Melissa Diaz
History 209S
15 February 2016
The 1907 Expatriation Act
The 1907 law was used to legalize the entitlement that American men felt for collective wealth and American women. In January of 1908, The Washington Post printed an article that claimed that the “American Nation [had] lost $900,000,000” in foreign marriages in the last decade. In response to this, Representative Sabath of Chicago introduced a bill that would tax the dowries, settlements or property that were traditionally transferred to foreign husbands in a marriage. Representative Sabath had read that the “recent financial panic was, in part, precipitated by the savings which the foreign-born laborers, returning to Europe, were taking.” Contrary to the narrative of the time, Congress Sabath conducted research and found that the recent immigrants still brought in a net “positive gain,” which he contrasted with the loss America experienced when women married foreigners.
The article went on to list the names of over twenty women and their foreign citizen husbands to illustrate the financial loss they cost America. The names on the list revealed the demographics of the publicly shamed couples. The women who married foreign husbands were Americans of European origin, and their husbands were European nobility. In addition to the loss of “American” wealth, American men probably felt threatened by the fact that women were marrying foreign princes and dukes. It is important to know whether the foreign marriages were arranged by family members, or whether women entered these marriages by choice. The women’s movement in the early 1900s contributed to the increase in female autonomy. Arranged marriages were generally in a decline, and although it is difficult to know whether the individuals on the list acted on their own free will, the general tension over the loosening of patriarchal control over American women in marriage matters contributed to legislation similar to the bill in question. Since the demographics of the twenty-two couples were so specific, it would be logical to consider whether the political leaders of the time had this protective mentality with African American, Mexican, or Chinese American women.
The Congressman claimed that American men were good enough for women, and that Americans made “them happy, something foreigners [did] not.” His passing reference to the happiness of women is overgeneralized and unsupported by evidence. Compared to the care he took when conducting research to find the savings that immigrants brought in, it is clear that Congressman Sabath was not concerned with the feelings of women. The Congressman concluded that if American men could not have "our" women, then "foreigners" could not have them either. This article showed that the wealth of individual women was seen as a collective American wealth that was not to be relinquished to non-American men. Female control over who received their wealth threatened the position of American men in society as the providers and recipients of wealth. His emphasis on possession and betrayal is closely tied to the punitive measures taken by Congress just a year before. The logic here is that women who betray do not deserve American “benefits,” which include American men, and American citizenship.
Challenges to the Expatriation Act of 1907
Ethel Coope was born in Redwood City, California in 1885. Although she lost her citizenship when she married Gordon Mackenzie in 1909, Ethel Coope was active in the women’s suffrage movement in California. When she was unable to register as a voter, she took her case to court, and ended up at the Supreme Court. She argued that she was a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that “neither the government not the individual can terminate [citizenship] without the concurrence of the other.” Citing the landmark citizenship case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which ruled that a child of foreigners born on US land was automatically a citizen, Mackenzie argued that a mere statute could not override the Constitutional right to citizenship by birth. The Supreme Court ruled against her, stating that the “intention of Congress was solely to legislate concerning the status of citizens abroad and the questions arising by reason thereof.” The Supreme Court decided that Ethel Mackenzie had entered into the marriage voluntarily and with notice of the consequences, therefore she had decided to expatriate herself.
The Court employed arguments of protection and tradition in defending the legal power of husbands in marriage. Although Judge McKenna neglected to consider the cases cited by Mackenzie because it would make the opinion “very voluminous,” he found that the core of the cases dealt with the principle of identity within marriage. He argued that historically, the status of men and women in marriage was “neither accidental or arbitrary, and worked in many instances for her protection.” Out of necessity and family unity, it was originally meant to merge their interests and give dominance to the husband. Judge McKenna acknowledges that “there has been…much relaxation of it,” but still argued that the retention of the merging of identities in marriage was crucial to international policy. Judge McKenna refused to seriously consider the points and cases raised by Mackenzie, and instead relied on notions of historical continuity and tradition.
