Naturalization

Item set

• Legalizing Whiteness: What Asian American Legal History Tells Us About Citizenship in the Early 20th Century (2025)
  This teaching module explains how the Supreme Court determined Asian American legal standings in the early 20th century through the lens of and priority toward whiteness.
• Naturalization Act of 1790
  The Naturalization Act of 1790 had important legal and political implications in the Early Republic. An emerging racial hierarchy was reflected in the determinations of who was allowed to become a citizen. The act specified that any free white person who had resided in the U.S. for two years could be admitted to become a citizen, provided they were a "person of good character" according to a court of law.
• Naturalization Act of 1798
  This is one of four acts known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Acts. These acts, passed by a Federalist-controlled Congress, applied restrictions to immigration and speech in the U.S. They were highly controversial and contributed to the Federalist defeat in the election of 1800. The Naturalization Act increased the residency requirement for citizenship from 5 to 15 years and the notice time from 3 to 5 years. While passed with the aim of protecting national security, it also decreased the number of new citizens and voters who disagreed with the Federalists.
• 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution (1868)
  The Fourteenth Amendment gave citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States and ensured equal protection of the laws for all persons. The writers intended the amendment to support the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which mandated that all citizens were entitled to equal protection under the law, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of slavery. The amendment has since been used to support civil rights and justify the expansion of rights across marginalized groups. The Equal Protection Clause is among the most litigated parts of the Constitution, meaning that many court cases are decided based on interpretations of the 14th Amendment. The amendment was passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified July 9, 1868.
• Naturalization Act of 1870
  The 1870 Naturalization Act extended paths to United States citizenship for people of African descent while excluding Chinese immigrants.
• Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
  The Chinese Exclusion Act barred Chinese immigrants from entering the U.S. with exceptions granted for merchants, students, or diplomats. The passage of this law marked the beginning of the Exclusion Era where race-based immigration restrictions barred Asian people from immigrating to the United States. Further restrictions were placed on Chinese immigration with the Scott Act (1888) which stipulated that Chinese laborers who left the U.S. would be unable to return. Chinese immigrants faced deportation upon arrival.
• Naturalization Act of 1906
  The Naturalization Act of 1906 continued the racial prerequisite of whiteness for naturalization from the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1870, while adding an English literacy requirement. This act created the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization and provided specific guidance for the naturalization process, including standardizing documentation. This act also required knowledge of the English language. As a part of the racial prerequisite, the new standardized documentation made applicants identify both their race and complexion.
• In re Najour (1909)
  This is among the first in a series of racial prerequisite cases that challenged the eligibility of West, South, and East Asian immigrants for naturalization. The Naturalization Act of 1790 specified that only "free white persons" could naturalize, leading to judicial decisions that defined "whiteness" for naturalization purposes. The judge in this case determined that being from the Ottoman Empire alone was not enough to disqualify Najour from naturalization.
• In re Halladjian et al. (1909)
  In this case, a Massachusetts circuit court ruled that people from West Asia were so intermixed with Europeans that the Armenian plaintiffs should be considered white and admitted to U.S. citizenship.
• United States v. Balsara (1910)
  This case is one of the racial prerequisite cases in which the courts decided on the definition of "whiteness" as it relates to the Naturalization Act of 1790. In this case, the court ruled that Parsis were included in "the white race, as distinguished from the black, red, yellow, or brown races." Bhicaji Balsara, a Parsi man who immigrated from India, was deemed eligible for citizenship as a Caucasian, per the 19th century racial classification. In U.S. v. Thind (1923), the Supreme Court rejected such ethnological classifications, defining "whiteness" as what is "commonly recognized as white" in the U.S.
• Ex Parte Shahid (1913)
  Faras Shahid's naturalization was challenged on the basis of whiteness and English literacy. As in other naturalization cases debating the race of West Asian immigrants, the court determined that Shahid was white, but ruled against his naturalization because he could not speak English and lacked understanding of the American government.
