Xi Jinping Is Not Stalin
How a Lazy Historical Analogy Derailed Washington’s China Strategy
RACIAL antagonism resembles justice in one respect if in no other: it may sleep but it never dies. The conflict of color is resurgent in the Dominions of the British Empire where Asiatic immigration is still a problem, and in the Crown Colony of Kenya where Hindus, Britishers and blacks are agitated over "racial equality." It is resurgent in the United States, whether in the case of the negro, the Indian, or the Japanese. In a domestic sense, the Oriental problem in the United States is relatively unimportant. Contrasted with ten million negroes and 250,000 Indians, there are less than 150,000 Japanese in the United States. But from the international standpoint the problem may become one of considerable magnitude. The Japanese cannot be called an "inferior" people as is done with the Indians and the negroes; and they, alone of the color groups in this country, are represented by a sensitive and powerful government abroad.
Agitation of some sort against the Japanese in this country has recurred from time to time ever since 1900. President Roosevelt believed he had brought it to an end when he negotiated the Gentlemen's Agreement of 1908. President Wilson did penance for it when he consented to the Lansing-Ishii agreement of 1917 and allowed Japan to secure Shantung at the Paris Peace Conference. Undoubtedly President Harding hoped that the Washington Conference would dissipate all the misunderstandings between the two great powers of the Pacific.
Nevertheless the anti-Japanese agitation continues on the Pacific Coast, under the leadership of the Exclusion League and the American Legion. It is becoming aggressive in and about Seattle, a neighborhood which hitherto has been comparatively sympathetic with the Oriental. It has appeared in other parts of the State of Washington where, because of the anti-alien policy of the Department of the Interior, Japanese farmers have been unable to renew their leases of public lands. It has cropped out in the Utah, Idaho and Montana legislatures where anti-Japanese legislation has been debated. It is an endless theme in Hawaii, where the Labor Commission appointed by President Harding protested recently against the "menace of alien domination." It has appeared in Congress, where exclusion bills are pending.
Diplomats, rear-admirals, and big business men are about the only persons in this country, or for that matter in Japan, who worry about the Open Door, naval bases, spheres of influence and railway rates in China. From the popular standpoint, the most important factors in the Oriental problem concern immigration and the treatment of Japanese in the United States--questions which the Washington Conference did not attempt to solve. The people of the Pacific Coast are indifferent to the disposition of the salt mines of Shantung. But they become very disturbed over Japanese "picture" and kankodan brides, and the Japanese birth rate in California. The people of Japan do not care a great deal whether the Bonin Islands are fortified. But they become greatly incensed when they hear of "racial insults" to Japanese in the United States.
A Japanese cannot become naturalized in this country as can a European. Congress has never passed a law expressly barring Japanese from naturalization, as it has done in the case of the Chinese; it has merely limited that privilege to "free white persons" and to negroes. But in November, 1922, the Supreme Court definitely ruled that free white persons meant only Caucasians, that the Japanese were not Caucasians, and that there was no evidence that Congress intended to make Japanese eligible to citizenship.[i] The Japanese are now confronted with the unpalatable fact, laid down in unmistakable terms by the highest court in the land, that we consider them unfit to become Americans.
We have justified the policy of naturalizing only "free white persons" on the ground that the "colored" races cannot comprehend democratic institutions or assimilate themselves in other ways to American life. Perhaps this theory, so dear to the Nordic idolators, is sound. But we disavowed it when we granted the franchise to the negro. And today we repeatedly disavow it when we admit to citizenship swarthy settlers from the Near East, Mexicans, and Parsees. Under the 14th Amendment, every child born in this country is an American citizen, regardless of the color of his skin or of that of his parents. A Japanese alien, even if he has lived here for forty years, cannot become a citizen if he wants to. But a Japanese child born here becomes one whether he wishes to or not. Obviously, it is absurd to deny citizenship to Japanese aliens on the ground of race when we force it upon their children.
Awake to this inconsistency, leaders in the anti-Japanese movement propose a constitutional amendment which would exclude from American citizenship children of parents themselves ineligible. But such an amendment would violate the historic belief of this country that children born under our institutions can comprehend their purpose sufficiently well to exercise the duties of citizenship. By creating an increasing number of alien residents such an amendment would aggravate rather than remedy the Japanese problem. It would create a dangerous precedent which the South might use in an attempt to extend the principle to the negro.
