This measure would mark May 6, 2018, as the 136th anniversary of the enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Act in order to recognize the harm caused by racially discriminatory immigration measures, and to honor the contributions of all immigrants and refugees who have enriched our communities. The measure would also declare the opposition of the Legislature to executive orders and a presidential proclamation signed by President Trump relating to immigration, call upon the President to revoke those orders and that proclamation, condemn the expansion of deportations being undertaken under the current presidential administration, and reaffirm that the state is open and welcoming to immigrants and refugees who are integral to life in our state.

This measure would mark May 6, 2018, as the 136th anniversary of the enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Act in order to recognize the harm caused by racially discriminatory immigration measures, and to honor the contributions of all immigrants and refugees who have enriched our communities. The measure would also declare the opposition of the Legislature to executive orders and a presidential proclamation signed by President Trump relating to immigration, call upon the President to revoke those orders and that proclamation, condemn the expansion of deportations being undertaken under the current presidential administration, and reaffirm that the state is open and welcoming to immigrants and refugees who are integral to life in our state.

This measure would mark May 6, 2018, as the 136th anniversary of the enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Act in order to recognize the harm caused by racially discriminatory immigration measures, and to honor the contributions of all immigrants and refugees who have enriched our communities. The measure would also declare the opposition of the Legislature to executive orders and a presidential proclamation signed by President Trump relating to immigration, call upon the President to revoke those orders, orders and that proclamation, condemn the expansion of deportations being undertaken under the current presidential administration, and reaffirm that the state is open and welcoming to immigrants and refugees who are integral to life in our state.

This measure would mark May 6, 2018, as the 136th anniversary of the enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Act in order to recognize the harm caused by racially discriminatory immigration measures, and to honor the contributions of all immigrants and refugees who have enriched our communities. The measure would also declare the opposition of the Legislature to executive orders signed by President Trump relating to immigration, call upon the President to revoke those orders, condemn the expansion of deportations being undertaken under the current presidential administration, and reaffirm that the state is open and welcoming to immigrants and refugees who are integral to life in our state.

WHEREAS, On May 6, 1882, President Chester A. Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was the nations first law to prohibit immigration solely on the basis of ethnicity; and

WHEREAS, The Chinese Exclusion Act, which was renewed in 1892, amended in 1902, and made permanent in 1904, prevented Chinese laborers from entering the United States, and denied Chinese a pathway to citizenship for more than 60 years; and

WHEREAS, Subsequent legislation, such as the 1892 Geary Act that required all Chinese to register for and carry on their persons Certificates of Residence or risk imprisonment and deportation, set a precedent for the Muslim registry being promoted by President Trump today; and

WHEREAS, The Chinese Exclusion Act was based on racial hostility against Chinese, who were characterized as unassimilable, vile heathens and were blamed for lowering wages, taking away jobs, draining the economy, and endangering the American way of life; and

WHEREAS, There is a direct link between the racial animus and religious intolerance exemplified by the Chinese Exclusion Act and President Trumps executive orders, which attempt to ban the issuance of travel visas for citizens of certain majority-Muslim nations based on unestablished security risks and the implication that all Muslims are terrorists; and

WHEREAS, President Trumps Executive Order 13780, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States and issued March 6, 2017, seeks to suspend the entry of all refugees under the United States Refugee Assistance Program for 120 days, and seeks to limit the total number of refugees accepted to just 50,000 half the number of refugees previously accepted under the Obama administration; and

WHEREAS, President Trumps Presidential Proclamation 9645, issued September 24, 2017, to replace Executive Order 13780, continues to suspend entry of immigrants and some classes of nonimmigrants from several majority-Muslim countries, and calls for many of the same restrictions as Executive Order 13780; and

WHEREAS, President Trumps Executive Order 13768, titled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States and issued January 25, 2017, seeks to direct the Department of Homeland Security to hire 10,000 additional immigration enforcement officers, empower states and local law enforcement to perform functions of immigration officers, and to greatly expand the categories of people classified as priorities for removal, including those who are convicted of only minor crimes or who are simply charged with, but not convicted, of a crime; and

WHEREAS, President Trumps Executive Order 13767, titled Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements and issued January 25, 2017, calls for the construction of a wall along the southern border with Mexico estimated to cost $20 billion, the construction and operation of new immigration detention facilities near the border, and the hiring of 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents; and

WHEREAS, With the unanimous passage of Senate Resolution 201 by the United States Senate in 2011, and the unanimous passage of House Resolution 683 by the United States House of Representatives in 2012, both houses of Congress have condemned the Chinese Exclusion Act and affirmed Congress commitment to preserve the civil rights and constitutional protections for all people; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Assembly and the Senate of the State of California, jointly, That the Legislature joins Asian and Pacific Islander communities throughout the state in marking May 6, 2018, as the 136th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act in recognition of the harm caused by racially discriminatory immigration measures and to honor the contributions of all immigrants and refugees who have enriched our communities; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature condemns the expansion of deportations being undertaken by the current presidential administration as well as its actions to exclude immigrants based on national origin and religion, which threaten to repeat the terrible injustices perpetrated by the Chinese Exclusion Act 136 years ago; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature declares its opposition to Executive Orders 13767, 13768, and 13780, and Presidential Proclamation 9645, and calls upon the President to revoke them; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature reaffirms that the State of California is open and welcoming to immigrants and refugees who are integral to the life of our state; and be it further

Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.

WHEREAS, On May 6, 1882, President Chester A. Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was the nations first law to prohibit immigration solely on the basis of ethnicity; and

WHEREAS, The Chinese Exclusion Act, which was renewed in 1892, amended in 1902, and made permanent in 1904, prevented Chinese laborers from entering the United States, and denied Chinese a pathway to citizenship for more than 60 years; and

WHEREAS, Subsequent legislation, such as the 1892 Geary Act that required all Chinese to register for and carry on their persons Certificates of Residence or risk imprisonment and deportation, set a precedent for the Muslim registry being promoted by President Trump today; and

WHEREAS, The Chinese Exclusion Act was based on racial hostility against Chinese, who were characterized as unassimilable, vile heathens and were blamed for lowering wages, taking away jobs, draining the economy, and endangering the American way of life; and

WHEREAS, There is a direct link between the racial animus and religious intolerance exemplified by the Chinese Exclusion Act and President Trumps executive orders, which attempt to ban the issuance of travel visas for citizens of certain majority-Muslim nations based on unestablished security risks and the implication that all Muslims are terrorists; and

WHEREAS, President Trumps Executive Order 13780, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States and issued March 6, 2017, seeks to suspend the entry of all refugees under the United States Refugee Assistance Program for 120 days, and seeks to limit the total number of refugees accepted to just 50,000 half the number of refugees previously accepted under the Obama administration; and

WHEREAS, President Trumps Presidential Proclamation 9645, issued September 24, 2017, to replace Executive Order 13780, continues to suspend entry of immigrants and some classes of nonimmigrants from several majority-Muslim countries, and calls for many of the same restrictions as Executive Order 13780; and

WHEREAS, President Trumps Executive Order 13768, titled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States and issued January 25, 2017, seeks to direct the Department of Homeland Security to hire 10,000 additional immigration enforcement officers, empower states and local law enforcement to perform functions of immigration officers, and to greatly expand the categories of people classified as priorities for removal, including those who are convicted of only minor crimes or who are simply charged with, but not convicted, of a crime; and

WHEREAS, President Trumps Executive Order 13767, titled Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements and issued January 25, 2017, calls for the construction of a wall along the southern border with Mexico estimated to cost $20 billion, the construction and operation of new immigration detention facilities near the border, and the hiring of 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents; and

WHEREAS, With the unanimous passage of Senate Resolution 201 by the United States Senate in 2011, and the unanimous passage of House Resolution 683 by the United States House of Representatives in 2012, both houses of Congress have condemned the Chinese Exclusion Act and affirmed Congress commitment to preserve the civil rights and constitutional protections for all people; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Assembly and the Senate of the State of California, jointly, That the Legislature joins Asian and Pacific Islander communities throughout the state in marking May 6, 2018, as the 136th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act in recognition of the harm caused by racially discriminatory immigration measures and to honor the contributions of all immigrants and refugees who have enriched our communities; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature condemns the expansion of deportations being undertaken by the current presidential administration as well as its actions to exclude immigrants based on national origin and religion, which threaten to repeat the terrible injustices perpetrated by the Chinese Exclusion Act 136 years ago; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature declares its opposition to Executive Orders 13767, 13768, and 13780, and Presidential Proclamation 9645, and calls upon the President to revoke them; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature reaffirms that the State of California is open and welcoming to immigrants and refugees who are integral to the life of our state; and be it further

Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.

