Talk:Chinese Exclusion Act

message: There was an article titled Chinese exclusion. I have turned it into a redirect page. The problem is that the dates given in this article differ slightly, for those of the Chinese Exclusion Act article. Could someone figure out what the accurate dates are?
Here is the text of this former article:
:The Chinese Exclusion Act was a law passed in the United States in 1883 that forbade immigration of Chinese to the United States for ten years.  It was later extended and existed until 1946.
:See also: Chinese-American
-User:Olivier — Preceding undated comment added 11:18, 14 October 2002 (UTC)
thread_title: Early message

message: ===Untitled===
:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was don't move, twice. Before reopening this debate yet again, think. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 13:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
NOTE: The below discussion is from February 2005; the April 2006 discussion should be above this line.
===Chinese Exclusion Act (United States) → Chinese Exclusion Act (Feb 2005)===
Absurd redirect; no other nation has had a "Chinese Exclusion Act"; apparently the other meaning is a "nickname coined by the Chinese-Canadian community" for the Chinese Immigration Act. Neutralitytalk 06:50, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
====Votes====
*Just a note to say that the name "Chinese Exclusion Act" suggests that it is an "Exclusion Act" that is Chinese, jguk 10:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested Moves

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was don't move, twice. Before reopening this debate yet again, think. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 13:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Absurd redirect; no other nation has had a "Chinese Exclusion Act"; apparently the other meaning is a "nickname coined by the Chinese-Canadian community" for the Chinese Immigration Act. Neutralitytalk 06:50, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
====Votes====
*Just a note to say that the name "Chinese Exclusion Act" suggests that it is an "Exclusion Act" that is Chinese, jguk 10:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Chinese Exclusion Act (United States)]] &rarr; [[Chinese Exclusion Act]] (Feb 2005)

message: *Just a note to say that the name "Chinese Exclusion Act" suggests that it is an "Exclusion Act" that is Chinese, jguk 10:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes

message: IT WAS ILLEGAL FOR CHINESE WOMEN TO IMMIGRATE UNDER CHINESE LAW
Until 1912 Chinese women were not free to immigrate under Qing Law.  Exceptions were made by Qing officials for female slaves and servants who were imported by their Chinese owners; as well as for merchant's and diplomat's wives.  The statement in the article sounds like it was the United States restricting Chinese women from joining their husbands and creating a family in the United States.  This article is not scholarly and much of the information is incorrect and the analyses (opinions) are likewise flawed.  This article needs to be completely rehauled.  --Tintle (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I deleted from the article this sentence: "It is also one of the primary reasons for why Chinese-Americans are slightly underrepresented in the United States (2% of the population) relative to the Han ethnic group's total percentage of the human species' population (about 20%)."
the US has never purported to represent the entire global population, only US population.  So the fact that 20% of the globe's population is Han Chinese has no relevance to US representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.21.13 (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: chinese representation in the US

message: I dont really think that the national quota was 105 immigrants but i dont know how much it really was so if someone could get that information.So Pro Lah 05:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a question about the national quota 

message: :The United States was not the only country to have racially restrictive immigration policies.
China itself had had strict anti-foreigner laws, which were only slackened as a result of concessions forced by the European Powers after the Opium Wars.  Immigration of foreign nationals today remains extremely difficult, should they choose to try (unless - perhaps? - they are of Han race).  I don't think it's fair to single out "white" countries about restrictive immigration policies when all major states have had them, especially imperial ones; Japan, China, Bali, Thailand, the Ottoman Sultanate, and others.  And even once admitted to such a state, strict policies on behaviour, locations of residence and type of profession, inheritance and more; not very much unlike the US, Canada or Australia, and in many cases (especially imperial China's, and Maoist China's) far worse. Skookum1 02:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Skookum, you talk like a racist. Why do you single out Imperial China now? Because it's Chinese and the article is about racism towards ethnical chinese in new world colonies? Should we also add that the vile negroe Othello viciously strangled Desdemone in the articles on appartheid? Thehairthatdidntgrow 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Your facts are completely wrong.  The Taiping Rebellion was against the Qing Dynasty.  And due to the Christian nature of the Taiping rebels, they actually embraced Westerners.  Western Mercs, however, fought along side the Qing army because they believed Taiping's version of Christianity was heresy.69.86.213.132 (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Restrictive immigration policies not limited to countries listed

message: I just removed this link from the article page because it lists no actual content, but if anyone wanted to go to the archives to photocopy original documents for inclusion here it might be helpful. Calliopejen1 07:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: removed link

message: Will someone answer me this, the the fuck did a bill called the "Chinese Exclusion Act" get through congress w/o public dissent/ coup? were we that fucked up back then?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.188.176 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Yes, we were. --Lquilter (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as a matter of fact, this is one of many examples of the racist history of the United States. Kingturtle (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How Did this get through congress?