While Japanese born in this country automatically become citizens of the United States, they also are citizens of Japan. The Japanese Civil Code declares: "A child is a Japanese if his or her father is a Japanese at the time of his or her birth." To the uninformed, there is something sinister about Japan's claim of allegiance from Japanese wherever they may be born. Yet this rule of jus sanguinis is followed by most of the countries of Europe and by several countries in South America. The Japanese Government has attempted to solve the problem of dual citizenship by the Expatriation Law of 1916, which allows Japanese born abroad, under certain conditions, to lose Japanese citizenship. But if application for expatriation is not made until after the age of seventeen the Japanese cannot lose his nationality without first returning home and performing the required military service. An increasing number of Japanese children born in this country are becoming expatriated, through their guardians, before the age of seventeen. But there seems to be no justification for the restriction imposed on those over this age. As long as the restriction exists, Japan's motives are likely to be questioned.
Discriminations of more practical importance than ineligibility to citizenship have been imposed on the Japanese by many western states. The Pacific Coast is particularly alarmed at the inroads which the Japanese have made into agriculture. Within the last ten years, the acreage under Japanese cultivation in California has increased between 300 and 400 per cent. Although the Japanese control only about three per cent of the farm land of the state they practically monopolize the vegetable business. Few white farmers today engage in truck farming. And whatever the cause for the rural exodus may be, the presence of Japanese competitors of a low standard of living, willing to work twelve or fourteen hours a day, is no incentive for the American to go back to the land.
In order to stop the invasion of agriculture, California, Washington and Arizona have passed anti-alien land laws. In 1913 California enacted a law, against the wishes of President Wilson, which denied to aliens ineligible to citizenship any rights in regard to real property which were not granted by the Treaty of 1911 between the United States and Japan--except the right to lease land for three years. As the Treaty of 1911 was a treaty only of commerce and navigation, and not of agriculture, this meant that Japanese could not purchase land for farming purposes. Nevertheless, the law offered little protection to the American farmer, because Japanese could still lease land in unlimited amounts, subject to renewal every three years. This led to the passage of an initiative measure in 1920, which abolished the right to lease land and prohibited several means which the Japanese had used to evade the 1913 law.
In 1921 the legislature carried the anti-Japanese program further by passing a law placing the fifty-six Japanese language schools in California under state control. It also amended the school law so as to allow communities to establish separate schools for Japanese. Under this authority, half a dozen school districts have established separate schools or classrooms for Japanese children. In 1923 the legislature passed a bill which abolished the language schools altogether. But it was vetoed by Governor Richardson for constitutional reasons. A law was also passed prohibiting Japanese from making "croppage contracts." In such contracts the landlord allows the Japanese to cultivate the land in return for a half (or some such portion) of the crop. By means of croppage contracts the Japanese continued to stay on the farms, despite the laws of 1913 and 1920 prohibiting ownership and leases. In addition to prohibiting croppage contracts, the legislature passed two resolutions calling on Congress to prohibit Japanese immigration and advocating a constitutional amendment withholding citizenship from Japanese born in the United States. It is probable that the Exclusion League will place several initiative measures on the ballot at the next election, one prohibiting Japanese from engaging in the fishing business, which they now control, and a second prohibiting Japanese language schools in a manner that will conform, if possible, to the Supreme Court decision of June 4, 1923
Except for the time in 1906 when the distinguished Japanese scientist, Dr. F. Omori, was besieged with tomato cans by a gang of hoodlums in San Francisco, very little violence has been used against the Japanese on the Pacific Coast. However, a close approach to it occurred in the summer of 1921 when fifty-eight Japanese laborers were deported from the melon fields of Turlock because they had under-bid American "fruit tramps." No violence was employed because the Japanese offered no resistance. During the past year isolated attempts have also been made to burn Japanese houses and blackmail Japanese farmers.
Responsible anti-Japanese leaders have opposed the use of violence. Nevertheless, the anti-Japanese movement in the West has not stopped merely with repressive legislation. Fantastic charges in regard to emperor worship, Japanese "spies" and super-governments in California are widely circulated, and anti-Japanese novels such as Peter Kyne's "Pride of Palomar" are printed serially in the newspapers. Attempts of American denominations to build churches and community centers for Japanese congregations in Los Angeles, Hollywood, and Long Beach have been defeated under pressure of anti-Japanese leaders. When the agitation in regard to the proposed Japanese church in Hollywood was at its height, a yellow dodger was circulated to this effect:
You came to care for our lawns--
We stood for it.
You came to work truck gardens--
We stood for it.