WHEREAS, On May 6, 1882, President Chester A. Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was the nations first law to prohibit immigration solely on the basis of ethnicity; and

WHEREAS, The Chinese Exclusion Act, which was renewed in 1892, amended in 1902, and made permanent in 1904, prevented Chinese laborers from entering the United States, and denied Chinese a pathway to citizenship for more than 60 years; and

WHEREAS, Subsequent legislation, such as the 1892 Geary Act that required all Chinese to register for and carry on their persons Certificates of Residence or risk imprisonment and deportation, set a precedent for the Muslim registry being promoted by President Trump today; and

WHEREAS, The Chinese Exclusion Act was based on racial hostility against Chinese, who were characterized as unassimilable, vile heathens and were blamed for lowering wages, taking away jobs, draining the economy, and endangering the American way of life; and

WHEREAS, There is a direct link between the racial animus and religious intolerance exemplified by the Chinese Exclusion Act and President Trumps executive orders, which attempt to ban the issuance of travel visas for citizens of certain majority-Muslim nations based on unestablished security risks and the implication that all Muslims are terrorists; and

WHEREAS, President Trumps Executive Order 13780, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States and issued March 6, 2017, seeks to suspend the entry of all refugees under the United States Refugee Assistance Program for 120 days, and seeks to limit the total number of refugees accepted to just 50,000 half the number of refugees previously accepted under the Obama administration; and

WHEREAS, President Trumps Presidential Proclamation 9645, issued September 24, 2017, to replace Executive Order 13780, continues to suspend entry of immigrants and some classes of nonimmigrants from several majority-Muslim countries, and calls for many of the same restrictions as Executive Order 13780; and

WHEREAS, President Trumps Executive Order 13768, titled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States and issued January 25, 2017, seeks to direct the Department of Homeland Security to hire 10,000 additional immigration enforcement officers, empower states and local law enforcement to perform functions of immigration officers, and to greatly expand the categories of people classified as priorities for removal, including those who are convicted of only minor crimes or who are simply charged with, but not convicted, of a crime; and

WHEREAS, President Trumps Executive Order 13767, titled Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements and issued January 25, 2017, calls for the construction of a wall along the southern border with Mexico estimated to cost $20 billion, the construction and operation of new immigration detention facilities near the border, and the hiring of 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents; and

WHEREAS, With the unanimous passage of Senate Resolution 201 by the United States Senate in 2011, and the unanimous passage of House Resolution 683 by the United States House of Representatives in 2012, both houses of Congress have condemned the Chinese Exclusion Act and affirmed Congress commitment to preserve the civil rights and constitutional protections for all people; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Assembly and the Senate of the State of California, jointly, That the Legislature joins Asian and Pacific Islander communities throughout the state in marking May 6, 2018, as the 136th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act in recognition of the harm caused by racially discriminatory immigration measures and to honor the contributions of all immigrants and refugees who have enriched our communities; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature condemns the expansion of deportations being undertaken by the current presidential administration as well as its actions to exclude immigrants based on national origin and religion, which threaten to repeat the terrible injustices perpetrated by the Chinese Exclusion Act 136 years ago; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature declares its opposition to Executive Orders 13767, 13768, and 13780, and Presidential Proclamation 9645, and calls upon the President to revoke these executive orders; them; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature reaffirms that the State of California is open and welcoming to immigrants and refugees who are integral to the life of our state; and be it further

Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.

WHEREAS, On May 6, 1882, President Chester A. Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was the nations first law to prohibit immigration solely on the basis of ethnicity; and

WHEREAS, The Chinese Exclusion Act, which was renewed in 1892, amended in 1902, and made permanent in 1904, prevented Chinese laborers from entering the United States, and denied Chinese a pathway to citizenship for more than 60 years; and

WHEREAS, Subsequent legislation, such as the 1892 Geary Act that required all Chinese to register for and carry on their persons Certificates of Residence or risk imprisonment and deportation, set a precedent for the Muslim registry being promoted by President Trump today; and

WHEREAS, The Chinese Exclusion Act was based on racial hostility against Chinese, who were characterized as unassimilable, vile heathens and were blamed for lowering wages, taking away jobs, draining the economy, and endangering the American way of life; and

WHEREAS, There is a direct link between the racial animus and religious intolerance exemplified by the Chinese Exclusion Act and President Trumps executive orders, which attempt to ban the issuance of travel visas for citizens of certain majority-Muslim nations based on unestablished security risks and the implication that all Muslims are terrorists; and

WHEREAS, President Trumps Executive Order 13780, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States and issued March 6, 2017, seeks to suspend the entry of all refugees under the United States Refugee Assistance Program for 120 days, and seeks to limit the total number of refugees accepted to just 50,000 half the number of refugees previously accepted under the Obama administration; and

WHEREAS, President Trumps Executive Order 13768, titled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States and issued January 25, 2017, seeks to direct the Department of Homeland Security to hire 10,000 additional immigration enforcement officers, empower states and local law enforcement to perform functions of immigration officers, and to greatly expand the categories of people classified as priorities for removal, including those who are convicted of only minor crimes or who are simply charged with, but not convicted, of a crime; and

WHEREAS, President Trumps Executive Order 13767, titled Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements and issued January 25, 2017, calls for the construction of a wall along the southern border with Mexico estimated to cost $20 billion, the construction and operation of new immigration detention facilities near the border, and the hiring of 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents; and

WHEREAS, With the unanimous passage of Senate Resolution 201 by the United States Senate in 2011, and the unanimous passage of House Resolution 683 by the United States House of Representatives in 2012, both houses of Congress have condemned the Chinese Exclusion Act and affirmed Congress commitment to preserve the civil rights and constitutional protections for all people; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Assembly and the Senate of the State of California, jointly, That the Legislature joins Asian and Pacific Islander communities throughout the state in marking May 6, 2018, as the 136th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act in recognition of the harm caused by racially discriminatory immigration measures and to honor the contributions of all immigrants and refugees who have enriched our communities; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature condemns the expansion of deportations being undertaken by the current presidential administration as well as its actions to exclude immigrants based on national origin and religion, which threaten to repeat the terrible injustices perpetrated by the Chinese Exclusion Act 136 years ago; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature declares its opposition to Executive Orders 13767, 13768, and 13780, and calls upon the President to revoke these executive orders; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature reaffirms that the State of California is open and welcoming to immigrants and refugees who are integral to the life of our state; and be it further

Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AJR 36

Author:

:

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 6-1, 6/26/18

AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Hertzberg, Monning, Stern, Wieckowski

NOES: Anderson

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 51-0, 5/3/18 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Chinese for Affirmative Action

DIGEST:

This resolution marks the 136th anniversary of the signing of the Chinese Exclusion Act, describes the racial hostility that gave rise to it, draws parallels to the immigration policies of the Trump administration, and calls upon the Trump administration to revoke key Executive Orders and a Presidential Proclamation meant to implement those policies. These policies, the Orders, and the Proclamation have been the subject of numerous legal challenges that have temporarily or partially blocked their implementation.

ANALYSIS: Existing federal law, pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, provides that no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence, except as specifically provided. (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1152(a).)

Existing state law:

1. Provides that all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights, including enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (Cal. Const., art. 1, Sec. 1.)
2. Provides, pursuant to the Unruh Civil Rights Act, that all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and specifically prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation with respect to accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind. (Civ. Code Sec. 51.)

