When Birthright Citizenship was last "Reconsidered": REGAN v. KING and Asian Americans Part III
How did Regan come about? As is well known, during
Spring 1942 over 100,000 Japanese Americans living across the PacificCoast were
removed from their homes by the US Army, under authority of Executive Order
9066, and placed in a series of holding areas, the “Assembly Centers,” than
shipped inland for confinement in a network of 10 government camps. In the wake
of these official actions the Native Sons of the Golden West, a California
nativist fraternity that had led the prewar movement for Japanese exclusion,
threw themselves into action. In May 1942, their 65th Grand Parlor
(i.e. convention) met at Hoberg’s resort. The keynote speech was delivered by
U.S. Webb, who had served as California Attorney General for 36 years. After
calling for the full prosecution of the Pacific War, Webb turned t his real motivation for action: “The
productivity of the Japanese constitutes a definite threat which must be
obviated by a reinterpretation of the constitution or a constitutional
amendment.”The
convention officially resolved to have the incoming Grand President, Lloyd
Congrove, create a committee of five persons to raise money “first to
prosecute, then to carry through to the Supreme Court of the United
States, if necessary, a suit challenging the United States citizenship of the
Japanese; and second to draft and sponsor an amendment to the Constitution of
the United States which shall have for its object the exclusion of all persons
of Japanese ancestry from American citizenship."
In addition to the
prestige lent the case by the presence of U.S. Webb, the 9-term state Attorney
General, the Native Sons’ campaign received important backing from the incumbent
Attorney General, future U.S. Chief Justice Earl Warren. According to an
account in the OAKLAND TRIBUNE, in his banquet speech at the Native Sons Grand Parlor Warren pledged
support: "Warren stated he strongly favored
prosecution of the suits now pending in the federal courts to determine if any
Japanese can become a citizen and vote. Warren
said further action depends upon new interpretation of the law by higher courts
which now makes (sic) it possible for Japanese to hold property and vote.Following
the judicial determination, other methods will be studied to meet the
situation, he said
Warren then served as keynote
speaker at the Native Daughters convention in which the resolutions of support
were voted.
To
be sure, Warren’s endorsement
was limited. Unlike Webb, he justified action on the basis of security and not
race. Also, he did not approve any constitutional amendment—he called only for
“study” of other methods should a test case fail. After the convention, he
refused to discuss the matter. A fair conclusion is that Warren, who had
announced in April his candidacy for governor (to which he was elected that
fall), made a single hedged statement supporting the suit as a necessary
profession of faith to retain the political support of the Native Sons, long
his chief backers. Still, as the state’s chief law enforcement official, Warren
lent quasiofficial status to the lawsuit.
On May 7, 1942 (actually a few days before the start of the
convention) John T. Regan, longtime Grand Secretary of the Native Sons, sued
Cameron King, as registrar of voters in San Francisco County, to remove 90
named Nisei from the voting rolls for the August 1942 primaries and to deprive
them of voting “privileges,” at least for the duration of the war. Although the
complaint ostensibly touched only on voting, the publicly avowed purpose of the
suit was as an initial step toward overturning the 1898 Supreme Court decision
in the Wong Kim Ark and annulling the
U.S.
citizenship of all Asian Americans on racial grounds. U.S. Webb agreed to act
as attorney on the case (as well as a similar lawsuit brought in Oakland brought by the
American Legion, and later dropped).
The Regan case was argued in Federal
District Court in the last week of June 1942.
Japanese Americans, locked in Assembly Centers and barred from the coast, were
not able to be present at the hearing, and it does not appear that any Japanese
American organizations sent non-Japanese observers. U.S. Webb told Judge
Adolphus St. Sure that the case “involves the citizenship and right to
citizenship of all peoples and all races who do not fall within the
characterization or description of white people.” He then made an argument that
rested unabashedly on principles of white supremacy. Pointing to the origins of
the nation, Webb insisted that, except where American Indians were involved,
the country was settled by “a cosmopolitan population composed of every
European people, all of whom were members of…the Caucasian race.” Only white people had
fought at Lexington, Bunker Hill, and Valley Forge.He then added that the
Declaration of Independence was made entirely “by and for white people,” as was
the Constitution.Walter Dold, Assistant City Attorney of San Francisco,
responded that the Supreme Court had established in Wong Kim Ark that all those born in America,
irrespective of ancestry, were U.S.
citizens.