You sent your children to our public schools--
We stood for it.
You moved a few families in our midst--
We stood for it.
You propose to build a church in our neighborhood--
We didn't and won't stand for it.
You impose more on us each day until you have gone your limit.
We don't want you with us so, get busy, Japs, and move out of Hollywood!
At Rose Hill signs such as these have been displayed: "Japs: Don't Let the Sun Set on You Here. Keep Moving! This is Rose Hill." If attacks of this character continue, violence would seem to be the logical result.
On June 5, 1923, the Japanese American Relations Committee of Tokyo, of which Viscount Eiichi Shibusawa is chairman, issued a statement saying that the treatment of Japanese in America is "so grave that it may endanger our international relations and welfare." In order to pave the way for a solution of the problem, the Committee made this proposal: Let the two governments of Japan and America appoint a Joint High Commission consisting of a certain number of representatives of the two nations to study the question of Japanese immigrants in America. It shall be the duty of the Commission to examine the whole question with the utmost care and frankly to exchange their views; to investigate the real causes of misunderstanding and discord; to consider methods for the fundamental and permanent solution of the entire question; and to report their findings and specific recommendations to the respective governments, and also to the public of both countries.
Anti-Japanese leaders on the Pacific Coast are naturally opposed to this suggestion. They regard the problem as purely American, the major facts of which are known. They are afraid that the American members of such a commission would not be Westerners, and would lack information and a proper point of view.
At the same time, a number of these leaders have agreed to cooperate in an Oriental survey, now being undertaken under the auspices of the Committee on Social and Religious Surveys of New York City, which is an outgrowth of the Interchurch World Movement. Professor Robert E. Park of the University of Chicago is in charge of this survey, and he is being advised and assisted by five regional groups on the Pacific Coast, including Vancouver. These groups contain representatives of local Chambers of Commerce, organized labor, the Exclusion League, the American Legion, and religious organizations whenever they agree to participate. The survey is thus becoming a very important cooperative affair. It will study every aspect of Japanese, Chinese, and Hindu life in America. Particular care is being taken to prevent it from becoming propagandist in nature. It will not recommend a policy, but will merely present an impartial and authoritative summary of the facts. If this survey is completed as planned its chief importance will lie in the fact that it will have succeeded in bringing together factions which hitherto have had no ground in common.
Another bright spot in the situation is the work for the Japanese carried on by the churches. There are one hundred and sixty-seven Christian missions and churches for the Japanese on the Pacific Coast, with a membership of 5,390. In Los Angeles two denominations have combined to erect a Japanese Union church which is an outstanding achievement in Oriental assimilation. Out of the $100,000 put into this church, $65,000 was raised by Japanese. Despite a vigorous anti-Japanese campaign in Seattle, the Board of Education has turned over an old school building for the use of a Japanese congregational church; and the Japanese have been asked to contribute $10,000 to the Community Chest. The California Federation of Churches is outlining a program of Christian internationalism in which it hopes to educate the people of the state as to American relations with the Orient.
The churches do not believe in opening up the gates to Oriental immigration; but they realize that the future relations of the United States and the Orient will be determined very largely by the attitude of the Pacific Coast.
That the Japanese have responded to the advances made to them is shown by the recent appointment of six Americans as advisory members of the Japanese Association of America, and also by 2,000 replies to a questionnaire sent out to the second generation of Japanese in America by Dr. Paul Waterhouse, a religious worker among the Japanese. Nearly 1,600 of these replies were from children under fifteen years, whose answers were of little value as far as their opinions were concerned. But these replies showed that practically all of these children were attending American public schools and nearly two-thirds were attending some Protestant Sunday school. Thirty-five per cent gave their religion as Christian, and nineteen per cent as Buddhist; the remainder gave no answer. About 350 replies were received from Japanese between the ages of fifteen and twenty-two, or about forty per cent of the Japanese of that age born in California. About all of this number had attended American grammar schools; fifty-one per cent were attending high school or planning to attend; fifty per cent planned to go to college. One-half of this number said they were Christians, while one-fifth were Buddhists. Seventy-seven per cent of those who answered the questionnaire did not wish to follow their father's occupation.
Despite the efforts of the churches to assimilate the Japanese to some aspects of American life, the mass of the people and the government agencies in the different states along the Pacific Coast will have nothing to do with any such movement. Many people will admit that it is possible to raise the standard of living of the Japanese and thus to decrease their birth rate. Others admit that assimilation is possible in other ways, provided that further immigration is rigidly prohibited. But the vast majority of the people on the Pacific Coast will have nothing to do with Americanization work for the Oriental because of the belief that it will be misconstrued in other parts of the country either to mean that they favor Oriental immigration or the present means of restricting it.