message: The source cited to support the line that "the Act was not racially motivated" in fact claims the exact opposite. I am removing this line as most likely subtle vandalism. Subdolous (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not racially motivated?

message: All minority groups should join force to push US gov to apologize this discrimination they committed. so the equal protection can be a real protection to all minority groups. And also some state laws still have content to ban immigrants of other ethic people, this should be stopped. --
:Really?  And is China going to apologize for all the foreigners killed when China had laws ordering the execution of any foreigners found trying to enter the Middle Realm?  For all the foreigners (mostly unarmed missionaries who put up no resistance) killed in the Taiping and Boxer Rebellions?  For the killing of non-Han since China "consolidated its borders" by overriding local sovereignty in Tibet and Eastern Turkestan?  For the killing of Tibetans in Tibet?  For the killing of prisoners so as to extract their organs for re-sale? How easy it is to accuse another nation of crimes as a way to keep from having to talk about your own.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By that logic, the current German government has no responsibility to apologize or atone for the Holocaust, since that happened before its own existence. 108.8.58.23 (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: US GOV should apologize for this crime

message: this needs some real cleanup,   looks like some nationalists are here repeating the propoganda they were indoctrinated with as children.
"took up low end wage labor such as restaurant work and laundry",   weren't they also the owners of these businesses? 
69.110.2.8 (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: a very pov article

message: The article contains two quotes from the act, describing the excluded individuals:
* "skilled and unskilled laborers employed in mining" 
* “skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining.”
This is obviously a huge difference. Which one is correct? AxelBoldt (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who was excluded? 

message: What role did the Chinese strike-breakers in Norht Adams have in motivating the passage of this bill?  See, e.g., A. Gyory's book: http://books.google.co.kr/books?hl=ko&lr=&id=x8OggvKjZSgC&oi=fnd&pg=PP13&dq=%22north+adams%22+chinese+exclusion+act&ots=dpgtd0HH30&sig=6WPqlrSDXFsI5xCw7olN4zS5ePg#v=onepage&q=%22north%20adams%22%20&f=false;
H. Hill: Anti-Oriental agitation and the rise of working-class racism.Kdammers (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Adams, Mass. 

message: Two paragraphs added under the repeal and current status section to reflect actions taken by the CA State Legislature in 2014. For disclosure purposes, I do work for the State Senate, Communications Director for Senator Bob Huff. I am not employed by Senator Kevin de Leon, although he is mentioned for his work. --Billbird2111 (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two paragraphs added 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chinese Exclusion Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140505105756/http://librarysource.uchastings.edu/library/research/special-collections/wong-kim-ark/1858%20Cal.%20Stat.%20295.pdf to http://librarysource.uchastings.edu/library/research/special-collections/wong-kim-ark/1858%20Cal.%20Stat.%20295.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I plan to expand more on the consequences/events following the Chinese Exclusion Act known as the "Driving Out" period. Specifically within this period, I would like to highlight two main massacres, Seattle and Snake River. 
Below are my resources that I plan to use. Many of them are taken from Iris Chang's book Chinese in America.  Please review and advise. Thank you in advance! 
Nokes, R. Gregory (Fall 2006). "A Most Daring Outrage: Murders at Chinese Massacre Cove, 1887". Oregon Historical Quarterly. 107 (3). Archived from the original on 28 January 2007. Retrieved 20 March 2007.
https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/chinese_massacre_at_deep_creek/#.WgaAFhNSzOQ
Judy Yung, Unbound Feet, p. 21; R. David Arkush and Leo O. Lee, Land without Ghosts, p. 57; Tzu-Kuei Yen, pp. 153-62; Craig Stori, Incident at Bitter Creek: The Story of the Rock Springs Chinese Massacre (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1991).
David H. Stratton, “The Snake River Massacre of Chinese Miners, 1887,” in Duane A. Smith, ed., A Taste of the West: Essays in Honor of Robert Athearn, p. 124, as cited in Roger Daniels, Asian America, p. 64.
the secretary of war dispatched troops to Seattle: Doug Chin, “The Anti-Chinese Movement,” The International Examiner, January 6, 1982.
“special tax”: Ruthanne Lum McCunn, p. 51.
beating up several Chinese: Ibid.
Information about the second Seattle riot: Harper’s Weekly, March 6, 1886; Lorraine Barker Hildebrand, pp. 69-74
Chang, Iris (2004). The Chinese in America. A Narrative History. Penguin.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thubtran92 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resources for new content addition 

