The California Alien Land Law of 1913(also known as the Webb-Haney Act) prohibited "aliens ineligible forcitizenship" from owning agricultural land or possessing long-term leases over it, but permitted leases lasting upto three years.[1]It affected theChinese,Indian,Japanese, andKorean immigrant farmersinCalifornia.Implicitly, the law was primarily directed at the Japanese. It passed thirty-five to two in the Senate and seventy-two to three in the Assembly and was co-written by attorneyFrancis J. Heneyand California state attorneygeneralUlysses S. Webbat the behest ofGovernor Hiram Johnson.Japan'sConsul General Kametaro Iijimaand lawyerJuichi Soyedalobbied against the law.[2][3][4]In a letter to theUnited States Secretary of State, theJapanese government via the JapaneseMinister of Foreign Affairscalled the law “essentially unfair andinconsistent… with the sentiments of amity and good neighborhood which have presided over the relationsbetween the two countries,” and noted that Japan felt it was “in disregard of the spirit of the existing treatybetween Japan and the United States.” The law was meant to discourage immigration from Asia, and to createan inhospitable climate for immigrants already living in California.[5][6][7]California Alien Land Law of 1920[]TheCalifornia Alien Land Law of 1920continued the 1913 law while filling many of its loopholes. Amongthe loopholes filled were that the leasing of land for a period of three years or less was no longer allowed;owning of stock in companies that acquired agricultural land was forbidden; and guardians or agents ofineligible aliens were required to submit an annual report on their activities. The 1920 Alien Land Law waspassed in reaction to the intensification of anti-Japanese sentiment, and to the fact that the 1913 Alien Land Lawwas doing little to stem Japanese immigration to California. The law was approved by the voters after beingproposed by theCalifornia State Legislature. It passed with a vote of 668,438 to 222,086. The 1920 law wasamended in 1923 to further fill wording-related loopholes.[5][7]Related court cases[]In 1923, the laws were upheld in theUnited States Supreme Courtand were determined not to be in violation oftheFourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[5]The 1946Supreme Court of CaliforniacasePeople v. Oyamareaffirmed the 1923 decision, determining thatJapanese immigrant Kajiro Oyama had attempted to evade the Alien Land Laws by purchasing farmland that heplaced in the name of his son, who was a U.S. citizen. In fact, Oyama’s petition to be named as his son’sguardian in order to have authority over the land had been approved by a local court.
California Alien Land Law of 1920[]TheCalifornia Alien Land Law of 1920continued the 1913 law while filling many of its loopholes. Amongthe loopholes filled were that the leasing of land for a period of three years or less was no longer allowed;owning of stock in companies that acquired agricultural land was forbidden; and guardians or agents ofineligible aliens were required to submit an annual report on their activities. The 1920 Alien Land Law waspassed in reaction to the intensification of anti-Japanese sentiment, and to the fact that the 1913 Alien Land Lawwas doing little to stem Japanese immigration to California. The law was approved by the voters after beingproposed by theCalifornia State Legislature. It passed with a vote of 668,438 to 222,086. The 1920 law wasamended in 1923 to further fill wording-related loopholes.[5][7]Related court cases[]In 1923, the laws were upheld in theUnited States Supreme Courtand were determined not to be in violation oftheFourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[5]The 1946Supreme Court of CaliforniacasePeople v. Oyamareaffirmed the 1923 decision, determining thatJapanese immigrant Kajiro Oyama had attempted to evade the Alien Land Laws by purchasing farmland that heplaced in the name of his son, who was a U.S. citizen.
The Alien Land Laws were invalidated in 1952 by the Supreme Court of California as a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution in Sei Fujii v. California.[14] Fujii was a longtime Los Angeles resident, but was not a U.S. citizen. He alleged that the law violated the California and United States Constitutions, and that it also went against the spirit of the United Nations Charter to which the United States was bound by treaty. The California District Court of Appeal had decided in 1950 that the Alien Land Law was in violation of Articles 55 and 56 of the United Nations Charter. The Supreme Court of California then ordered the case transferred for hearing and settlement, as it was determined to be a sufficiently important question of law.[15][16]
选择“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
选择“don't run on pages on this domain”