The avowed purpose of the leaders in this new anti-Japanese campaign is to make it so uncomfortable for the Japanese now living here that they will "voluntarily" return to Japan. Needless to say, the campaign in this respect has failed. Japanese laborers in America are willing to put up with almost any treatment as long as they earn a living here which is inconceivable in the Orient.
Constitutional objections may also stand in the way. In November, 1923, the Supreme Court of the United States finally decided that the anti-alien land laws violated neither the treaty of 1911 with Japan nor the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It also decided that a state has the power to prohibit croppage contracts by which Japanese had evaded the purpose of the land laws. The Supreme Court justified this legislation on the ground that "the population living on and cultivating the farm lands might come to be made up largely of ineligible aliens," which would threaten the security of the state. Whatever the legal objections to these decisions may be, their political effect will be to increase the anti-Japanese agitation on the Pacific Coast, because the leaders of this agitation will now believe that there are no constitutional limitations upon oppressive anti alien legislation.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court a few years ago laid down the doctrine that once the Federal Government admits an alien into this country, he acquires the right to earn a living which the state can not impair.[ii] The courts have also declared unconstitutional the provision in the 1920 land law in California prohibiting a Japanese alien from acting as the guardian for his child born in America, as well as alien poll taxes and laws prohibiting foreign language schools.[iii] In the so-called Whites Point case, the Superior Court of Los Angeles county handed down a very interesting decision (July 9, 1923) in which it ruled that the treaty of 1911 permitted Japanese in this country to lease land "for the purpose of a health resort and a sanatorium" --a decision which constituted a decided defeat for the Exclusion League.
Despite the land law decisions, the Supreme Court will surely put a check on legislation impairing more fundamental privileges, and aimed to drive the Japanese out of the country.
But even if the anti-Japanese laws are rigorously enforced they will not solve America's Japanese problem. They will merely transfer the Japanese from the farms to the cities. Because of the campaign to "Keep California White," this rural exodus has already begun. According to the Bureau of Licenses, the number of Japanese entering business in Los Angeles has increased about twenty-five per cent within the last two years. It is reported that the Japanese have put a million dollars into the oil fields on Signal Hill. Japanese competition in industry is likely to prove more harmful to American labor than if the Japanese remained on the farms where white labor is scarce.
As a matter of fact, the anti-Japanese legislation has retarded the assimilation of the Japanese. The land laws have literally forced the Japanese to become tramps. Naturally they have no incentive to erect permanent homes and to develop land from which they may be ejected in a few years by the owner. The bitter campaigns which accompany the passage of anti-Japanese legislation, in which poor berry hucksters are held responsible for all the sins of the Imperial Government, make the adjustment of the Oriental to American life more difficult than ever.
On several occasions, these campaigns have severely strained the diplomatic relations between Japan and the United States. In 1906 the Japanese Government protested vigorously against proposed school segregation in San Francisco. In 1913 it protested bitterly against the California land law. It should be noted that the present attitude of the Japanese Government is more restrained than it has been in the past. Today the treatment of the Japanese on the Pacific Coast is much more discriminatory and oppressive than it was in 1906 or in 1913. But no public protest has been made by Japan since 1913, apart from the informal address of Ambassador Hanihara last May. Nevertheless, the diplomatic aspect of the controversy is by no means ended. If Japan is silent, it is the calm before the storm. It is impossible to believe that the two great powers of the Pacific can live together in permanent peace if this agitation continues indefinitely.
Back of the whole anti-Japanese movement in America is the belief that Japanese immigration to this country is increasing. Every anti-Japanese election in California has been a protest against further immigration; and many Californians believe that the state can make its protest felt throughout the country as a whole only by enacting laws of a "pin-pricking" nature. In 1906 there were 93 Japanese out of 25,000 school children in San Francisco. Nevertheless, the city school board passed an ordinance which prohibited Japanese from attending the general public schools--an ordinance creating an international scene. The politicians of San Francisco were not concerned by the presence of these 93 Japanese in the schools; but they were concerned by the great number of Japanese laborers who were flooding the city. That immigration was the real issue was proved by the fact that the school ordinance was withdrawn as soon as President Roosevelt promised to stop immigration from Hawaii and to negotiate the Gentlemen's Agreement.
