"The Recent passage of an anti-Japanese bill by the United States Senate and Congress is a most regrettable development for those like me who have been concerned with the issue over the years." - Shibusawa Eiichi, "On the Anti-Japanese Movement in America," 1924, page 81
Much like the Chinese Exclusion Act in the latter half of the 1800s, anti-Japanese immigration legislation made an appearance in the early to mid-1900s. However, explicit legislation against the Japanese did not make it past West Coast laws prior to World War I. The California Alien Land Law of 1913, spearheaded by Japanese exclusionists and prohibiting the purchase of agricultural land by "immigrants ineligible for citizenship," began a decade's long pursuit of rigid Japanese exclusion (Daniels 143; Rawitsch 2). While World War I slowed the passage of explicit anti-Japanese legislation, sentiments towards Japanese immigration gradually soured. With the Asiatic Exclusion League still in action, and other factors contributing to the Japanese exclusion movement, a solid foundation existed for legislation to appear that specifically excluded Japanese immigrants, as well as limiting immigration from other countries.
The foundation for anti-Asian immigration legislation extends all the way into the 1880s with the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and its subsequent renewals in 1892 and 1902, effectively barring Chinese laborers from immigrating to the United States (Chin 19). Even with the number of Chinese immigrants decreasing in the United States at the turn of the century, anti-Asian sentiments continued to permeate the West Coast of the U.S. This led to the development of the Asiatic Exclusion League in 1905, originally the Japanese and Korean Exclusion League, and the emergence of an aggressive Japanese exclusion movement in California and other western states. The League, along with other exclusionists, began the domino effect leading to the passage of an exclusionist act that damaged U.S.-Japanese relations for decades.
“Until now we have been protected, however imperfectly, by the Gentlemen’s Agreement concluded in President Roosevelt’s time, but the United States Congress regarded this not as a treaty but simply as a private arrangement that they were not obliged to honor.” - Shibusawa Eiichi, "On the Anti-Japanese Movement in America," 1924, page 85
With the rise in anti-Japanese racism in the early years of the 1900s, President Theodore Roosevelt established the Gentlemen's Agreement of 1907 to quell calls for rigid exclusion (Daniels 125). Under the Agreement, Japanese laborers were restricted from immigration to the United States, and the Japanese government enforced this through restricting issuance of passports to laborers (Daniels 125). The Agreement thus protected students and businessmen, as well as diplomats. However, the Agreement was not ratified by Congress and essentially acted exactly as its name suggests: an Agreement. While it placated less vocal exclusionists, it did not eradicate anti-Japanese sentiments from the West Coast. Such sentiments would expand across the country as the years passed.
"[The Asiatic Barred Zone] concentrated on excluding Asians as a race." - Lon Kurashige, Two Faces of Exclusion, pages 108-109
The Immigration Act of 1917 opened the gates for the later 1924 Act to be introduced. The Act of 1917 introduced a literacy test and increased the immigration tax. However, the most important inclusion that led to later Asian exclusion was the establishment of an "Asiatic Barred Zone," which restricted the immigration of laborers from much of Asia, including India (Kurashige 106-9). However, the Zone did not include the Eastern coasts of China or Japan, as both had already been restricted by either past legislation or the Gentlemen's Agreement (Kurashige 106). Such measures demonstrated the growing support of anti-Asian immigration policies, especially as World War I approached an end.
After World War I ended, the Japanese suggested a racial-equality clause for the League of Nations Covenant, but received rejection from the other attending powers (Hirobe 5). Japan's suggestion, however, unnerved Japanese exclusionists. As Lon Kurashige explains, exclusionists argued that Japan's suggestion of a racial-equality clause "was an entering wedge for the elimination of exclusionary immigration policies in the United States and around the world" (Kurashige 113). A new urgency entered the exclusion movement, re-introducing calls for strict Japanese exclusion. And, with the road paved by the Immigration Act of 1917 and the renewed wariness of Japanese power, such exclusion was achieved in the 1920s.
“...aimed at maintaining the ‘purity’ of American society...In 1924 the U.S. Congress passed a new immigration law that placed national quotas on all immigrants from European countries and brought an end to all immigration from Japan and the rest of Asia.” Peter Duus and Kenji Hasegawa, Rediscovering America, page 50
Prior to the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act, Takao Ozawa v. United States, a 1922 Supreme Court case, occurred. Ozawa, a Japanese immigrant, wanted to become naturalized in the United States. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Japanese were a part of the Mongolian race, thus making them "'ineligible to citizenship" (Hirobe 7). This gave exclusionists the upper-hand, providing the final piece to gain support for the Immigration Act of 1924. With the Immigration Act of 1917 already establishing an "Asiatic Barred Zone" and a literacy test for immigrants, the Immigration Act of 1924 took exclusion one step further: the introduction of a national origins quota.
"...the 1924 act managed to make the country whiter by privileging legal entry of northern and western Europeans." - Maddalena Marinari, Madeline Hsu, and Maria Cristina Garcia, A Nation of Immigrants Reconsidered, page 27
The quota system of the 1924 Immigration Act stated that "the annual quota of any nationality shall be 2 per centum of the number of foreign-born individuals of such nationality resident in continental United States as determined by the United States census of 1890" (Immigration Act of 1924, 5). In addition to such quotas, any immigrants considered "aliens ineligible for citizenship" would not be permitted into the United States unless they qualified for immigration in another way, which would have called for an exceptional circumstance (Immigration Act of 1924, 7). As upheld by the Supreme Court only two years prior, Japanese immigrants were considered "ineligible for citizenship," thus the Act restricted Japanese immigration to the United States.
The Immigration Act thus exacerbated tension between Japan and the United States, leading to public outcry from the Japanese. Additionally, Shibusawa Eiichi mentioned in his 1924 account that, "according to the newspapers, American public opinion is severely critical of the exclusion law" (Eiichi 86). Despite disapproval in both the United States and Japan, the Act would remain in place for years. U.S.-Japanese relations experienced a steep decline after the passage of the Act, and as Izumi Hirobe explains, the Act "is recognized as one of the principal causes of the deadly clash between the United States and Japan that began in 1941" (Hirobe 1). While immigration restrictions were lifted for certain Asian nations during World War II, restrictions on Japanese immigration and anti-Japanese racism continued throughout the war.
For a full bibliography for this post, please access the Sources tab
Comments