On July 2, 1942, less than
a week after the close of arguments, Judge St. Sure issued his decision in Regan v. King, decisively rejecting the
Native Sons’ plea. “It is unnecessary to discuss the arguments of counsel. In
my opinion, the law is settled by the decisions of the United States
Supreme Court just alluded to.” Webb quickly announced that he would appeal the
decision directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, which he believed might reverse
its previous decision. Instead, in late September he filed an appeal to the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals. His brief, submitted just before Christmas, repeated
his historical argument that the nation was founded by and for white people
only. Using the removal policy as evidence of dangers, he went on to present
the case against Nisei citizenship in starkly racist terms: “Because
of racial characteristics of the Japanese, assimilation with Caucasians is as
impossible as it is undesirable…. The off-spring of Japanese wherever born are
taught the Japanese faith and pledged to its observance. Dishonesty, deceit and
hypocrisy are racial characteristics [of all Japanese].”
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
In fact such visits are rare, for the very good reason that they are not of immediate benefit to the parents--children can not sponsor their relatives for legal residency before they turn 21
This is an important and often over-looked point. But, there are even more reasons why the so-called "anchor baby" idea is less plausible than fear-mongers would have us think. In the case of "illegal aliens" there are additional bars to adjustment of status that make it very difficult to acquire immigration benefits from family members. In many (probably most) cases, the non-citizen seeking immigration benefits who is not currently "in status" must leave the U.S. and apply from his or her home country. In most such cases there will then be a 10-year bar on re-entry to the U.S. There are sometimes exceptions, but they are not easy to fit into and hard to qualify for. Now, not all, maybe not many immigrants know about this, so it's unclear how much of a direct disincentive it is. But, it does mean that for irregular migrants, immigration benefits via a child born in the U.S. are harder to get than most people think. Additionally, consulate officers can and will reject visa applications of visa applicants they think have "immigrant intent", and if they think a person intends to have a child in the U.S. so as to gain immigration benefits, visas can and will be refused.
I appreciate this extra information. I had not sought, in a historical article, to examine in detail the merits of the argument that foreigners come to the United States to give birth. It might be useful to point out that such complaints are by no means new. Accusations that Mexican women were pouring across the border to have babies were aired and given credibility by THE NEW YORK TIMES at least as far back as 1982.
In fact such visits are rare, for the very good reason that they are not of immediate benefit to the parents--children can not sponsor their relatives for legal residency before they turn 21
This is an important and often over-looked point. But, there are even more reasons why the so-called "anchor baby" idea is less plausible than fear-mongers would have us think. In the case of "illegal aliens" there are additional bars to adjustment of status that make it very difficult to acquire immigration benefits from family members. In many (probably most) cases, the non-citizen seeking immigration benefits who is not currently "in status" must leave the U.S. and apply from his or her home country. In most such cases there will then be a 10-year bar on re-entry to the U.S. There are sometimes exceptions, but they are not easy to fit into and hard to qualify for. Now, not all, maybe not many immigrants know about this, so it's unclear how much of a direct disincentive it is. But, it does mean that for irregular migrants, immigration benefits via a child born in the U.S. are harder to get than most people think. Additionally, consulate officers can and will reject visa applications of visa applicants they think have "immigrant intent", and if they think a person intends to have a child in the U.S. so as to gain immigration benefits, visas can and will be refused.
Posted by: Matt Lister | August 09, 2010 at 01:49 PM
I appreciate this extra information. I had not sought, in a historical article, to examine in detail the merits of the argument that foreigners come to the United States to give birth. It might be useful to point out that such complaints are by no means new. Accusations that Mexican women were pouring across the border to have babies were aired and given credibility by THE NEW YORK TIMES at least as far back as 1982.
Posted by: Greg Robinson | August 09, 2010 at 03:03 PM