The Case of Louise de Haven-Alten:
…
The defense of women like Ethel Mackenzie and Louise de Haven-Alten relied heavily on arguments that emphasized the victimhood of white women and undermined the citizenship claim of foreign women marrying American men. In his historical account of the battle for women’s independent citizenship rights that was submitted to Congress, Congressman John L. Cable of Ohio exposed the injustice of laws like the Expatriation Act by analyzing the respectability of wealthy white American women over foreign wives. His examples of injustice centered on privileges that generally only wealthy women could enjoy. Cable argued that if a woman’s “alien husband” refused to naturalize, she would remain without citizenship for the remainder of the relationship, which would mean that she could “neither inherit or buy real estate.” Cable said that these expatriated women could not practice medicine or hold government office, since those positions were restricted to American citizens. He told the story of a woman born New York “of American parents” who, after attending law school and passing the bar exam, was unable to practice law because she had married a Dutch national. Cable’s inclusion of the fact that the young woman’s parents were also American showed that perhaps if she came from an immigrant family, although she was American-born, she would not have garnered as much sympathy and support from American society. It is clear that Cable was defending women from this injustice who fit a certain profile; perhaps because of his own prejudices or his understanding of society’s nativist ideas of what it means to be American, Cable portrayed wealthy women from American families as victims.
Cable juxtaposed the injustice faced by wealthy white women to the ease with which foreign born women acquired citizenship through American husbands. Cable found that the law did not consider the “mental, moral, or physical fitness” of a foreign born wife when they extended American citizenship. He emphasized the absurdity of the fact that a foreign wife who could not speak or read English, attaining automatic citizenship. In this comment, it is clear that the demographics of women he is targeting are distinct from the foreign noble men primarily from England and Scotland that Representative Sabath was targeting in his statement. The reference to non-English speaking wives invokes a sense of superiority of American wives, in part because of the status of the English language, and because of the undesirability of immigrants from non-English speaking countries during that time. Cable goes on to say that “indeed, it made no difference whether she could read at all,” the foreign wife would get citizenship despite “all her other shortcomings.” Here, Cable invokes an element of inferiority from an implied lower class and lack of education of foreign wives. Cable worked within American concepts of who is the ideal citizen to undermine the assumption that coverture in the context of citizenship is for the benefit of American society.
History 209S
15 February 2016
The 1907 Expatriation Act
The 1907 law was used to legalize the entitlement that American men felt for collective wealth and American women. In January of 1908, The Washington Post printed an article that claimed that the “American Nation [had] lost $900,000,000” in foreign marriages in the last decade. In response to this, Representative Sabath of Chicago introduced a bill that would tax the dowries, settlements or property that were traditionally transferred to foreign husbands in a marriage. Representative Sabath had read that the “recent financial panic was, in part, precipitated by the savings which the foreign-born laborers, returning to Europe, were taking.” Contrary to the narrative of the time, Congress Sabath conducted research and found that the recent immigrants still brought in a net “positive gain,” which he contrasted with the loss America experienced when women married foreigners.
The article went on to list the names of over twenty women and their foreign citizen husbands to illustrate the financial loss they cost America. The names on the list revealed the demographics of the publicly shamed couples. The women who married foreign husbands were Americans of European origin, and their husbands were European nobility. In addition to the loss of “American” wealth, American men probably felt threatened by the fact that women were marrying foreign princes and dukes. It is important to know whether the foreign marriages were arranged by family members, or whether women entered these marriages by choice. The women’s movement in the early 1900s contributed to the increase in female autonomy. Arranged marriages were generally in a decline, and although it is difficult to know whether the individuals on the list acted on their own free will, the general tension over the loosening of patriarchal control over American women in marriage matters contributed to legislation similar to the bill in question. Since the demographics of the twenty-two couples were so specific, it would be logical to consider whether the political leaders of the time had this protective mentality with African American, Mexican, or Chinese American women.
The Congressman claimed that American men were good enough for women, and that Americans made “them happy, something foreigners [did] not.” His passing reference to the happiness of women is overgeneralized and unsupported by evidence. Compared to the care he took when conducting research to find the savings that immigrants brought in, it is clear that Congressman Sabath was not concerned with the feelings of women. The Congressman concluded that if American men could not have "our" women, then "foreigners" could not have them either. This article showed that the wealth of individual women was seen as a collective American wealth that was not to be relinquished to non-American men. Female control over who received their wealth threatened the position of American men in society as the providers and recipients of wealth. His emphasis on possession and betrayal is closely tied to the punitive measures taken by Congress just a year before. The logic here is that women who betray do not deserve American “benefits,” which include American men, and American citizenship.
Challenges to the Expatriation Act of 1907
Ethel Coope was born in Redwood City, California in 1885. Although she lost her citizenship when she married Gordon Mackenzie in 1909, Ethel Coope was active in the women’s suffrage movement in California. When she was unable to register as a voter, she took her case to court, and ended up at the Supreme Court. She argued that she was a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that “neither the government not the individual can terminate [citizenship] without the concurrence of the other.” Citing the landmark citizenship case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which ruled that a child of foreigners born on US land was automatically a citizen, Mackenzie argued that a mere statute could not override the Constitutional right to citizenship by birth. The Supreme Court ruled against her, stating that the “intention of Congress was solely to legislate concerning the status of citizens abroad and the questions arising by reason thereof.” The Supreme Court decided that Ethel Mackenzie had entered into the marriage voluntarily and with notice of the consequences, therefore she had decided to expatriate herself.