This resolution:

1. Finds that on May 6, 1882, President Chester A. Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act, the nation’s first law to prohibit immigration solely on the basis of ethnicity, and that the Act was renewed and later made permanent in 1904, preventing Chinese laborers from entering the United States, and denying people of Chinese descent a pathway to citizenship for more than 60 years.
2. Finds that subsequent legislation, such as the 1892 Geary Act requiring all people of Chinese descent to register for and carry on their persons Certificates of Residence or risk imprisonment and deportation, set a precedent for the Muslim registry being promoted by President Trump today.
3. Finds that the Chinese Exclusion Act was based on racial hostility against people of Chinese descent, who were characterized as “unassimilable, vile heathens” and were blamed for lowering wages, taking away jobs, draining the economy, and endangering the American way of life.
4. Finds that there is a direct link between the racial animus and religious intolerance exemplified by the Chinese Exclusion Act and President Trump’s executive orders, which attempt to ban the issuance of travel visas for citizens of certain majority-Muslim nations based on unestablished security risks and the implication that all Muslims are terrorists.
5. Finds that Executive Order 13780, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” and issued March 6, 2017, seeks to suspend the entry of all refugees under the U.S. Refugee Assistance Program for 120 days, and seeks to limit the number of total refugees accepted to just 50,000—half the number of refugees previously accepted under the Obama administration.
6. Finds that President Trump’s Presidential Proclamation 9645, issued on September 24, 2017, as a replacement for Executive Order 13780 continues to suspend entry of immigrants and some classes of nonimmigrants from several majority-Muslim countries while calling for many of the same restrictions as Executive Order 13780.
7. Finds that Executive Order 13768, titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” and issued January 25, 2017, seeks to direct the Department of Homeland Security to hire 10,000 additional immigration enforcement officers, empower state and local law enforcement to perform functions of immigration officers, and to greatly expand the categories of people classified as priorities for removal, including those convicted of only minor crimes or simply charged but not convicted of a crime.
8. Finds that Executive Order 13767, titled “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements” and issued on January 25, 2017, calls for the construction of a wall along the southern border with Mexico estimated to cost $20 billion, the construction and operation of new immigration detention facilities near the border, and the hiring of 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents.
9. Finds that, with the unanimous passage of Senate Resolution 201 by the United States Senate in 2011, and the unanimous passage of House Resolution 683 by the United States House of Representatives in 2012, both houses of Congress have condemned the Chinese Exclusion Act and affirmed Congress’ commitment to preserve the civil rights and constitutional protections for all people.
10. Resolves that the Members of the Legislature join Asian and Pacific Islander communities throughout the state in marking May 6, 2018, as the 136th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, in recognition of the harm caused by racially discriminatory immigration measures and to honor the contributions of all immigrants and refugees who have enriched our communities.
11. Resolves that the Legislature condemns the expansion of deportations being undertaken by the current presidential administration, as well as its actions to exclude immigrants based on national origin and religion, which both threaten to repeat the terrible injustices perpetrated by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
12. Resolves that the Legislature declares its opposition to Executive Orders 13767, 13768, and 13780, as well as Presidential Proclamation 9645, and calls upon the President to revoke them.
13. Resolves that the Legislature reaffirms that the State of California is open and welcoming to immigrants and refugees who are integral to the life of our state.
14. Resolves that the Chief Clerk of the Assembly shall transmit copies of this resolution to the authors for appropriate distribution.

Background

In the spring of 1882, the U.S. Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act and, on May 6, 1882, then U.S. President Chester Arthur signed it, thus enacting the first U.S. law to restrict immigration and naturalization for a specific ethnic group. The Chinese Exclusion Act banned all Chinese immigration into the U.S. and denied citizenship to those Chinese who were already here. With that:

the United States stopped being a nation of immigrants that welcomed foreigners without restrictions, borders or gates. Instead, it became a ... gatekeeping nation. In the process, the very definition of what it meant to be an ‘American’ became even more exclusionary.^[1]

Contemporaneous statements about the Chinese Exclusion Act make plain the racial hostility behind its enactment. Supporters of the Act asserted that Chinese nationals were “unassimilable aliens,” “unwelcome invasions,” “undesirable,” “diseased,” and “illegal,” among other slander. (Id. p. 22.)

One hundred and thirty-six years later, racial and religious hostility – albeit directed at different targets – is once again driving the nation’s immigration policy and rhetoric.

This resolution both commemorates the 136th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act and draws from that history a cautionary tale about the present. Specifically, this resolution would point out parallels between the racial animus that motivated the Chinese Exclusion Act and the anti-Muslim, white supremacist ideology that appears to be fueling the current federal government approach to foreign visitors, treatment of refugees, and immigration generally. With these parallels in mind, this resolution urges President Trump to revoke those policies and reaffirms California’s commitment to serve as a place of welcome and refuge to immigrants.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/27/18)

Chinese for Affirmative Action (source)

California Historical Society

California Immigrant Policy Center

Council on American-Islamic Relations

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/27/18)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author:

The Chinese Exclusion Act was a painful part of Chinese American history in this country that we cannot forget. The harsh reality of today is that we have a presidential administration that does not understand our nation’s history, and pursues senseless executive orders that discriminate against an individual based upon their immigration status or religious beliefs. This resolution marks the 136th anniversary of the signing of the Chinese Exclusion Act but also serves to declare California’s opposition to these orders, and push every person to stay awake and act when injustices of the past are recycled by this administration.

In support, the California Historical Society writes:

Although the Chinese Exclusion was repealed in 1943, its enactment opened an appalling chapter in our nation’s history and continues to serve as a potent reminder of the painful and profound impacts of discrimination directed against individuals solely by virtue of their ethnicity, race, or religious beliefs. Most regrettably, under President Trump the current federal administration is repeating the mistakes of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 51-0, 5/3/18

AYES: Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bloom, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Daly, Eggman, Frazier, Friedman, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Reyes, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Caballero, Chen, Choi, Cunningham, Dahle, Flora, Fong, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Grayson, Harper, Kiley, Lackey, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Quirk-Silva, Steinorth, Voepel, Waldron

Prepared by: Timothy Griffiths / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

6/27/18 17:25:52

**** END ****

1. Erika Lee, At America’s Gates: Chinese Immigration During the Exclusion Era, 1882-1943, University of North Carolina Press, pp. 6-7. ↑

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2017-2018 Regular Session

Bill No: AJR 36 (Author:Ting)

Version: May 2, 2018

Hearing Date: June 26, 2018

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

Consultant: TSG

SUBJECT

136th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act

DESCRIPTION

This resolution marks the 136th anniversary of the signing of the Chinese Exclusion Act, describes the racial hostility that gave rise to it, draws parallels to the immigration policies of the Trump administration, and calls upon the Trump administration to revoke key Executive Orders and a Presidential Proclamation meant to implement those policies. These policies, the Orders, and the Proclamation have been the subject of numerous legal challenges that have temporarily or partially blocked their implementation.

BACKGROUND

In the spring of 1882, the U.S. Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act and, on May 6, 1882, then U.S. President Chester Arthur signed it, thus enacting the first U.S. law to restrict immigration and naturalization for a specific ethnic group. The Chinese Exclusion Act banned all Chinese immigration into the U.S. and denied citizenship to those Chinese who were already here. With that:

the United States stopped being a nation of immigrants that welcomed foreigners without restrictions, borders or gates. Instead, it became a ... gatekeeping nation. In the process, the very definition of what it meant to be an ‘American’ became even more exclusionary.^[1]

Contemporaneous statements about the Chinese Exclusion Act make plain the racial hostility behind its enactment. Supporters of the Act asserted that Chinese nationals were “unassimilable aliens,” “unwelcome invasions,” “undesirable,” “diseased,” and “illegal,” among other slander. (Id. p. 22.)

One hundred and thirty-six years later, racial and religious hostility – albeit directed at different targets – is once again driving the nation’s immigration policy and rhetoric.

This resolution would both commemorate the 136th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act and draw from that history a cautionary tale about the present. Specifically, this resolution would point out parallels between the racial animus that motivated the Chinese Exclusion Act and the anti-Muslim, white supremacist ideology that appears to be fueling the current federal government approach to foreign visitors, treatment of refugees, and immigration generally. With these parallels in mind, this resolution urges President Trump to revoke those policies and reaffirms California’s commitment to serve as a place of welcome and refuge to immigrants.