message: I've edited the first 2 paragraphs for clarity, and to link the growing animosity against Chinese in California to the eventual nationwide legislative efforts to ban Chinese immigration.  California specifically attempted to ban Chinese immigration instate, only for the State Supreme Court to point out that such laws were unconstitutional (taking away the power over immigration from the federal government).  These state efforts undoubtedly helped push national efforts however, and whether or not they lead directly to the Exclusion Act (as Coolidge suggests in her California Thesis), the end result in both California and the nation was a series of increasingly regressive, restrictive laws.  It was a period of nearly 30 years of anti-Chinese sentiment leading up to the Exclusion Act, and I think that needs to be clearly stated.  Gwalker1 (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Two Paragraphs - Edits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chinese Exclusion Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516131106/http://www.sos.ca.gov/archives/collections/1879/archive/1879-constitution.pdf to http://www.sos.ca.gov/archives/collections/1879/archive/1879-constitution.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A new section in the Chinese Exclusion Act Article will be added
The Bubonic Plague outbreak in San Francisco Chinatown strengthened Anti-Chinese sentiment in all of California despite science research at the time showing it was caused by some kind of "germ".  When the first round of people died from this plague, the companies and the state denied the fact that there was a plague, eventually other states knew what was going on and stopped trading with California.  The blame was put on the Chinese community.  The plague did not derive from Chinatown.  It was due to the unsanitary conditions and population density that outbreaks such as this one were spread quickly, and therefore affected a large number of people in this community.  
  
It's first deaths in San Francisco were in 1898, a ship from a French bark had some passengers who had died of the plague.  After its arrival in San Francisco, 18 more Chinatown residents died of the same symptoms.  The mayor decided not to release a public Warning of the outbreak, thinking it would affect San Francisco's commercial business. Chinatown was quarantined, and sanitary services were suspended for some time until presence of bacteriological source was found.  A sanitary campaign was launched, however many residents chose to avoid anything and everything that had to do with the plague due to fear and humiliation.  As more and more deaths occurred, the city began being more aggressive, and they started checking nearly everyone in Chinatown for any signs of disease.  Therefore the Chinese community began to distrust the government even more.   
Ortiz7913 (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 4 years later, but: I agree that this section should not be part of the article, as it is only very loosely related to the actual act.--Shmarrighan (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bubonic Plague in Chinatown 

message: Bibliography: 
-  www.bing.com/cr?IG=8A65C697A66B495BA76C57F8498B041F&CID=0B162B5F543A68E8319420C95595697F&rd=1&h=_qJ2gU4hRgnXJH_W8qLjFEkSQTmD4Kc36Hc3Q_NrEto&v=1&r=https%3a%2f%2fwww.researchgate.net%2fpublication%2f238047641_Fearing_yellow_imagining_white_Media_analysis_of_the_Chinese_Exclusion_Act_of_1882&p=DevEx,5065.1.  
 - Seattle, OCA. “The Chinese Exclusion Acts: A Racist Chapter in U.S. Civil Rights History.” OCA Seattle, 22 May 2012, ocaseattle.org/2012/05/21/the-chinese-exclusion-acts-a-racist-chapter-in-u-s-civil-rights-history/.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leilani.cuevas (talk • contribs) 22:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: it's solid and very advanced. Rjensen (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Sources 

message: Se vcs quiserem traduzir este artigo é só dar o toque. 2804:14C:5BB1:9AC7:3336:53CC:B8D1:652B (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{Ping|Luizpuodzius|Raimundo57br}} 

message: This is regarding 's addition of the  template to the claim that , with the reason field referencing the Trump travel ban.
So first of all, the Trump actions were not a law, but a set of executive orders/actions.  They were arguably aimed at Muslims, but Muslims are not an ethnic or national group.  You could say they were aimed at several national groups, but in any case they were not part of immigration law, but about the issuance of visas.  I'm not remotely defending the ban, but I don't think the current language is inaccurate or misleading.
I do agree the claim should be cited, but even if the citation predates the Trump actions, I think that's OK. --Trovatore (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think using the distinction between law and executive action; or issuance of visa and naturalization (indeed, without being able to get a visa how can one become a citizen?) is of the essence here. I think it is appropriate to say it is the only action till the Trump travel ban, which banned issuance of visas wholesale to seven (and later) affected nations. In some ways the Trump travel ban was even more restrictive since it banned everyone with the exception of diplomats. 128.54.26.155 (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trump travel ban 

message: from (1882 in the United States) because it “fits better in subcategory American law”. I just want to go on record saying that I think it it should be both. It’s an important part of American history overall. ChecksMix (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category removal? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Jbjohnson123 (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: History of Immigration to the U.S.

message: — Assignment last updated by Lefeverk (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Race, Law, and Politics