Kuo, Ming-Sung. (2003) The duality of federalist nation-building : two strains of Chinese immigration cases revisited. Albany Law Review, Vol.67 (No.1). pp. 27-87. ISSN 0002-4678

Preview	PDF WRAP_Kuo_Duality_of_federalist.pdf - Accepted Version - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader Download (349Kb)
	PDF (Author permission email) Kuo_MS_Copyright_Confirmation.pdf - Supplemental Material Restricted to Repository staff only - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader Download (55Kb)

Abstract

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 rekindled the national debate on the status of non-citizen immigrants in the United States. While the ostensible cause of this debate—a massive atrocity committed by non-U.S. citizens—is new, its substance is not. Over a century ago, two cases involving the constitutional status of Chinese immigrants in the United States marked the beginning of the modern constitutional debate over immigration. Yick Wo v. Hopkins and Chae Chan Ping v. United States, also known as the Chinese Exclusion Case, each influenced subsequent constitutional developments, although the decisions in these cases were starkly divergent. In the 1886 decision Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court unanimously decided to uphold the equal protection claims of two non-citizen Chinese immigrants. The immigrants were arrested for operating laundries without obtaining special consent, despite the prevalence of non-Chinese laundry operators who conducted their businesses in the same manner. Three years later, the Court also unanimously decided the Chinese Exclusion Case. Despite the structural similarity and chronological proximity to Yick Wo, however, the substantive result of the Chinese Exclusion Case was in stark contrast to its predecessor. In the Chinese Exclusion Case, the Court affirmed the inherent power of Congress to exclude a non-citizen Chinese immigrant from reentering the United States. In the earlier case, the non-citizen plaintiffs were treated as equal to American citizens, while in the later the Chinese plaintiff was seen as nothing but a pariah, completely subject to the sovereign power of the United States. The focus of this article is how these two cases, so similar on the surface, resulted in such different outcomes. In response to this quandary, the course of nation-building in the United States and its connection to American constitutional law will be examined.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	J Political Science > JV Colonies and colonization. Emigration and immigration. International migration K Law > K Law (General)
Divisions:	Faculty of Social Sciences > Law
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Constitutional law -- United States, United States -- Emigration and immigration -- Government policy, Chinese -- United States -- History -- 19th century, Nation-building -- United States
Journal or Publication Title:	Albany Law Review
Publisher:	Albany Law School
ISSN:	0002-4678
Date:	September 2003
Volume:	Vol.67
Number:	No.1
Page Range:	pp. 27-87
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Access rights to Published version:	Restricted or Subscription Access
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/34869

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item