This agreement did not take the form of a treaty, much less of a law. Apparently it is based only on an exchange of notes whose text has not been printed to this day. In the report of the Commissioner-General of Immigration for 1908 a summary of this "understanding" was made: the Japanese Government promises to issue passports only to Japanese non-laborers going to the United States and to those laborers who wish to "resume a formerly-acquired domicile, to join a parent, wife, or child residing there, or to assume active control of an already possessed interest in farming enterprises in this country."
Ever since this agreement was negotiated Japanese have been accused of evading it and entering this country in wholesale batches. The agreement says that those Japanese who wish to join "a parent, wife, or child residing there" may enter. But it says nothing about joining a husband. Nevertheless, the Japanese Government issues passports to wives for the purpose of joining a husband in the United States. And until recently it issued passports to thousands of "picture brides," who were married by proxy in Japan and who never saw their "husbands" --Japanese laborers--until they arrived in America. So great was the protest on the Pacific Coast against this means of evading the agreement and against the unmorality of this type of marriage that the Japanese Government voluntarily promised not to issue passports to picture brides after February, 1920.
But Japanese laborers in America are still being supplied with wives called kankodan brides. The Japanese Government has extended the time in which Japanese may visit Japan for the purpose of securing such a bride, without performing military service, from thirty to ninety days. According to advertisements appearing in the Japanese American News and the Japanese New World in February, 1922, "peace excursion parties" have been organized to secure cheap passage for Japanese going home for this purpose.
There is nothing particularly infamous about a man wanting to get a wife. And if the Japanese are estopped from seeking Japanese brides, they will look about for Americans, which is the last thing the Exclusion League desires. Nevertheless, the California Board of Health statistics show that the birth rate of Japanese women in California is three times that of the white. In 1908 the excess of Japanese births over deaths was 24; in 1921 it was 4,379. Forty-three per cent of the Japanese mothers in California have more than three children. Under the Gentlemen's Agreement, there is absolutely no limitation upon the number of Japanese women laborers who may enter this country, as long as they are accompanied by a husband who has a residence here.
It has also been charged that a Japanese who has smuggled himself into this country across the Canadian or Mexican border may secure a certificate from a local Japanese association, certifying that he has a legal residence in the United States. He presents this certificate to the Japanese consulate, which in turn authorizes him to bring relatives into this country or gives him permission to visit Japan and then return, with or without a bride. By this means, he converts an illegal into a legal residence here, and proceeds to bring in a family when he has no business to be here himself.
It is impossible to tell to what extent the Gentlemen's Agreement has been evaded or how rigidly it has been enforced. A great number of statistics have been produced by both sides, none of which are convincing. Nevertheless, 10,675 Japanese entered the United States under the Gentlemen's Agreement in 1921 and 8,981 entered in 1922. If the three per cent immigration quota now applied to other immigrants were applied to the Japanese, only two or three thousand could enter the United States annually.
The Gentlemen's Agreement is defective not so much because of these figures but because the sole responsibility for enforcing it lies upon Japan. American immigration officials must accept every passport issued to Japanese coming to this country. In case they believe that a Japanese is not entitled to enter the United States they can do nothing but ask the State Department to make a diplomatic protest to Japan. In reviewing these cases, the hearing and the decision are ex parte: Japan, and Japan alone, determines in each individual case what Japanese shall come to our shores. This is a privilege which we grant to no other nation in the world. The Japanese Government perhaps has been absolutely sincere in restricting passports to the United States. But under this type of restriction there is always the possibility of fraud or of misinterpretation. The Gentlemen's Agreement is psychologically defective. As long as it regulates the entrance of Japanese into the United States the people of the Pacific Coast will not be persuaded that Japanese immigration has been stopped, and they are likely to vent their dissatisfaction by passing more pin-pricking laws.
No mere tinkering with the Gentlemen's Agreement, even to the extent of limiting the number of Japanese women entering the country, will overcome its fundamental weakness, i.e., Japan's sole responsibility for enforcement. The extension of the "percentage" plan (on the basis of the 1890 census) to the Japanese would be virtually an exclusion measure and one that would be non-discriminatory. But this method of limiting immigration is already attacked by capital, and if Congress is induced to let down the bars in order to admit a greater percentage of European laborers the question of Japanese immigration would at once again arise.
