateful laws, it did so unanimously, with bipartisan support. And today the house should also issue its expression of regret. It is for my grandfather, and for all Chinese Americans, who were told for six decades by the u. S. Government that the land of the free was not open to them, that we must pass this resolution. We must finally and formally acknowledge these ugly laws that were incompatible with americas founding principles. We must express the sincere regret that Chinese Americans deserve. By doing so, we will acknowledge that discrimination has no place in our society, and we will reaffirm our strong commitment to preserving the civil rights and constitutional protections for all people of every color, every race and from every background. And in fact, both houses of congress did pass such resolutions. So we have just ten minutes left. We have learned that this case has important implications for immigration policy and also for commerce. In the United States. We will focus on some of the immigration questions. For example, the color that asked whether or not it has implications for the debate over the dreamers and daca. Does it . The dreamers are people who came to the United States as for the young people. They either came here illegally or came here with a proper visa and they overstayed. Either way, it works. The dreamers dont have a constitutional right to citizenship because they were not born in the United States, but they do have the right to petition congress. And congress can grant the naturalization. That is an ongoing status, president obama tried to sidestep Congress Congress in the action with a program called daca, deferred action for childhood arrivals. That is currently held up in court. The court said that you cannot do this. Eventually, whatever the courts resolve their grants the question of whether the dreamers will get permanent citizenship. Related to that, if you are on twitter asked, could our guests go into more detail regarding the legal people legal treatment of the people who are born or living in the u. S. Possessions such as guam and the marshall islands. Perhaps the most famous such person is john mccain. He was born in the panama canal zone, and when he ran for president in 2008, there was a serious question of whether he was a natural born citizen. There are some people who say he was, some say he wasnt. Fast four to 2016 we have ted cruz, senator from texas he was born in canada to american parents. And the question, was was he a natural born citizen . Some people said he was, some people said he wasnt. But if youre born in guam or American Samoa, to this day you are not a natural born citizen. Because the cases that may mention, suggested the full flag, the full constitution does not extend to these territories. You are a citizen by statute, Congress Passed a statute but congress repealed that statute, you will be not be a citizen and you will not be invited to the rights, privileges and immunities it citizens receive. Actually, mccain and crews are also citizens by statute. The derivative citizens. They are not 14th amendment citizens. They derive their citizenship from the citizenship of their parents. There are natural born. But theyre not birthright citizens. I dont think there. This is an interesting whole other program i think we could. Have our last program our last color for this program is from iowa. Hello dennis. Yes, sir youre on the air, welcome. My question would be since the facts today they say that this is a humans right human rights violation the International Courts would say that its a human rights violation and the u. S. Supreme court would recognize that. Thanks. I had difficulty hearing the question. With the same situation today be seen as human rights violation . The human rights has a very distinct meaning in terms of International Law, our courts do not apply to International Law they apply to domestic law. I cant speak to what the hague would say about our immigration policy. But at least under american policy, may is quite right that the plenary power doctrine that was established in this case, congress has complete power over immigration of, for the most part stances. Day there are some who will chip away that doctrine, but it is still in the books and still forms a base of how we can deny entry to people from various countries. A lot of people can make an argument that they are human rights are being violated. The problem is one of jurisdiction and standing. The United States does not have to recognize anything an International Courts us to it. And in the case of immigration, it will not go by what any external court says. But gonna add something about the dreamers . I think its important. Josh is right, but they dont have a birthright citizenship because they are not born in the United States, but they are the generation that benefited from the the decision of 1982, which was the Supreme Court case that said undocumented children have the right to an education. They are talking about k12 it uk shun. This was a challenge in a texas case that was going to deny School Children who were undocumented access to the texas public schools. The Supreme Court struck that down, they said it violated the 14th amendment. That you cannot punish children and can sign them to a life of illiteracy and marginalization. So that is 1982. Fast forward. The dreamers who came out in 2010. That is the generation that went to school and then hit a wall. Could not get a job, could not get a drivers license, some of them went to college and hit another wall. So we recognize this right of these young people to go to school. I do not think we should just be snatched away from them. Robert will be our last caller for the program. Go ahead, please. Hello. Yes sir, question . I have a comment. This Supreme Court case is one of the rare Supreme Court cases to get mentioned in a hollywood movie because there is brigitte spies, it is a about the true story of the soviet spy who was down with the pilot, his lawyer, James Donovan played by tom hanks tells a federal judge that he says in 1886, yick wo v. Hopkins, as you mentioned, the due process cannot be denied to a non citizen. And so he feels that his client under the fourth, is being denied his due process rights. And then later on, he argues before the Supreme Court in 1960. Again, the same argument about yick wo v. Hopkins for his clients. Thank you so much. Fun to get some contemporary movie treatments. Appreciate that call. We are just a few minutes, im going to look into both the legal and the historical legacy of this. You mentioned more than 150 citations and subsequent patients. You have a top five. You have talked, were going to put those on the screen, please. Regions of the university of california versus bakke which is going to be a final case in the. Series schuette versus coal to defend affirmative rights. The movie end versus bush, which is the Guantanamo Bay case, and lawrence versus texas. Weve talked about most of those, give us a little preview about how the citation with bakke, which is our final case. Bakke was a famous case from the 1970s that upheld im sorry, that invalidated leaders of california formative action policy and in that case the court said that a quote system setting aside a certain number of seats for a racial minorities was unconstitutional but the court cited that we guaranteed protection was a universal application to all persons without regard to differences of race. So here you have yick wo being cited against the formative action policy. The idea that using race in a positive fashion was also unconstitutional. This is a very controversial idea. Today, Justice Harlan in the plessy case said that our constitution is color blind. Not everybody likes that quote because some people want the constitution to consider color for positive purposes, such as affirmative action. Theres a distinct legacy here of when you can use race for a positive fashion and when can you use race for a negative fashion and that is something that is vigorously attested today. We are going to have ourselves come full circle, this is the 14th amendment case, particularly emphasizing the provision that says nor shut any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny any to any person within his tradition the equal protection of the law. What a historical summation for us. What is the importance of the yick wo case to American Society overtime. It means that we cant discriminate against immigrants. We cant withhold from them writes that we give citizens. The two main of citizens the ones they have that immigrants do not have is the right to be territorial present, mean you cant be thrown out of the country. And the right to vote. Other than that, all people in this country have the same rights, i think thats really important. We are really diverse country, we have a large immigrant population, its not as big as some people think its about 13 of our population. But i think its really important that we have a society that treats everybody equally. Historical importance of the case . The key aspect of yick wo is it teaches a lesson for the courts, even if a neutral lot exists, that law race and religion, that courts are empowered to look behind the face of that statue and find the proper motivation and that is something the court has done quite often in the last several decades. Thank you for helping us understand this 1886 case. Yick wo special thanks to our friends at the National Constitution center, who helped us with this election on the cases for this entire series. Thanks for being with us, we have a 12 cases altogether, and we hope you will be with us for more of this journey as we learn about the significance of Supreme Court cases and their impact on our society. Thursd