Editing Chinese Exclusion Act (section)

== Repeal and status ==
The Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed by the 1943 [[Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act|Magnuson Act]] when China had become an ally of the US against Japan in [[World War II]], as the US needed to embody an image of fairness and justice. The Magnuson Act permitted Chinese nationals already residing in the country to become naturalized citizens and stop hiding from the threat of deportation. The act also allowed Chinese people to send [[remittances]] to people of Chinese descent living in mainland China, Macau, Hong Kong, and Taiwan and other countries or territories, especially if the funding is not tied to criminal activity. However, the Magnuson Act only allowed a [[National Origins Formula|national quota]] of 105 Chinese immigrants per year and did not repeal the restrictions on immigration from the other Asian countries. The crackdown on Chinese immigrants reached a new level in its last decade, from 1956 to 1965, with the [[Chinese Confession Program]] launched by the [[Immigration and Naturalization Service]], that encouraged Chinese who had committed immigration fraud to confess, so as to be eligible for some leniency in treatment.{{citation needed|date=January 2023}} Large-scale Chinese immigration did not occur until the passage of the [[Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965]].

The first Chinese immigrants who entered the United States under the Magnuson Act were college students who sought to escape the warfare in China during World War II and study in the US. The establishment of the [[China|People's Republic of China]] and its entry into the [[Korean War]] against the US, however, created a new threat in the minds of some American politicians: American-educated Chinese students bringing American knowledge back to "Red China". Many Chinese college students were almost forcibly naturalized, even though they continued to face significant prejudice, discrimination, and bullying. One of the most prolific of these students was [[Tsou Tang]], who would go on to become the leading expert on China and [[China–United States relations|Sino-American relations]] during the Cold War.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Liu |first=Qing |date=May 2020 |title=To Be an Apolitical Political Scientist: A Chinese Immigrant Scholar and (Geo)politicized American Higher Education |journal=History of Education Quarterly |volume=60 |issue=2 |pages=138–139 |doi=10.1017/heq.2020.10 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

Although the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed in 1943, the law in California prohibiting non-whites from marrying whites was not struck down until 1948, in which the [[Supreme Court of California|California Supreme Court]] ruled the ban of interracial marriage within the state unconstitutional in ''[[Perez v. Sharp]]''.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Chin, Gabriel |last2=Karthikeyan, Hrishi |year=2002 |title=Preserving Racial Identity: Population Patterns and the Application of Anti-Miscegenation Statutes to Asian Americans, 1910–1950 |journal=Asian Law Journal |publisher=Social Science Research Network |volume=9 |ssrn=283998}}</ref><ref>See ''[[Perez v. Sharp]]'', [http://online.ceb.com/CalCases/C2/32C2d711.htm 32 Cal. 2d 711] (1948).</ref> Some other states had such laws until 1967, when the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled in ''[[Loving v. Virginia]]'' that [[Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States|anti-miscegenation laws across the nation]] are unconstitutional.

Currently (as of December 2024), although all its constituent sections have long been repealed, Chapter 7 of [[Title 8 of the United States Code]] is headed "Exclusion of Chinese".<ref>{{Cite web |title=United States Code, Title 8, Chapter 7 |url=https://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title8/chapter7&edition=prelim |access-date=1 January 2021 |publisher=[[Office of the Law Revision Counsel]]}}</ref> It is the only chapter of the 15 chapters in Title 8 (Aliens and Nationality) that is completely focused on a specific nationality or ethnic group. Like the following Chapter 8, "The [[Coolie|Cooly]] Trade", it consists entirely of statutes that are noted as "Repealed" or "Omitted".

On June 18, 2012, the [[United States House of Representatives|US House of Representatives]] passed {{USBill|112|H.Res.|683}}, a resolution introduced by Congresswoman [[Judy Chu]] which formally expresses the regret of the House of Representatives for the Chinese Exclusion Act.<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 8, 2012 |title=H.Res. 683 (112th) |url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hres683 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120912094248/http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hres683 |archive-date=September 12, 2012 |access-date=August 9, 2012 |website=GovTrack.us |quote=Expressing the regret of the House of Representatives for the passage of laws that adversely affected the Chinese in the United States, including the Chinese Exclusion Act.}}</ref> {{USBill|112|S.Res.|201}}, a similar resolution, had been approved by the [[United States Senate|US Senate]] in October 2011.<ref>{{Cite news |date=19 June 2012 |title=US apologizes for Chinese Exclusion Act |url=http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2012-06/19/content_15512469.htm |work=[[China Daily]]}}</ref>

In 2014, the California Legislature took formal action to pass measures that formally recognize the accomplishments of Chinese Americans in California and to call upon Congress to formally apologize for the 1882 adoption of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Senate Republican leader Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar) and incoming Senate president pro-Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) served as joint authors for Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 23<ref name="CA-SJR-23">{{cite California statute|year=2014|chapter=134|page=|title=Senate Joint Resolution No. 23 – Relative to Chinese Americans in California|ex=|res=true|HR=|direct-url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SJR23}}</ref> and Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 122,<ref name="CA-SCR-122">{{cite California statute|year=2014|chapter=132|page=|title=Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 122 – Relative to Chinese Americans in California|ex=|res=true|HR=|direct-url=http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SCR122}}</ref> respectively.<ref>{{Cite web |date=August 19, 2014 |title=Legislature Recognizes the Contributions of Chinese-Americans & Apologizes for Past Discriminatory Laws |url=http://huff.cssrc.us/content/legislature-recognizes-contributions-chinese-americans-apologizes-past-discriminatory-laws |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160726085122/http://huff.cssrc.us/content/legislature-recognizes-contributions-chinese-americans-apologizes-past-discriminatory-laws |archive-date=2016-07-26 |publisher=California State Senate Republican Caucus}}</ref>

Both SJR 23 and SCR 122 acknowledge and celebrate the history and contributions of Chinese Americans in California. The resolutions also formally call on Congress to apologize for laws that resulted in the persecution of Chinese Americans, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act.<ref name="CA-SJR-23" /><ref name="CA-SCR-122" />

Perhaps most important are the sociological implications for understanding ethnic/race relations in the context of American history; minorities tend to be punished in times of economic, political, and/or geopolitical crises. However, times of social and systemic stability tend to mute any underlying tensions between different groups. In times of societal crisis—whether perceived or real—patterns of retractability of American identities have erupted to the forefront of America's political landscape, often generating institutional and civil society backlash against workers from other nations, a pattern documented by Fong's research into how crises drastically alter social relationships.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fong |first=Jack |date=April 2008 |title=American Social 'Reminders' of Citizenship after September 11, 2001: Nativisms in the Ethnocratic Retractability of American Identity |url=http://www.qualitativesociologyreview.org/ENG/Volume9/QSR_4_1_Fong.pdf |journal=Qualitative Sociology Review |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=69–91 |doi=10.18778/1733-8077.4.1.04 |s2cid=142233949}}</ref>