A Japanese exclusion law, similar to that now excluding Chinese, would be as bad as the Gentlemen's Agreement. By violating the racial sensitiveness of the Japanese people, it would have very serious diplomatic consequences which every President since Roosevelt has attempted to avoid. Largely for this reason, anti-Japanese leaders no longer speak of an old-fashioned Japanese exclusion law. But they now demand the exclusion by law of all immigrants "not eligible to citizenship."
This proposal was introduced in the last Congress by the House Committee on Immigration; and in November, 1923. Senator Shortridge informed Secretary of State Hughes that the California members of Congress would reintroduce such legislation in the coming Congress. While such a proposal is more politely worded than an exclusion law applying deliberately to the Japanese, it has all the defects of such a law. Every general immigration bill introduced in Congress since 1911 has originally provided for the exclusion of immigrants ineligible to citizenship; but such a clause has always been omitted out of respect for the racial sensibilities of the Japanese people. The last example of this was in the Immigration Law of February 5, 1917, which omitted these delicate words from its final draft and substituted instead a "barred zone" clause, excluding immigrants living within certain degrees of latitude and longitude, but not including Japan. If the proposal now pending in Congress should be enacted, the conciliatory work of the Washington Conference might be entirely destroyed.
There is nothing to be said in favor of the immigration of Japanese laborers into the United States. If unrestricted, it would wipe out American standards of living, eventually reduce us to the economic level of the Oriental, and implant an alien and half-breed race on our soil which might make the negro problem look white. But the best means of enforcing the exclusion of Japanese immigration is not through the Gentlemen's Agreement, nor through an exclusion law, but through an exclusion treaty.
There are always two parties to a treaty; its terms are arrived at by mutual discussion, agreement, and understanding. Such a treaty should not only provide for exclusion but it should also provide that Japanese born in the United States and permanently living here should be automatically released from Japanese allegiance. Such a treaty would place the responsibility for enforcing exclusion as much upon the United States as upon Japan. In such a treaty some provision should be made to prevent the hardships which have arisen in the administration of the Chinese exclusion laws and other restrictive legislation. Japanese emigrants should not be allowed to cross the Pacific to America only to be turned back by American immigration officials. The determination whether or not a Japanese comes within the "exempt" classes should be made by American consular or immigration officials in Japan, working in coöperation with Japanese authorities.
A treaty embodying these principles would prohibit effectively future Japanese immigration and would thus go far in allaying anti-Japanism on the Pacific Coast. Many anti-Japanese leaders would agree to such a treaty, as far as its exclusion provisions are concerned; but they do not believe it would be acceptable to Japan. If the terms of this treaty were made reciprocal, this defect would to a certain extent be removed. It should apply to Americans wishing to go to Japan and to Japanese wishing to come to America, with the customary exceptions of tourists, students, etc. The Japanese Government has already agreed to the necessity of exclusion by entering into the Gentlemen's Agreement. But it is improbable that it will ever consent to a treaty of this character unless the discriminatory legislation now imposed on Japanese in the United States is repealed. America has an obligation toward its present Japanese population which it cannot ignore. This population is here at our invitation and under our laws. It is therefore entitled to the same treatment we accord other immigrant groups. It is probable that the Pacific Coast would voluntarily give up most of its discriminatory legislation and its anti-Japanese agitation if it were convinced that exclusion was really being enforced. The agitation against the Chinese in California died out following the passage of the Chinese Exclusion laws. Probably the Japanese Government would agree to an exclusion treaty if it were assured that these discriminations and this agitation would come to an end. Such assurance could be given in the treaty, simply by guaranteeing to Japanese residents in the United States most-favored-nation treatment in all civil rights. Such a treaty should also make Japanese residents eligible to citizenship. They are just as qualified to become citizens as dozens of other groups whom we admit. Their children born here are already citizens. No possible danger could come from giving the vote to a few additional thousand Japanese--if they pass the naturalization tests--provided future immigration is stopped.
A treaty embodying these provisions would satisfy our demand for exclusion and Japan's demand for racial equality. It would establish the principle that the segregation of races of different color is necessary, as far as laboring masses are concerned, not because of racial inferiority but because of racial difference. And it would prove to the Japanese that we really mean what we say, because it would grant Japanese lawfully in this country the same treatment we grant Europeans.
[i]Ozawa v. the United States, 260 U. S. 178 (Nov. 13, 1922).
[ii]Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33.
[iii]In re Yane, Calif. Dec., No. 3348, p. 520; Ex parte Terui, 200 Pac. 954; Meyer v. Nebraska, cited.