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

Existing law provides that all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights, including enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (Cal. Const., art. 1, Sec. 1.)

Existing law, pursuant to the Unruh Civil Rights Act, provides that all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and specifically prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation with respect to accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind. (Civ. Code Sec. 51.)

Existing law, pursuant to the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, provides that no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence, except as specifically provided. (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1152(a).)

This resolution would find and declare that:

• on May 6, 1882, President Chester A. Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act, the nation’s first law to prohibit immigration solely on the basis of ethnicity, and that the Act was renewed and later made permanent in 1904, preventing Chinese laborers from entering the United States, and denying people of Chinese descent a pathway to citizenship for more than 60 years;
• subsequent legislation, such as the 1892 Geary Act that required all people of Chinese descent to register for and carry on their persons Certificates of Residence or risk imprisonment and deportation, set a precedent for the Muslim registry being promoted by President Trump today;
• the Chinese Exclusion Act was based on racial hostility against people of Chinese descent, who were characterized as “unassimilable, vile heathens” and were blamed for lowering wages, taking away jobs, draining the economy, and endangering the American way of life;
• there is a direct link between the racial animus and religious intolerance exemplified by the Chinese Exclusion Act and President Trump’s executive orders, which attempt to ban the issuance of travel visas for citizens of certain majority-Muslim nations based on unestablished security risks and the implication that all Muslims are terrorists;
• Executive Order 13780, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” and issued March 6, 2017, seeks to suspend the entry of all refugees under the U.S. Refugee Assistance Program for 120 days, and seeks to limit the number of total refugees accepted to just 50,000—half the number of refugees previously accepted under the Obama administration;
• President Trump’s Presidential Proclamation 9645, issued on September 24, 2017, as a replacement for Executive Order 13780 continues to suspend entry of immigrants and some classes of nonimmigrants from several majority-Muslim countries while calling for many of the same restrictions as Executive Order 13780;
• Executive Order 13768, titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” and issued January 25, 2017, seeks to direct the Department of Homeland Security to hire 10,000 additional immigration enforcement officers, empower state and local law enforcement to perform functions of immigration officers, and to greatly expand the categories of people classified as priorities for removal, including those convicted of only minor crimes or simply charged but not convicted of a crime;
• Executive Order 13767, titled “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements” and issued on January 25, 2017, calls for the construction of a wall along the southern border with Mexico estimated to cost $20 billion, the construction and operation of new immigration detention facilities near the border, and the hiring of 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents; and
• with the unanimous passage of Senate Resolution 201 by the United States Senate in 2011, and the unanimous passage of House Resolution 683 by the United States House of Representatives in 2012, both houses of Congress have condemned the Chinese Exclusion Act and affirmed Congress’ commitment to preserve the civil rights and constitutional protections for all people.

This resolution would, on behalf of the California Senate and Assembly jointly, resolve that:

• the Members of the Legislature join Asian and Pacific Islander communities throughout the state in marking May 6, 2018, as the 136th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, in recognition of the harm caused by racially discriminatory immigration measures and to honor the contributions of all immigrants and refugees who have enriched our communities;
• the Legislature condemns the expansion of deportations being undertaken by the current presidential administration, as well as its actions to exclude immigrants based on national origin and religion, which both threaten to repeat the terrible injustices perpetrated by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882;
• the Legislature declares its opposition to Executive Orders 13767, 13768, and 13780, as well as Presidential Proclamation 9645, and calls upon the President to revoke them;
• the Legislature reaffirms that the State of California is open and welcoming to immigrants and refugees who are integral to the life of our state; and
• the Chief Clerk of the Assembly shall transmit copies of this resolution to the authors for appropriate distribution.

COMMENT

1. Stated need for the bill

According to the author:

The Chinese Exclusion Act was a painful part of Chinese American history in this country that we cannot forget. The harsh reality of today is that we have a presidential administration that does not understand our nation’s history, and pursues senseless executive orders that discriminate against an individual based upon their immigration status or religious beliefs. This resolution marks the 136th anniversary of the signing of the Chinese Exclusion Act but also serves to declare California’s opposition to these orders, and push every person to stay awake and act when injustices of the past are recycled by this administration.

In support, the California Historical Society writes:

Although the Chinese Exclusion was repealed in 1943, its enactment opened an appalling chapter in our nation’s history and continues to serve as a potent reminder of the painful and profound impacts of discrimination directed against individuals solely by virtue of their ethnicity, race, or religious beliefs. Most regrettably, under President Trump the current federal administration is repeating the mistakes of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

2. Current status of the Executive Orders addressed in this resolution

This bill calls upon President Trump to revoke three Executive Orders and a Presidential Proclamation relating to immigration policy. Several elements of these presidential decrees have been challenged in federal court on constitutional and other legal grounds. A series of injunctions, appeals, revisions, and further challenges have ensued. The specific details of each Executive Order and the Presidential Proclamation, as well as the current status of each, are summarized below.

1. Executive Order (EO)13767, “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.”

Issued by President Trump on January 25, 2017, this Order made it U.S. policy to construct a physical wall along the southern border. It directed the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to take steps “immediately” to plan, design, and construct the wall, as well as to construct and operate detention facilities to detain aliens at or near the border with Mexico. Among other things, EO 13767 also directs the Secretary to: (1) allocate asylum officers and judges to detention facilities in order to conduct authorized removal proceedings; (2) ensure detention of aliens apprehended for violations of immigration law pending outcome of removal proceedings; and (3) hire 5,000 additional border patrol agents.

Elements of this Order have been carried out. Some immigration judges have been sent to carry out mandatory rotations at detention facilities, though it is not clear that this had any appreciable effect on the backlog of cases.^[2] The government has tried to increase hiring for the border patrol.^[3] Design prototypes for a new border wall have been constructed. However, the U.S. Congress has not appropriated the funding that would be necessary to build an actual wall and Mexico shows no signs of paying for it.^[4] The wall construction project was also the subject of consolidated lawsuits by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, all alleging failure to comply with applicable environmental impact review laws. On February 27, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel granted summary judgment in favor of the federal government. (In re Border Infrastructure Envtl. Litig. (S.D.Cal. 2018) 284 F. Supp. 3d 1092.)

1. Executive Order 13768, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.”

Issued by President Trump on January 25, 2017, this Order directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) hire 10,000 additional immigration officers and to empower state and local law enforcement to perform functions of immigration officers; and (2) prioritize certain persons for removal, especially any person charged with or convicted of a criminal offense, any person who has committed acts that constitute a criminal offense, or any person who has “abused” a public benefit program. EO 13768 also seeks to designate as a “sanctuary” any jurisdiction that refuses to exchange information, as required by 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373, and would make such jurisdictions ineligible for federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes. The County of Santa Clara and the City of San Francisco together challenged this Executive Order’s provisions regarding sanctuary cities in court. On April 25, 2017, a U.S. District Judge William Orrick ruled that the sanctuary city related provisions were likely unconstitutional and blocked the federal government from enforcing this aspect of the order pending a final determination. (Cnty. of Santa Clara v. Trump (N.D.Cal. 2017) 250 F. Supp. 3d 497.) The Trump administration subsequently issued a memorandum ostensibly interpreting Executive order 13768 more narrowly, but the memorandum made no changes to the Order itself, and Judge Orrick was unmoved. Many other local jurisdictions joined the suit against Trump, and on November 20, 2017, Judge Orrick granted their motion for summary judgment and permanently enjoined Executive Order 13768’s denial of funding to “sanctuary” jurisdictions. (Cty. of Santa Clara v. Trump (N.D.Cal. 2017) 275 F. Supp. 3d 1196.)

1. Executive Order 13780, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.”

This is the Order frequently referred to as the “Muslim travel ban,” though it sought to institute restrictions on immigration to the United States as well, most notably in relation to the nation’s acceptance of refugees. When it was first announced in the form of Executive Order 13769, this Order sparked massive protests, principally at the nation’s airports where arriving travelers were being detained or turned away. The Order has since evolved in response to multiple legal challenges, many of them successful. Its most recent incarnation, Presidential Proclamation 9645, is the subject of the case Trump v. Hawaii, which was argued in the U.S. Supreme Court on April 25, 2018, and a decision is expected by late June.

