BILL ANALYSIS �
SJR 23
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SJR 23 (Huff and De Le�n)
As Amended August 18, 2014
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :32-0
JUDICIARY 9-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Wieckowski, Wagner, | | |
| |Alejo, Chau, Dickinson, | | |
| |Garcia, Maienschein, | | |
| |Muratsuchi, Stone | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Makes findings about the historical events leading to
passage of the Chinese exclusion laws of the late 19th century,
recognizes their unjust and discriminatory nature, and requests
Congress to adopt resolutions of apology to the Chinese American
community for the enactment of those laws.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : This resolution calls upon the Legislature to request
Congress to adopt resolutions of apology to the Chinese American
community for the enactment of the Chinese exclusions laws,
beginning in the 1880s, which resulted in discrimination against
and persecution of Chinese persons in California and across the
country.
According to the author, this measure is needed because:
In 1882 Congress passed and the President signed the
Chinese Exclusion Act, the first federal law ever
passed excluding a group of immigrants solely on the
basis of race or nationality. California played a
central role in pushing for Chinese exclusion laws -
including provisions in the California Constitution -
that deprived Chinese Americans of their civil rights,
such as citizenship and property ownership.
In 2011 the U.S. [United States] Senate passed SR 201
SJR 23
Page 2
and in 2012 the House of Representatives passed HR
683, expressing "regret" for the persecution and
suffering of Chinese Americans. However, there are
important and major differences between an expression
of regret and an actual apology. An apology includes
an admission of error or wrongdoing, an understanding
that the action taken should not have been done, and
above all an acknowledgement of responsibility. In
contrast, an expression of regret merely indicates a
disappointment that the events happened and does not
accept any wrongdoing.
While the Chinese community appreciates the
demonstration of regret, there is also recognition for
the need of an explicit apology to Chinese Americans.
It is important that the United States Congress make a
formal and sincere apology for the enactment of the
discriminatory laws that adversely affected Chinese
Americans, so that democracy, justice, and equality
for all of its citizens can be achieved, and to
strengthen the diversity in the United States that
contributes to the country's economic, cultural,
technological, academic, and political growth.
In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, the first
U.S. law to restrict immigration and naturalization for a
specific ethnic group. The Act outlawed all Chinese immigration
to the U.S. and denied citizenship to those Chinese already
settled in the country. By outlawing all new immigration, the
Act effectively prevented thousands of Chinese men already
living in the U.S. from reuniting with their wives and children
who they had left behind in China when they came to this country
to work. According to historical accounts, some prominent
California politicians were active leaders in the Chinese
exclusion movement and lobbied Congress for years to prohibit
immigration from China.
According to historian Andrew Gyory, the Chinese Exclusion Act
"reversed not only American policy, but also American tradition,
changing forever the nation's image of itself as a beacon of
hope, a refuge for the poor and the oppressed the world over."
In his view, the Chinese Exclusion Act not only "legitimiz[ed]
racism as national policy," but set a precedent for broader
exclusion laws and "fostered an atmosphere of hostility towards
SJR 23
Page 3
foreigners that would endure for generations." (Andrew Gyory,
Closing the Gate: Race Politics and the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Chapel Hill: 1998, pp.1-3.)
The ban on Chinese immigration was extended indefinitely in
1902, and was not repealed until 1943 when Congress passed the
Magnuson Act. Although Chinese Americans then became eligible
for naturalization, Congress initially limited this number to
only 105 Chinese immigrants per year. (Asian Law Journal,
December 2000.)
This resolution is supported by a number of Chinese cultural
associations and heritage groups, as well as by the County of
Los Angeles. Proponents contend that the resolution is
important because the Chinese-American community has never
received a formal apology from Congress for its role in enacting
the Chinese Exclusion Act and other discriminatory anti-Chinese
laws. They note that Congress recognizes that an apology is the
appropriate action to be taken in redressing prior legitimized
discrimination, as evidenced by the fact that Congress has
previously issued apologies to Japanese-Americans (in 1988),
Native Hawaiians (in 1993), African-Americans (in 2008 and
2009), and Native Americans (in 2010) for historical acts of
discrimination and persecution against these ethnic groups.
These supporters state that a formal apology "is of particular
importance so that the Chinese in America can be treated equally
as other minorities similarly impacted," and that "Efforts in
this regard must continue so that democracy, justice and
equality for all can be achieved and to strengthen the diversity
of California for the betterment of its socio-economic growth."
This measure specifically notes that California's stance against
the Chinese community influenced the promotion and passage of
the Federal Chinese Exclusion Act. The resolution finds and
declares that California lobbied Congress for years to strictly
prohibit immigration from China, and in 1882, was successful in
convincing Congress to enact the Chinese Exclusion Act, which
set the precedent for racist foreign and national policy that
led to broader exclusion laws and fostered an environment of
racism that quickly led to the Jim Crow laws of the 1880's.
It should also be noted that in 1879, three years before
Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, California went as
SJR 23
Page 4
far as to amend its Constitution to discriminate against Chinese
persons. That year, California adopted Article XIX, titled
"Legislature to Protect State From Certain Aliens", of which
Section 1 reads in part:
The Legislature shall prescribe all necessary
regulations for the protection of the
State... from the burdens and evils arising from the
presence of aliens, who are, or may become vagrants,
paupers, mendicants, criminals, or invalids afflicted
with contagious or infectious diseases, and from
aliens otherwise dangerous or detrimental to the
well-being or peace of the State, and to impose
conditions upon which such persons may reside in the
State, and to provide the means and mode of their
removal from the State.
Article XIX targeted Chinese immigrants and had the effect of
denying Chinese the right to own or acquire property, the right
to own a firearm, the right to be employed by a corporation, and
the right of employment in public work. Article XIX also
declared that "foreigners unable to become citizens" (meaning
Chinese, who Congress specifically denied citizenship with
passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882) were "dangerous or
detrimental to the well-being of the State." Article XIX
remained in effect for 73 years until it was finally repealed in
1952.
Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0004705