Compare And Contrast Ozawa And Thind

Around the mid-19th to the 20th century, myriads of immigrants flocked to the U.S. seeking better job opportunities,or searching for religious freedom. U.S. citizens were fearful, envious, and willing to exclude immigrants who came to the US as they were viewed as an economic threat to the society. They believed that these immigrants were racially, morally and intellectually inferior to them and as such did not see or treat as their equals. These dysfunctions lead to severe and harsh treatment of immigrants. Historically, the three major immigrant groups that faced the most discrimination during this era were the Asians, German, and the Irish. American citizen’s fear of job secureness led to the resentment and discriminatory treatment towards Asian Immigrants. They believed that the majority of the Asian American immigrants were taking too many of their jobs. As such, the U.S. government decided that it would be necessary to restrict the amount of Asian Americans, in order to keep the U.S. citizens from being unemployed. The U.S. government passed numerous laws, banning Asian American immigrants from the United States. One distinct law that they passed was the 1922 Cable Act, this law “stripped a female citizen of citizenship, if she married an alien unable to become a citizen.”(Lutz 7).The law was basically passed to prevent Asian immigrants from obtaining citizenship by marrying a female U.S citizen.In fact, the government believed that female citizens that engaged in this

After the World War II, the Native Americans faced discrimination and they were not offered housing, employment, education, land rights, water rights, and voting. The Indian veterans then returned back home different expectations about how they were to be treated, while they had fought in Europe and the pacific they had been treated as equals during the fights, but then they returned home to find out they were still second-class citizens. Indian veterans expected to be able to vote, but when the United States attempted to deny them that right, they immediately took their cases to the court. In the state of Arizona, Frank Harrison and Harry Austin, who were in the Indian reservation attempted to register to vote, but they were not allowed to, then the Arizona supreme court made a decision the state of Arizona and the United States have violated the constitutional rights. The same incident happened in New Mexico, a teacher attempted to register the vote to obtaining the rights and was refused. Instead of walking away and accepting to be a non-citizen in the United States, he fought to obtain his voting rights. By then the court found out that New Mexico had discriminated against Indians denying them

In Congressman, Robert H. Clancy’s speech An “Un-American Bill”: A Congressman Denounces Immigration Quotes addresses racial discrimination in America. Clancy’s purpose is to inform people of the truth in immigration laws. Using a profound tone, Clancy conveys Americans not seeing the truth about certain acts and laws in America. Clancy supports his argument of racial discrimination towards immigrants in America in the Johnson-Reed Act by using personal experience, appealing to the reader's emotions by telling heart-wrenching stories, and having factual evidence.

The Latino/a experience within the racial system in America was similar to that of Indian immigrants from Asia. In the early 1800s, Indians were granted free access to immigrate to America and naturalize as American citizens because they were perceived as whites. However, as social tensions between Indian and Anglo men began competing for jobs, housing, and women, Members of Congress racialized Indians. They justified that Indian men were no longer privileged to be white because Indians left Europe and traveled backwards to the East, making them inferior (Aoki, and Takeda). These examples of racialization are important to understand how Latino/as have been unwanted in the job

George Hall a Californian white man, murdered a Chinese immigrant in front of his peers. Hall was arrested and convicted to murder, following the law. However, Hall appealed claiming that he should be set free since Chinese shouldn’t even be allowed to testify. The case went to the Californian Supreme Court, and overturned his conviction supporting Hall. According to the court Chinese immigrants were “Indians.”

A significant struggle during the Chicano and Black Civil rights movement was employment, and discrimination in the workplace. First, a case pertaining to this issue during the Chicano movement was Bernal v. Fainter in the year 1984. This was a case where the Supreme Court of the United States « ruled that the Equal Protection Clause prohibited the state of Texas from barring noncitizens from applying for commission as a notary public.» The result of this case came about, as the court realized, that there is no requirement for a notary to be a citizen, but the the only real necessity is that they follow the law. On the other hand, this case points out that a noncitizen may be unable to become a police officer or any other type of government worker that is required to « act on behalf of the state and have considerable discretion in how the law is enforced. »

Not only was the limitation to Chinese and Japanese, but to other ethnic groups as well. In the 1800’s many people arrived to a port outside of New York were labeled as undesired citizens. These “special” individuals were examined for any harmful disease and illnesses. If anyone was suspected to have some form of an illness, they were immediately sent back to their original country. Labeling individuals based on their race was not only used to determine who could or couldn’t gain access to the United States but it assisted criminologist to develop an argument used to determine what person may be criminals.