University of California, Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky recently summarized the history behind Trump v. Hawaii as follows:

Before the U.S. Supreme Court is the third effort by President Trump to prevent immigration from several designated countries. Virtually every federal court, trial and appellate, to consider any of these versions has found them to be invalid.

The initial travel ban was created by an executive order on Jan. 27, 2017. It barred all immigration from seven designated countries—Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Iraq—for a period of 90 days. It also suspended the refugee program for 120 days. It applied even to those who had the right to be in the United States because they had green cards and valid visas. There was an exception for those who were of minority religions in these majority-Muslim countries.

Many federal courts held that the executive order could not be applied to those who had the right to be in the United States. A federal district court in Washington state went further and issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, and the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the travel ban was impermissible discrimination based on religion. It concluded that it was clear from the statements of the president and other White House officials that this was meant to be a “Muslim ban.”

The Trump administration did not seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court, but instead issued a second version of the travel ban via a new executive order. This time, all immigration was barred from six countries for a period of 90 days; Iraq was removed from the list. The refugee program was again suspended for 120 days. But this time the ban did not apply to those who had visas or green cards and there was no exception for those of minority religions.

Federal district courts in Maryland and Hawaii issued preliminary injunctions concluding that this version of the travel ban, too, was likely unconstitutional. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in an unusual en banc ruling before there was a panel decision, upheld the preliminary injunction issued by the Maryland court, concluding that the executive order was based on religious animus. The 9th Circuit upheld the Hawaii federal district court decision, focusing primarily on a federal statute that bars discrimination in issuing visas based on national origin or country of residence and also on separation of powers considerations.

The Supreme Court granted review in both cases and scheduled oral arguments for Oct. 10, 2017. But by then, the 90-day and 120-day time periods had expired or were about to expire, so the court dismissed the cases as moot.

President Trump, by executive proclamation, then issued the travel ban now before the Supreme Court. It bans immigration from eight countries: Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela. It is of indefinite duration so this case will not become moot.

A federal district court in Hawaii issued an injunction and, in December 2017, the 9th Circuit affirmed. The appeals court focused on a federal statute adopted in 1965 that says: “No person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence..” The travel ban is entirely about discriminating based on nationality and place of residence.

The 1965 law was meant to eliminate the old system where immigration was based on quotas from particular countries. It was this approach that kept many fleeing the Holocaust from being able to come to this country and condemned them to death in concentration camps. The statute also is based on the premise that it is wrong to presume a person to be more dangerous because of race or sex or religion or nationality or place of birth or place of residence.^[5]

3. Widespread repudiation of, and remorse over, the Chinese Exclusion Act

The Chinese Exclusion Act endured in various forms until 1943. Even then, however, national origin and race-based quotas remained part of U.S. immigration law until 1965.

In the time since, there has been widespread condemnation of the Chinese Exclusion Act. On the state level, four prior resolutions have made it crystal clear that California regrets and repudiates the Chinese Exclusion Act. These resolutions acknowledge the state’s role in creating the conditions that led to passage of the Act and formally apologize to the Chinese community for that role. The resolutions also celebrate the repeal of the Act and affirm California’s commitment to embracing immigrants of all races, religions, and nationalities. (See Prior Related Legislation, below, for details on these resolutions.)

At the federal level, Congress has passed three resolutions, House Resolution 683 — 112th Congress (2011-2012), Senate Resolution 201 — 112th Congress (2011-2012), and House Resolution 282 — 112th Congress (2011-2012), all expressing regret over the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Support: California Historical Society; California Immigrant Policy Center; Council on American-Islamic Relations

Opposition: None known

HISTORY

Source: Chinese for Affirmative Action

Related Pending Legislation: SCR 49 (Pan, 2017) would designate December 17th as an annual “Day of Inclusion,” to mark the anniversary of the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act. SCR 49 is currently on the Senate inactive file.

Prior Legislation:

AJR 14 (Ting, Res. Ch. 120, Stats. 2017) marked the 135^th anniversary of the signing of the Chinese Exclusion Act, described the racial hostility that gave rise to it, drew parallels to the immigration policies of the Trump administration, and called upon the Trump administration to revoke key Executive Orders meant to implement that policy.

SCR 94 (Pan, Res. Ch. 77, Stats. 2016) found and declared that the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act on December 17, 1943, marks the date on which the United States expressed a commitment to break down cultural barriers and further racial, religious, and cultural tolerance, and acknowledged December 17 each year as an annual “Day of Inclusion” in recognition of the contributions of all immigrants to California and the United States.

ACR 125 (Chau, Res. Ch. 62, Stats. 2016) declared May 2016 as Asian Pacific Islander American Heritage Month and made a series of findings recognizing the contributions of Asian Pacific Islanders to California, in spite of hardships such as the Chinese Exclusion Act.

AB 2864 (Chau, Ch. 648, Stats. 2016) encouraged teachers to discuss the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Chinese American contribution to the transcontinental railroad in California classroom instruction.

SJR 23 (Huff and De León, Res. Ch. 134, Stats. 2014) requested that Congress formally apologize to Chinese Americans for the enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and other similar discriminatory federal laws of that era.

SCR 122 (De León, Res. Ch. 132, Stats. 2014) acknowledged California’s wrongdoings against the Chinese community their role in the promotion of the Chinese Exclusion Act, and made a formal apology to the Chinese community.

ACR 42 (Fong and De León, Res. Ch. 79, Stats. 2009) expressed the Legislature’s regret for enactment of past discriminatory laws and constitutional provisions which resulted in the persecution of Chinese living in California, and affirmed its commitment to preserving the rights of all people and celebrated the contributions that all immigrants have made to California and the nation.

Prior Vote:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 51, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 9, Noes 0)

**************

1. Erika Lee, At America’s Gates: Chinese Immigration During the Exclusion Era, 1882-1943, University of North Carolina Press, pp. 6-7. ↑

2. Hoffman, Trump Sent Judges to the Border. Many Had Nothing to Do. (Sept. 27, 2017) Politico Magazine <https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/27/trump-deportations-immigration-backlog-215649> (as of May 18, 2018). ↑

3. Moran, CBP Has To Hire 5,000 New Border Patrol Agents. It's Paying a Private Company $297 million to Help. (Dec. 12, 2017) San Diego Union Tribune <http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/

   news/watchdog/sd-me-cbp-hiring-20171212-story.html> (as of June 1, 2018). ↑

4. Apuzzo, Trump Orders a Wall Built, but Congress Holds the Checkbook (Jan. 25, 2017) New York Times <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/donald-trump-mexico-border-wall-congress.html> (as of May 18, 2018). ↑

5. Chemerinsky, The Travel Ban and the Supreme Court (April 2, 2018) American Bar Association Journal <http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/chemerinsky_the_travel_ban_and_the_supreme_court> (as of May 19, 2018). ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:

Author:(Ting)

As Amended Ver:May 2, 2018

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Observes the 136th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, and declares the Legislature's opposition to recent executive orders on immigration enforcement. Specifically, this measure:

