Talk:Page Act of 1875

Unconsitutional?
Wouldn't this law be Unconstitutional, since the Framer's original intent was the open borders they enjoyed and the only purpose of this is discrimination on gender and ethnic grounds? Mikelieman (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Factors that influenced the creation of the Page Act
I am concerned about this source: Abrams, Kerry (April 2005). "Polygamy, Prostitution, and the Federalization of Immigration Law". Columbia Law Review. 105 (3): 641–716, as cited in this article.

This secondary source is inadequate to support the assertion on this page, citing Abrams, that "The California State Legislature assumed that Chinese men were forced to work under long-term service contracts, when in reality immigrants to America were not coolies, but borrowed money from brokers for their trip and paid the money back plus interest through work at their first job.[9]"

In my opinion, this statement must be supported by primary source materials or should be removed.

This is a statement of much gravity in that it distinguishes 19th-century Chinese laborers to the US from "coolie" laborers in other parts of the world on the basis of consent. The pernicious problem of lack of consent was one of the various issues addressed in the Page Act, which, on its face, criminalized the indenture of Asian workers "without their free and voluntary consent." Further, it appears to contradict a subsequent statement in this article that describes "poor Chinese girls that were being sold or tricked into prostitution."

In light of rich, new scholarship in this area, I would love to see this page opened up to welcome new authors, editors, and sources. TalResearch (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

"Coolies" who aren't "coolies"?
Under the heading "Factors that influenced the creation of the Page Act", the second sentence of the first paragraph states "The California State Legislature assumed that Chinese men were forced to work under long-term service contracts, when in reality immigrants to America were not coolies, but borrowed money from brokers for their trip and paid the money back plus interest through work at their first job. (emphases mine) The source for this assertion is a reference in a journal that is not available on-line to the general public ("Polygamy, Prostitution, and the Federalization of Immigration Law"; Columbia Law Review, 105 [3]: 641–716). However, the Wiki on "Coolie" states that the definition of "coolie" is precisely that : "''Some of these laborers signed contracts based on misleading promises, some were kidnapped and sold into the trade, some were victims of clan violence whose captors sold them to coolie brokers, while others sold themselves to pay off gambling debts. For those who did sign on voluntarily, they generally signed on for a period of two to five years. In addition to having their passage paid for, coolies were also paid under twenty cents per day, on average. However, over a dollar would be taken from them every month in order to pay off their debts. This indentureship was a way for Europeans to create the illusion of 'free' labor while still keeping the benefits of slavery" and "The coolie-slave trade run by American captains and local agents and mainly consisting of debt slavery..." (emphases mine) So it appears to me that the assertion that "...in reality (Chinese) immigrants to America were not coolies...''" is not supported by definition or logic. I would ask that someone with significant knowledge of the subject clarify this, and provide a relevant and authoritative source accessible for free on-line, or that the assertion be removed. Bricology (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)