• Dow v. United States (1915)
  In this case, a U.S. appellate court ruled that Syrian immigrant George Dow could be considered white and was eligible for citizenship. This decision came seven years before the Supreme Court ruled that migrants from Japan and India were not white enough to be eligible for citizenship.
• Alien Naturalization Act of 1918
  This act incentivized enlistment in the U.S. armed forces to immigrants in exchange for naturalization and citizenship without the declaration of intent or proof of five years' residence requirements.
• Ozawa v. United States (1922)
  The Supreme Court found in Ozawa v. United States that Japanese immigrants were not eligible for naturalization, based on a contested category of whiteness. The case considered the meaning of "free white persons" from the 1906 Naturalization Act and whether factors like assimilability should be considered. While the court determined in Ozawa that the words "white person" were meant to indicate a person of the "caucasian race," the decision in U.S. v. Thind just months later stated that the word "caucasian" was meant to refer to the "common understanding" of race and not a scientific one.
• United States v. Thind (1923)
  In this case, the Supreme Court determined that Indian immigrants were not eligible for naturalization, based on a contested category of whiteness. Contradicting their ruling in Ozawa v. U.S. (1922) naming Caucasian identity as a requirement for naturalization, Punjab immigrant Bhagat Singh Thind was deemed ineligible for citizenship because despite being racially Caucasian, as a South Asian immigrant, he did not appear white.
• United States v. Cartozian (1925)
  In this case, the District Court of Oregon debated whether an Armenian immigrant was white enough to be naturalized. Just two years after the Supreme Court ruled that Ozawa, a Japanese man, and Thind, a South Asian man, were not white enough for naturalization, the Oregon court ruled that people from Asia Minor were close enough to European descent to be naturalized.
• Honorably Discharged Alien Soldiers (1932)
  This Idaho law allowed immigrants who served in the U.S. armed forces to petition for citizenship without the declaration of intent or proof of five years' residence requirements, as specified by the Alien Naturalization Act of 1918. This law indicates legal recognition and benefits extension to veterans in terms of citizenship, military service, and civil rights.
• In the Matter of the Petition of Timoteo Andrade to be Admitted a Citizen of the U.S.A. (1936)
  Timoteo Andrade was an immigrant from Mexico who arrived in the United States in 1915. In 1922, he began the naturalization process to become as a citizen as xenophobic tensions surrounding Mexican immigration in the U.S. flared. On his declaration of intention to naturalize, Andrade identified his race as Spanish and nationality as Mexican, while on his petition for citizenship, he listed his race as Mexican. During his naturalization interview, he stated that he was "fifty per cent Indian blood," which resulted in his naturalization being denied in 1935. The Mexican Consulate formally appealed the judge's decision in Andrade's case and two others'. Andrade's mother was interviewed and provided testimony regarding the lack of "Indian blood" in her son's ancestry, and in 1936, he was granted citizenship. Timoteo Andrade's case is a significant example of how Mexican Americans were not readily accepted by the U.S. majority, and how immigrants continued to question the U.S. government's definition of "whiteness." The Andrades' answers to questions about their race demonstrate a difficulty in separating race and nation as they attempt to conform to the racial ideology in the U.S. at the time.
• Alien Fiancées and Fiancés Act (1946)
  Also known as the G.I. Fiancée Act, this law expanded the provisions of the 1945 War Brides Act to include foreign-born fiancées, with the stipulation that they marry within three months of entering the U.S. Under this act and a 1947 extension, Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino spouses who would otherwise not have been able to immigrate due to strict quotas on Asian immigration were allowed to immigrate to the U.S.
• Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
  Also known as the McCarran–Walter Act, this act retained the national origins quotas for controlling immigration, but granted immigration quotas to all countries and removed racial restrictions for naturalization. The act introduced immigration preferences for skilled and educated workers, still in place today.
• Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
  The Immigration and Nationality Act, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, amended the 1924 Immigration Act to remove immigration quotas based on country of origin. This act started the categorization of refugees, but continued the U.S. pattern of defining refugees by geography or politics, and not adopting United Nations terminology.