1. Finds that on May 6, 1882, President Chester A. Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act, the nation's first law to prohibit immigration solely on the basis of ethnicity, and that the Act was renewed and later made permanent in 1902, preventing Chinese laborers from entering the United States, and denying Chinese a pathway to citizenship for more than 60 years.
2. Finds that subsequent legislation, such as the 1892 Geary Act that required all Chinese to register for and carry on their persons Certificates of Residence or risk imprisonment and deportation, set a precedent for the Muslim registry being promoted by President Trump today.
3. Finds that the Chinese Exclusion Act was based on racial hostility against Chinese, who were characterized as "unassimilable, vile heathens" and were blamed for lowering wages, taking away jobs, draining the economy, and endangering the American way of life.
4. Declares there is a direct link between the racial animus and religious intolerance exemplified by the Chinese Exclusion Act and President Trump's executive orders, which attempt to ban the issuance of travel visas for citizens of certain majority-Muslim nations based on unestablished security risks and the implication that all Muslims are terrorists.
5. Finds that Executive Order 13780, titled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" and issued March 6, 2017, seeks to suspend the entry of all refugees under the United States (U.S.) Refugee Assistance Program for 120 days, and seeks to limit the number of total refugees accepted to just 50,000—half the number of refugees previously accepted under the Obama administration.
6. Finds that Presidential Proclamation 9645, issued September 24, 2017, to replace Executive Order 13780, continues to suspend entry of immigrants and some classes of nonimmigrants from several majority-Muslim countries, and calls for many of the same restrictions as Executive Order 13780.
7. Finds that Executive Order 13768, titled "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States" and issued January 25, 2017, seeks to direct the Department of Homeland Security to hire 10,000 additional immigration enforcement officers, empower state and local law enforcement to perform functions of immigration officers, and to greatly expand the categories of people classified as priorities for removal, including those convicted of only minor crimes or simply charged but not convicted of a crime.
8. Finds that Executive Order 13767, titled "Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements" and issued on January 25, 2017, calls for the construction of a wall along the southern border with Mexico estimated to cost $20 billion, the construction and operation of new immigration detention facilities near the border, and the hiring of 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents.
9. Declares that with the unanimous passage of Senate Resolution 201 by the United States Senate in 2011, and the unanimous passage of House Resolution 683 by the United States House of Representatives in 2012, both houses of Congress have condemned the Chinese Exclusion Act and affirmed Congress' commitment to preserve the civil rights and constitutional protections for all people.
10. Calls upon all Members of the Legislature to join Asian and Pacific Islander communities throughout the state in marking May 6, 2018, as the 136th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, in recognition of the harm caused by racially discriminatory immigration measures and to honor the contributions of all immigrants and refugees who have enriched our communities.
11. Declares that the Legislature condemns the expansion of deportations planned by the current presidential administration, as well as its actions to exclude immigrants based on national origin and religion, which both threaten to repeat the terrible injustices perpetrated by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
12. Declares the Legislature's opposition to Executive Orders 13767, 13768, and 13780, and Presidential Proclamation 9645, and calls upon the President to revoke them.
13. Reaffirms that the State of California is open and welcoming to immigrants and refugees who are integral to the life of our state.

FISCAL EFFECT: None

COMMENTS: This resolution observes the 136th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 on May 6, 2018, notes the parallels between the Act and recent actions taken by the current presidential administration to exclude immigrants based on national origin, and declares the Legislature's opposition to three controversial executive orders on immigration enforcement that were issued by the president last year.

Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, the first U.S. law to restrict immigration and naturalization of a specific ethnic group based upon their national origin. The Act outlawed all Chinese immigration to the United States and denied citizenship to those Chinese who were 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 were left behind in China when they came to this country in order to work.

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 "legitimize[d] racism as national policy" but also set a precedent for broader exclusion laws and "fostered an atmosphere of hostility towards foreigners that would endure for generations." (Andrew Gyory, Closing the Gate: Race Politics and the Chinese Exclusion Act. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998.)

The ban on Chinese immigration was extended indefinitely in 1902, and was not repealed until Congress passed the Magnuson Act on December 17, 1943. Although the Act made Chinese Americans eligible for naturalization, Congress initially limited the number of Chinese immigrants who were allowed into the country to only 105 immigrants per year. (Asian Law Journal, December 2000.) According to one scholar of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Act marked the beginning of an era where, for political reasons, U.S. immigration policy became more exclusionary in nature.

Background on recent Executive Orders on immigration enforcement. On January 25, 2017, Executive Order (EO) 13767, titled "Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements," which is perhaps best known for proclaiming U.S. policy to secure the southern border of the United States through the immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border and directing the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to "immediately" take steps to plan, design, and construct a physical wall, as well as to construct and operate detention facilities to detain aliens at or near the border with Mexico, was issued. Among other things, Executive Order 13767 also directs the Secretary to: 1) allocate asylum officers and judges to detention facilities in order to conduct authorized removal proceedings; 2) ensure detention of aliens apprehended for violations of immigration law pending outcome of removal proceedings; and 3) hire 5,000 additional border patrol agents.

On the same date, January 25, 2017, Executive Order 13768, titled "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," was issued, which, among other things, would designate as a "sanctuary jurisdiction" any jurisdiction that refuses to exchange information, as required by Title 8 United States Code Section 1373, and would make such jurisdictions ineligible for federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes. On November 21, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California decided that this latter provision, making such jurisdictions ineligible for federal grants, was unconstitutional, and issued a permanent injunction blocking implementation of the order nationwide. The President has not, however, revoked or withdrawn Executive Order 13768 at the time of this analysis.

Finally, on September 24, 2017, the President issued Presidential Proclamation 9645, which imposes restrictions on immigrants and visitors from eight countries, and effectively takes the place of Executive Order 13780, the previous version of the President's so-called "Muslim travel ban," which had stalled while being challenged in the courts. The State of Hawaii subsequently filed suit to stop Proclamation 9645 from taking effect, arguing that that this most recent version of the "travel ban" unconstitutionally discriminates against Muslims and exceeds the President's powers over immigration. Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments of Hawaii's challenge to Proclamation 9645, and is expected to rule on the matter later this year.

This measure draws parallels between the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the recent Executive Orders that appear to single out certain groups for discrimination and exclusion. According to the author, the occasion of the 136^th Anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act gives us pause to look back at history and understand the danger of pursuing immigration policies that are based on discrimination against and exclusion of certain groups of immigrants based on their national origin, religion, or other protected factors.

This resolution is supported by immigrant advocates and civil rights groups, who also draw a connection between the ideology behind the Chinese Exclusion Act and the recent executive orders. For example, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) states:

While the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed in 1943, this stain on our nation's history serves as a painful reminder about the very real harmful effects of discrimination against an individual's ethnicity, race, or religious beliefs. Unfortunately, the current federal administration under President Trump is repeating the same mistakes from the past. The president has signed three executive orders that again put America on the wrong side of history. These executive orders are deeply alarming to communities of color across the country, as they suspend Muslim entry based on the implication that all Muslims are terrorists, and give broad powers to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, advocating for workplace raids, immediate deportations, and sweeps of homes of undocumented individuals. There is a direct link between the racial and religious animosity driving these executive orders and the Chinese Exclusion Act. AJR 36 calls on the President to do the right thing and repeal his executive orders, and return America to a country that celebrates diversity and welcomes immigrants and refugees who are integral to California, and the United States.

Accordingly, this measure observes the 136th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act "in recognition of the harm caused by racially discriminatory immigration measures" and states that "there is a direct link between the racial animus and religious intolerance exemplified by the Chinese Exclusion Act and President Trump's executive orders." This measure "condemns the expansion of deportations planned by the current presidential administration as well as its actions to exclude immigrants based on national origin and religion, which threaten to repeat the terrible injustices perpetrated by the Chinese Exclusion Act 136 years ago" and calls upon the President to revoke Executive Orders 13767, 13768, and 13780, as well as Proclamation 9645.

Analysis Prepared by: Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0002776

Date of Hearing: May 1, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AJR 36

Author:(Ting) – As Introduced Ver:March 19, 2018

As Proposed to be Amended

SUBJECT: 136TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT

KEY ISSUE: on the 136^th anniversary of the chinese exclusion act of 1882—the first u.s. law to ban immigrants based on their race and national origin—SHould the legislature declare its opposition to recent executive orders on immigration by president trump and urge him to revoke those orders?

SYNOPSIS

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first federal law that excluded a group of immigrants solely based on their race or nationality, and set an unfortunate precedent for racist foreign and national policies leading to broader exclusion laws and fostering an environment of racism in this country. In addition to banning all Chinese immigration to the United States, the Chinese Exclusion Act also denied citizenship to those Chinese who were already in the country. Originally set to expire in 1892, the Act was extended by Congress for another ten years (in the form of the Geary Act) and then made permanent in 1902. It remained in effect until it was finally repealed in 1943.