“Race is always historically specific” (7). This quote summarizes a major argument in Mae Ngai’s book, Impossible Subjects. Ngai argues that since the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, race and immigration are closely tied together in the United States. This act solidified the category of the illegal alien and this group of people have since become a major concern for leaders of the government. Mae Ngai goes in-depth about how the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 impacted American immigration policies until it was replaced by the Immigration Act of 1965. The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 greatly impacted the plight of racial and ethnic minorities and Ngai clearly depicts each of the many instances throughout her book. Some of the groups that became disenfranchised where Filipino immigrants during the 1920 and ‘30s and Japanese immigrants during World War II.

In 1981, the parents of several school aged children of Mexican Origin filed a suit against Superintendent James Plyler, of Tyler, Texas, regarding immigration status. The Plyler v. Doe (457 U.S. 202 (1982)) case decision could not have happened prior to 1982, if numerous cases had not paved the way. Some of the significance cases were Vlandis v. Kline (412 U.S. 441 (1973)), which denied an individual an opportunity to present evidence they were a resident entitled to in-state-rates. In Weinberger v. Salfe (422 U.S. 771 (1975)), denied social security benefits to be paid to a mother and child after her husband died. In Toll v. Moreno (441 U.S. 458 (1978)), a student was financially depend upon a person who held a G-4 visa, granted to officers or employees of international organizations. In Elkins v. Moreno (435 U.S. 647 (1978), the student was refused in-state-status, whose parents were lived in Maryland.

In our new book, The Asian American Achievement Paradox -- based on a survey and 140 in-depth interviews of the adult children of Chinese, Vietnamese and Mexican immigrants in Los Angeles -- fellow sociologist Min Zhou and I explain what actually fuels the achievements of some Asian American groups: U.S. immigration law, which favors highly educated, highly skilled immigrant applicants from Asian countries.

Case Summary: Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) involved a white Michigan resident named Barbara Grutter and the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter was frustrated by her rejection from the Law School, claiming that the University’s decision was due to a discriminatory admission policy which sought to enroll greater amounts of underrepresented minority students. Grutter believed that white candidates possessed a disadvantage due to this policy and she sued the university. According to Grutter, race was the “predominate factor” in selecting applicants instead of academics. She argued that the policy was unconstitutional and that it violated her 14th Amendment rights.

People v. Hall (1854), was a notable case that went down in history because it made discriminating against the Chinese seem perfectly reasonable and ethical. The jury tried to charge George Hall for the murder of a Chinese man Ling Sing. There were three Chinese witnesses, who claimed Hall was guilty, but the California Supreme court, notably Chief Justice Murray established that “no black, mixed race or Chinese could testify against a white man.” Hall was effectively freed, and the ruling made it okay to discriminate against the Chinese. This was followed up by the Statues of California/Chapter 13 (1858) and the Page Act of 1875, which were one of the first restraining federal migration rules that banned the entry of specific migrants considered “unwanted.” The statues specifically prohibited Chinese and Mongolians from entering the state except when driven ashore by weather or unavoidable accident. Furthermore, the 1880 Naturalization Law generated a system of a check for nationalization and fines for deceitful practices. It notably extended the naturalization process to people of African descent but refrained from extending it to people of Asian descent due to anti-Chinese sentiment in the western states.

It has been argued since the start of immigration whether or not aliens (undocumented or documented) should have the same equal rights as Americans when it comes to employment, education, and benefits in the United States. Despite what individuals believe or disbelieve, under certain acts, codes, laws, and the U.S. Constitution, all aliens have rights, regardless of their immigration status. In this paper I will discuss an overview of the court case, Patel v, Quality Inn South, which deals with an undocumented alien who was able to recover funds from his former employer. I will explain the acts that impacted the case, whether I agree or disagree with the outcome of the case, and my personal opinions of the case itself.

The Chinese population of the United States used perseverance, resiliency and hard work to prove that they could succeed in a country that has blatantly discriminated against them and labeled them as “undesirable” and “ineligible for citizenship.”

The government targeted the Asian Americans as a threat. As Takaki asserted, “Unlike European immigrants, Asians were also victimized by the institutionalized racial discrimination of public policies.” These policies include the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the National Origins Act of 1924. The social image of America can clearly be seen as only “whites” when the government institute policies to encourage European women to arrive to America so the immigrants can form families, while Asian women were barred the entry to prevent families to form