User:Charlie Thorn 302/sandbox

The Act was the first legislature which prohibited entry to an immigrant based on race and class, in this way it facilitated further restriction by both being the model by which future groups could be radicalized as unassimilable aliens, and by also marking a moment where such discrimination could be justifiable. The act's method of 'Radicalizing' the Chinese as a threat to Americas' values and working class, 'containing' the danger by limiting their social and geographic mobility, and 'defending' America through expulsion became the foundation of Americas 'Gate keeping' ideology. The 1924 Immigration act placed quotas on all nationalities apart from northwest Europe, this could be seen as building off the gate-keeping ideology established with the Chinese exclusion act; Public perceptions of many immigrant groups such as southern and eastern Europeans in the late 19th and early 20th century had become one of 'undesirability' when compared to those with Anglo-Saxon heritage, this was due largely to popular nativity attitudes and accepted racialism. In this way, the restriction of these groups by 1924 compared to their north western 'desirable' counterparts could be seen to be carrying on the discrimination by perceived racial inferiority of immigrants that started with the Chinese exclusion act.

The Chinese Exclusion Act affected the US economy substantially, the departure of many skilled and unskilled Chinese workers led to an across-the-board decline, Mines and manufacturers in California, where the majority of Chinese immigrants resided, closed and wages did not climb as anticipated. furthering this the value of agricultural produce declined due to falling demand reflective of the diminished population. Joaquin Miller remarked in 1901 that since the Chinese departure, property value in Californian cities had remained at a standstill and capital investment had been hesitant.

The racial concerns the Exclusion Act drew justification from were along the lines of a perceived 'moral deficiency' of Chinese immigrants, this charge stipulated the inherent unreliability and dishonesty of the immigrants on behalf of their race. These assumptions of character were frequently assigned on behalf of the poor communities these immigrants lived in with higher density, higher crime, saloons and opium dens. This is however not an exhaustive list of charges brought against Chinese immigrants, many more assumptions were made such as them bringing leprosy to US shores. Some of the main proponents of this racialism were Irish immigrants in the West, the reason for this was that although granted entry under the Naturalization Act of 1790 as a free 'white' people, the large numbers of immigrants from Europe starting in the 1840's created a situation where different white ethnicities were being made out to be more or less desirable compared to Anglo-Saxons. In such a way the Celtic Irish in the east faced similar racialism at the hands of nativists, being categorized as 'dirty', 'drunken', and 'animalistic papists'. In this way, under Denis Kearney and the Workingman's Party, many Irish immigrants who had migrated westward sought to shore up their 'whiteness' and redirect stereotypes about themselves by stressing the undesirability of the Chinese, non-white immigrants.

Key to the transformation of Chinese immigration from a Californian to a national question was the political climate in 1876. This year was an election year and was exceedingly close with both parties looking to the West Coast for aid in the coming election, it was through this that Californian politicians were able to project their concerns with Chinese immigration eastward into discourse in the capital. Before 1876, Californian legislators had made various attempts to restrict Chinese immigration by targeting Chinese businesses, living spaces and the ships immigrants arrived on by way of ordinances and resultant fines, but such legislation was deemed unconstitutional through its violation of either the Burlingame treaty, The 14th Amendment or the Civil Rights Act. In light of such failures, It became clear that the issue had to be solved by the federal government. For Californian politicians advocating against Chinese immigration, therefore, the close political competition in 1876 provided a good opportunity to propel their cause from a state issue to a national issue. The idea was that the desire for West Coast votes would compel the political parties to adopt policies to appeal to Californian voters, by making known the heavy anti-Chinese sentiment in California, Californian anti-Chinese legislators could influence political parties into adopting an anti-Chinese immigration rhetoric. This influence was conducted in a manner of ways; Firstly, throughout the spring many well-publicized anti-Chinese demonstrations were held, such as in San Francisco on April 5th which saw 20,000 people attend. Secondly, on April 3rd, the California State Senate authorized an investigation on the effects of Chinese immigration on the state's culture and economy, with the findings to be sent to 'leading newspapers of the United States' and 5 copies for each member of Congress. Furthering these measures was the sending of a delegation of 3 politicians by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to cities in the east to express anti-Chinese sentiment to crowds (and later newspapers). Members of this delegation Philip Roach and Frank Pixley talked about the economic threat Chinese 'coolie' labour posed, but also on the perceived racial incompatibility and inferiority of Chinese immigrants, driving up fears and anxieties in other states. These remarks also found their way to senate hearings, such an example can be seen on May 1st: Republican Aaron A. Sargent, the senior senator for California, addressed the senate with a vicious attack on Chinese immigration before they voted on treaty negotiations with China. The result of these efforts, among others, culminated in the overwhelming support of anti-Chinese policies by both political parties observed in their respective conventions in June. It is for these reasons then that the election year of 1876 was instrumental in changing the question of Chinese immigration from a state to a national question; The competitive political atmosphere allowed a calculated political attempt to nationalize California's Immigration grievances, as such leaders across the country (whose concerns with the benefits or ill of Chinese-labour were second to winning votes) were compelled to advocacy for anti-Chinese sentiment.

User:Charlie Thorn 302/sandbox