According to the author, the occasion of the 136th Anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act on May 6, 2018 gives us pause to look back at history and understand the danger of pursuing immigration policies that seek to exclude certain groups of immigrants based on their national origin, religion, or other protected factors. Proponents of the measure, including immigrant advocates and the California Historical Society, contend there are a number of parallels between the Act and three Executive Orders on immigration enforcement issued by the President last year. (These Executive Orders seek, among other things, to prohibit the entry of persons from predominantly Muslim countries into the U.S.; imposes restrictions on immigrants and visitors from eight predominantly Muslim countries; construct a border wall between Mexico and the U.S.; and hire thousands of new immigration enforcement and border patrol agents.) In particular, proponents caution that any proposed immigration policy to exclude immigrants based on national origin or religion threatens to repeat the past mistakes of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Accordingly, in addition to observing the 136^th anniversary of the Act, this measure also declares the Legislature's opposition to controversial executive actions on immigration enforcement taken by the President last year. Proposed technical amendments make findings about and express opposition to an additional September 2017 presidential proclamation seeking to replace an earlier executive order now held in the courts. There is no known opposition to this resolution.

SUMMARY: Observes the 136^th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, and declares the Legislature's opposition to recent executive orders on immigration enforcement. Specifically, this measure:

1. Finds that on May 6, 1882, President Chester A. Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act, the nation’s first law to prohibit immigration solely on the basis of ethnicity, and that the Act was renewed and later made permanent in 1902, preventing Chinese laborers from entering the United States, and denying Chinese a pathway to citizenship for more than 60 years.
2. Finds that subsequent legislation, such as the 1892 Geary Act that required all Chinese to register for and carry on their persons Certificates of Residence or risk imprisonment and deportation, set a precedent for the Muslim registry being promoted by President Trump today.
3. Finds that the Chinese Exclusion Act was based on racial hostility against Chinese, who were characterized as “unassimilable, vile heathens” and were blamed for lowering wages, taking away jobs, draining the economy, and endangering the American way of life.
4. Declares there is a direct link between the racial animus and religious intolerance exemplified by the Chinese Exclusion Act and President Trump’s executive orders, which attempt to ban the issuance of travel visas for citizens of certain majority-Muslim nations based on unestablished security risks and the implication that all Muslims are terrorists.
5. Finds that Executive Order 13780, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” and issued March 6, 2017, seeks to suspend the entry of all refugees under the U.S. Refugee Assistance Program for 120 days, and seeks to limit the number of total refugees accepted to just 50,000—half the number of refugees previously accepted under the Obama administration.
6. Finds that Presidential Proclamation 9645, issued September 24, 2017, to replace Executive Order 13780, continues to suspend entry of immigrants and some classes of nonimmigrants from several majority-Muslim countries, and calls for many of the same restrictions as Executive Order 13780.
7. Finds that Executive Order 13768, titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” and issued January 25, 2017, seeks to direct the Department of Homeland Security to hire 10,000 additional immigration enforcement officers, empower state and local law enforcement to perform functions of immigration officers, and to greatly expand the categories of people classified as priorities for removal, including those convicted of only minor crimes or simply charged but not convicted of a crime.
8. Finds that Executive Order 13767, titled “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements” and issued on January 25, 2017, calls for the construction of a wall along the southern border with Mexico estimated to cost $20 billion, the construction and operation of new immigration detention facilities near the border, and the hiring of 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents.
9. Declares that with the unanimous passage of Senate Resolution 201 by the United States Senate in 2011, and the unanimous passage of House Resolution 683 by the United States House of Representatives in 2012, both houses of Congress have condemned the Chinese Exclusion Act and affirmed Congress’ commitment to preserve the civil rights and constitutional protections for all people.
10. Calls upon all Members of the Legislature to join Asian and Pacific Islander communities throughout the state in marking May 6, 2018, as the 136th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, in recognition of the harm caused by racially discriminatory immigration measures and to honor the contributions of all immigrants and refugees who have enriched our communities.
11. Declares that the Legislature condemns the expansion of deportations planned by the current presidential administration, as well as its actions to exclude immigrants based on national origin and religion, which both threaten to repeat the terrible injustices perpetrated by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
12. Declares the Legislature's opposition to Executive Orders 13767, 13768, and 13780, and calls upon the President to revoke these executive orders.
13. Reaffirms that the State of California is open and welcoming to immigrants and refugees who are integral to the life of our state.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights, including enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (Section 1 of Article 1 of the California Constitution.)
2. Pursuant to the Unruh Civil Rights Act, provides that all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and specifically prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation with respect to accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind. (Civil Code Section 51.)
3. Pursuant to the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, provides that no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence, except as specifically provided [citations omitted]. (8 U.S.C. § 1152 (a).)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this measure is keyed non-fiscal.

COMMENTS: This resolution observes the 136th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 on May 6, 2018, notes the parallels between the Act and recent actions taken by the current presidential administration to exclude immigrants based on national origin, and declares the Legislature's opposition to three controversial executive orders on immigration enforcement that were issued by the president last year.

Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, the first U.S. law to restrict immigration and naturalization of a specific ethnic group based upon their national origin. The Act outlawed all Chinese immigration to the United States and denied citizenship to those Chinese who were 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 were left behind in China when they came to this country in order to work.

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 "legitimize[d] racism as national policy" but also set a precedent for broader exclusion laws and "fostered an atmosphere of hostility towards foreigners that would endure for generations." (Andrew Gyory, Closing the Gate: Race Politics and the Chinese Exclusion Act. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998.)

The ban on Chinese immigration was extended indefinitely in 1902, and was not repealed until Congress passed the Magnuson Act on December 17, 1943. Although the Act made Chinese Americans eligible for naturalization, Congress initially limited the number of Chinese immigrants who were allowed into the country to only 105 immigrants per year. (Asian Law Journal, December 2000.)

According to one scholar of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Act marked the beginning of an era where, for political reasons, U.S. immigration policy became more exclusionary in nature. Quoting from a recent article by writer Kat Chow:

Beginning in 1882, the United States stopped being a nation of immigrants that welcomed foreigners without restrictions, borders or gates. Instead, it became a ... gatekeeping nation," Erika Lee, a professor at the University of Minnesota, wrote in her book At America's Gates: Chinese Immigration During The Exclusion Era, 1882-1943. "In the process, the very definition of what it meant to be an 'American' became even more exclusionary." (Erika Lee, At America's Gates: Chinese Immigration During The Exclusion Era, 1882-1943. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003.)

The Chinese exclusion law was the very first time in American history that immigrants were barred because of their race and class. In 1882, when Congress passed the law, there were 39,600 men and women from China who arrived in the U.S. Just three years later, there were only 22, according to early records that Lee came across in her research.

The 1876 presidential race between Rutherford Hayes and Samuel Tilden was a major turning point in the country's stance on immigration. Leading up to the election, the race was so close and electoral votes were so coveted, it brought California's ongoing fight to push out Chinese immigrants to the national stage, Lee said. Many Californians worried that Chinese laborers would take their jobs, and that they were sexually lecherous threats to society. (Kat Chow, "As Chinese Exclusion Act Turns 135, Experts Point To Parallels Today." Accessed at: http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch /2017/05/05/527091890/the-135-year-bridge-between-the-chinese-exclusion-act-and-a-proposed-travel-ban.)

California's unfortunate role in promoting the Chinese Exclusion Act, and its subsequent apology for that role in 2014. In 2014, the Legislature passed SCR 122 (De Leon), Res. Ch.132, Stats. 2014, which acknowledged that California’s stance against the Chinese community in the late 1800's influenced the promotion and passage of the federal Chinese Exclusion Act. SCR 122 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 future racist foreign and national policies that led to broader exclusion laws and fostered an environment of racism that quickly led to the Jim Crow laws of the 1880s.

It should also be noted that in 1879, three years before Congress passed the federal Chinese Exclusion Act, California amended its state constitution to allow discrimination against Chinese persons. That year, California adopted Article XIX, titled "Legislature to Protect State From Certain Aliens” which 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 and 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.

SCR 122 (De Leon) provided the California Legislature's formal apology to the Chinese-American community for its role in the enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Laws and state constitutional provisions that legitimized discrimination against state residents of Chinese heritage.