The Court employed arguments of protection and tradition in defending the legal power of husbands in marriage. Although Judge McKenna neglected to consider the cases cited by Mackenzie because it would make the opinion “very voluminous,” he found that the core of the cases dealt with the principle of identity within marriage. He argued that historically, the status of men and women in marriage was “neither accidental or arbitrary, and worked in many instances for her protection.” Out of necessity and family unity, it was originally meant to merge their interests and give dominance to the husband. Judge McKenna acknowledges that “there has been…much relaxation of it,” but still argued that the retention of the merging of identities in marriage was crucial to international policy. Judge McKenna refused to seriously consider the points and cases raised by Mackenzie, and instead relied on notions of historical continuity and tradition.
The Case of Louise de Haven-Alten:
…
The defense of women like Ethel Mackenzie and Louise de Haven-Alten relied heavily on arguments that emphasized the victimhood of white women and undermined the citizenship claim of foreign women marrying American men. In his historical account of the battle for women’s independent citizenship rights that was submitted to Congress, Congressman John L. Cable of Ohio exposed the injustice of laws like the Expatriation Act by analyzing the respectability of wealthy white American women over foreign wives. His examples of injustice centered on privileges that generally only wealthy women could enjoy. Cable argued that if a woman’s “alien husband” refused to naturalize, she would remain without citizenship for the remainder of the relationship, which would mean that she could “neither inherit or buy real estate.” Cable said that these expatriated women could not practice medicine or hold government office, since those positions were restricted to American citizens. He told the story of a woman born New York “of American parents” who, after attending law school and passing the bar exam, was unable to practice law because she had married a Dutch national. Cable’s inclusion of the fact that the young woman’s parents were also American showed that perhaps if she came from an immigrant family, although she was American-born, she would not have garnered as much sympathy and support from American society. It is clear that Cable was defending women from this injustice who fit a certain profile; perhaps because of his own prejudices or his understanding of society’s nativist ideas of what it means to be American, Cable portrayed wealthy women from American families as victims.
Cable juxtaposed the injustice faced by wealthy white women to the ease with which foreign born women acquired citizenship through American husbands. Cable found that the law did not consider the “mental, moral, or physical fitness” of a foreign born wife when they extended American citizenship. He emphasized the absurdity of the fact that a foreign wife who could not speak or read English, attaining automatic citizenship. In this comment, it is clear that the demographics of women he is targeting are distinct from the foreign noble men primarily from England and Scotland that Representative Sabath was targeting in his statement. The reference to non-English speaking wives invokes a sense of superiority of American wives, in part because of the status of the English language, and because of the undesirability of immigrants from non-English speaking countries during that time. Cable goes on to say that “indeed, it made no difference whether she could read at all,” the foreign wife would get citizenship despite “all her other shortcomings.” Here, Cable invokes an element of inferiority from an implied lower class and lack of education of foreign wives. Cable worked within American concepts of who is the ideal citizen to undermine the assumption that coverture in the context of citizenship is for the benefit of American society.
Outline
Introduction:
Historical Context:
BEFORE 1907
- Disagreement over whether american women lost citizenship when married to foreign men but between 1866 and 1907 courts decided that they couldn't lose citizenship.
- Rising immigration
- Scientific racism
The Expatriation Act: 1907-1922
- Some men refused to naturalize after 1907 leaving their wives as non-citizens as well.
• Congressional motivations
- Anti-miscegenation, racial fears, the case of Japanese men
- Labor and nativist arguments
- Fortune loss, marriage of rich white women to white foreigners
- Effects on women,
- Who did this law really affect?
- Tension between intent and effect
- Challenges to the Act
- Supreme Court case: Mackenzie v Hare, the ways class and race and “Americanness” made her defense successful, even though the Supreme Court ruled against her.
- The case of Louise de Haven-Alten: The way wealth and ties to American heritage and history allowed her to be successful in regaining citizenship
- based on nationality of husband
- Case of Louise Comacho: How class and respectability and the nationality and criminality of her husband affected her deportation defense.
The Cable Act, 1922
- Ohio Representative John L. Cable
- female citizenship only if husband eligible for citizenship, still barred Asian immigrants.
Conclusion
No comments:
Post a Comment