Skip to main content

Alien Land Laws

Item set

Following the abolition of slavery after the Civil War, the United States turned to China to recruit cheap laborers. Quickly, white supremacy overtook the popular desire for cheap labor and xenophobia against Chinese immigrants soared. Later, this same xenophobia spread to Japanese immigrants. Further, the Naturalization Act of 1790 limited the ability to naturalize to only "free white persons." This racial requirement remained part of the law until the 1950s. East Asian immigrants were not classified as white, so they were unable to naturalize. Alien land laws targeted these Chinese and Japanese laborers and prevented them from owning land, and sometimes limited the period of time families could stay on the same land.

Items

  • Asian Immigrants' Fight Against Discriminatory Alien Land Laws (2025)
    This module examines the history of anti-Asian/Japanese alien land laws in the 1920s United States, focusing on one lawsuit by Chinese immigrant Lum Jung Luke that brought down Arkansas' Alien Land Act.
  • Arkansas Declaration of Rights (1874)
    This excerpt from the Declaration of Rights in the 1874 (and current) Arkansas State Constitution contains the language prohibiting the distinction between resident aliens and citizens in regard to property.
  • California Alien Land Law (1913)
    California's 1913 alien land law barred Japanese immigrants who were ineligible for citizenship from legally purchasing residential or agricultural property. The law was continued and expanded in 1920. California was one of many states to enact alien land laws during the era of Asian exclusion, when Asian immigrants were ineligible for citizenship.
  • Nebraska Alien Land Law (1921)
    This law barred noncitizens (aliens) from owning land in the state of Nebraska by putting a five-year limitation on holding all leases, titles, or comparable documents. It was a direct attack on Japanese immigrants with businesses or farms as a result of growing anti-Asian sentiment. Family members of aliens who had acquired land prior to 1889 were only allowed to hold the land for ten years. Any businesses working within the state, not just those originating from it, were required to have a board of directors or trustees of which a majority were citizens.
  • Arkansas Alien Land Act (1925)
    This act was passed by the Arkansas General Assembly in 1925 to restrict the ability of aliens ineligible for citizenship to acquire, possess, enjoy, use, cultivate, occupy, and transfer real property, or any interest therein," unless specified in treaties.
  • Lum Jung Luke's Deed of Transfer (1926)
    This deed of transfer between Lum Jung Luke (spelled Luke Lum Jung) and the Harrison Lumber Company was filed while the Chancery Court decision on Arkansas' alien land law was still pending.
  • Lum Jung Luke and E. M. Allen v. C. E. Yingling and H. W. Applegate (1926)
    Lum Jung Luke and his business partner, E. M. Allen, applied for an injunction against Arkansas Attorney General H. W. Applegate and prosecutor C. E. Yingling, who had threatened to begin an escheat proceeding (the process of transferring assets to the state) against Lum due to his status as an alien ineligible for citizenship. Chancery Judge A. L. Hutchins ruled in Lum's favor, not only enjoining the attorney general, but also striking down the Alien Land Act of 1925 as "unconstitutional and void."
  • Applegate v. Luke (1927)
    After the Phillips County Chancery Court struck down Arkansas' Alien Land Act of 1925 as unconstitutional, Attorney General H. W. Applegate appealed the case to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Justice T. H. Humphreys upheld the lower court's ruling, arguing that the alien land law violated Section 20 of the the Declaration of Rights in the State Constitution.
  • Morrison v. California (1934)
    California's alien land law prevented "aliens ineligible for citizenship" from owning or using land without demonstrating their immigration status. This case debated whether Doi, the Japanese man who used the land, or Morrison, the man who owned the land, were responsible for determining Doi's citizenship eligibility. The court ruled that the land law's provision that placed the burden of proving citizenship on Morrison violated due process. It also stated that allegations of conspiracy based on one person's ineligibility for citizenship did not suffice to convict both people without evidence of shared knowledge.