Background on recent Executive Orders on immigration enforcement. On January 25, 2017, Executive Order (EO) 13767, titled “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements," which is perhaps best known for proclaiming U.S. policy to secure the southern border of the United States through the immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border and directing the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to "immediately" take steps to plan, design, and construct a physical wall, as well as to construct and operate detention facilities to detain aliens at or near the border with Mexico, was issued. Among other things, EO 13767 also directs the Secretary to: (1) allocate asylum officers and judges to detention facilities in order to conduct authorized removal proceedings; (2) ensure detention of aliens apprehended for violations of immigration law pending outcome of removal proceedings; and (3) hire 5,000 additional border patrol agents.

On the same date, January 25, 2017, Executive Order 13768, titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” was issued, which, among other things, directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) hire 10,000 additional immigration officers and to empower state and local law enforcement to perform functions of immigration officers; and (2) prioritize certain persons for removal, especially any person charged with or convicted of a criminal offense, any person who has committed acts that constitute a criminal offense, or any person who has "abused" a public benefit program. EO 13768 also seeks to designate as a "sanctuary jurisdiction" any jurisdiction that refuses to exchange information, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1373, and would make such jurisdictions ineligible for federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes. On November 21, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California decided that this latter provision, making such jurisdictions ineligible for federal grants, was unconstitutional, and issued a permanent injunction blocking implementation of the order nationwide. The President has not, however, revoked or withdrawn EO 13768 at the time of this analysis.

On January 27, 2017, Executive Order 13769, titled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States," but more commonly known as the purported "Muslim travel ban" was issued. On February 9, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the government's emergency motion for a stay of the lower court's temporary injunction against EO 13769, effectively affirming the injunction against the travel ban. Rather than appeal the decision of the Ninth Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court, the administration instead revoked EO 13769 and issued a revised version of the order, Executive Order 13780, on March 6, 2017.

EO 13780 seeks, among other things, to suspend entry into the U.S. of nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen (Iraq is excluded) for 90 days, subject to exceptions for (1) a person holding a valid visa or other document that permits travel in the U.S.; (2) a legal permanent resident (i.e. "Green Card" holder); (3) a foreign national granted asylum or a refugee already admitted into the U.S.; or (4) a person inside the U.S. at the time of this order. EO 13780 also seeks to suspend the entry of all refugees under the U.S. Refugee Assistance Program for 120 days, and seeks to limit the total number of refugees accepted into the U.S. to just 50,000—half the number of refugees previously accepted under the Obama administration.

Finally, on September 24, 2017, the President issued Presidential Proclamation 9645, which imposes restrictions on immigrants and visitors from eight countries, and effectively takes the place of Executive Order 13780, which had stalled while being challenged in the courts. The State of Hawaii subsequently filed suit to stop Proclamation 9645 from taking effect, arguing that that this most recent version of the President's so-called "travel ban" unconstitutionally discriminates against Muslims and exceeds the President's powers over immigration. Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments of Hawaii's challenge to Proclamation 9645, and is expected to rule on the matter later this year.

This measure draws parallels between the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the recent Executive Orders that appear to single out certain groups for discrimination and exclusion. According to the author, the occasion of the 136^th Anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act gives us pause to look back at history and understand the danger of pursuing immigration policies that are based on discrimination against and exclusion of certain groups of immigrants based on their national origin, religion, or other protected factors. The author states:

The Chinese Exclusion Act was a painful part of Chinese American history in this country that we cannot forget. The harsh reality of today is that we have a presidential administration that does not understand our nation’s history, and pursues senseless executive orders that discriminate against an individual based upon their national origin or religious beliefs. This resolution marks the 135th anniversary of the signing of the Chinese Exclusion Act but also serves to declare California’s opposition to these orders, and push every person to stay awake and act when injustices of the past are recycled by this administration.

There are a number of parallels between the Act and the executive actions on immigration enforcement issued earlier this year. Professor Erika Lee, according to Kat Chow in her article, above, points out the similarities:

Lee said that anti-immigrant measures in the 1880s — and today — were driven by both working-class people and elites, as well as those who had a "vested economic interest in border walls and detention centers." The Chinese Exclusion Act set the groundwork for immigrant detention centers and the country's first large-scale deportation of a single immigrant group. Specifically, the exclusion era brought an expansion of the federal government in terms of hiring more immigrant inspectors, whose responsibilities included working as interpreters and at the detention facilities.

As for today's parallel? Lee points to companies that are vying to build a U.S.-Mexico border wall, and the question of whether there will be more privately-owned immigrant detention centers under President Trump. Lee says that today's equivalent is the proposed so-called "Muslim ban," because it singles out specific groups of people for discrimination." The fact that we don't explicitly name Muslims [in the executive order] is more of a reflection of how our racial sensibilities have changed over the past 135 years, in terms of being more polite in our racism." (Chow, supra.)

This resolution is supported by immigrant advocates and civil rights groups, who also draw a connection between the ideology behind the Chinese Exclusion Act and the recent executive orders. For example, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) states:

While the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed in 1943, this stain on our nation’s history serves as a painful reminder about the very real harmful effects of discrimination against an individual’s ethnicity, race, or religious beliefs. Unfortunately, the current federal administration under President Trump is repeating the same mistakes from the past.

The president has signed three executive orders that again put America on the wrong side of history. These executive orders are deeply alarming to communities of color across the country, as they suspend Muslim entry based on the implication that all Muslims are terrorists, and give broad powers to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, advocating for workplace raids, immediate deportations, and sweeps of homes of undocumented individuals.

There is a direct link between the racial and religious animosity driving these executive orders and the Chinese Exclusion Act. AJR 14 calls on the President to do the right thing and repeal his executive orders, and return America to a country that celebrates diversity and welcomes immigrants and refugees who are integral to California, and the United States.

Accordingly, this measure observes the 136th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act "in recognition of the harm caused by racially discriminatory immigration measures" and states that "there is a direct link between the racial animus and religious intolerance exemplified by the Chinese Exclusion Act and President Trump’s executive orders." This measure "condemns the expansion of deportations planned by the current presidential administration as well as its actions to exclude immigrants based on national origin and religion, which threaten to repeat the terrible injustices perpetrated by the Chinese Exclusion Act 136 years ago" and calls upon the President to revoke Executive Orders 13767, 13768, and 13780. (Although EO 13780 has stalled in the courts and has been effectively replaced by Proclamation 9645, it has not been revoked.) Proposed author's amendments make findings about Proclamation 9645, and also call for its revocation by the President. The amendments are:

On page 2, line 28, insert:

WHEREAS, President Trump's Presidential Proclamation 9645, issued September 24, 2017 to replace Executive Order 13780, continues to suspend entry of immigrants and some classes of nonimmigrants from several majority-Muslim countries, and calls for many of the same restrictions as Executive Order 13780; and

On page 3, line 26, after "13780", delete "and calls upon the" and delete line 27, and insert: "and Presidential Proclamation 9645, and calls upon the President to revoke them; and be it further"

Previous related legislation. In addition to SCR 122 (De Leon) of 2104, the Legislature also passed SJR 23 (Huff and De Leon), Res. Ch. 134, Stats. 2014, which requested Congress to formally apologize to Chinese Americans for the enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and other similar discriminatory federal laws of that period.

ACR 42 (Fong and De Leon), Res. Ch. 79, Stats. 2009, expressed the Legislature’s regret for enactment of past discriminatory laws and constitutional provisions which resulted in the persecution of Chinese living in California, and affirmed its commitment to preserving the rights of all people and celebrated the contributions that all immigrants have made to California and the nation.

SCR 94 (Pan), Res. Ch. 77, Stats. 2016, finds that the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act on December 17, 1943, marks the date on which the United States expressed a commitment to break down cultural barriers and further racial, religious, and cultural tolerance, and acknowledges December 17 each year as an annual “Day of Inclusion” in recognition of the contributions of all immigrants to California and the United States.

AJR 14 (Ting), Res. Ch. 120, Stats. 2017, observed the 135^th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, and declared the Legislature's opposition to the President's controversial executive orders on immigration enforcement.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Historical Society

Chinese for Affirmative Action

Council on American-Islamic Relations

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334