Symbolic acts are important and more important that some of the other stuff they do. I remember when I worked in Japan, I knew a Japanese telephone operator kept President George H. W. Bush’s moving apology to Japanese-Americans posted on her wall. That was what America meant to her.
Nanfeng Chuang in July had an article by Xuexi Shibao (Study Times) Deng Yuwen :” Why We Need to Repent” discussing articles by former Red Guards deeply regretting the terrible things that they did, and remarking how very many people harmed by the Cultural Revolution go to court and try to sue. What they are really looking for is an apology. Chinese culture for many Chinese is not about a god or ultimate concerns so there seems a certain lack in Chinese culture of the idea of repentence. The article ends we need to be able to confess/repent/apologize for the sake of our people and our country.
This article was also picked up in the August Xinhua Yuebao pp. 54 – 55, adding a photo of Wily Brandt kneeling in December 1970 at the monument to the Jews killed in the Warsaw ghetto.
作者：邓聿文 来源：南风窗 日期：2011-07-15 浏览：1069
S. Res. 201
Whereas many Chinese came to the United States in the 19th and 20th centuries, as did people from other countries, in search of the opportunity to create a better life for themselves and their families;
Whereas the contributions of persons of Chinese descent in the agriculture, mining, manufacturing, construction, fishing, and canning industries were critical to establishing the foundations for economic growth in the Nation, particularly in the western United States;
Whereas United States industrialists recruited thousands of Chinese workers to assist in the construction of the Nation’s first major national transportation infrastructure, the Transcontinental Railroad;
Whereas Chinese laborers, who made up the majority of the western portion of the railroad workforce, faced grueling hours and extremely harsh conditions in order to lay hundreds of miles of track and were paid substandard wages;
Whereas without the tremendous efforts and technical contributions of these Chinese immigrants, the completion of this vital national infrastructure would have been seriously impeded;
Whereas from the middle of the 19th century through the early 20th century, Chinese immigrants faced racial ostracism and violent assaults, including–
(1) the 1887 Snake River Massacre in Oregon, at which 31 Chinese miners were killed; and
(2) numerous other incidents, including attacks on Chinese immigrants in Rock Springs, San Francisco, Tacoma, and Los Angeles;
Whereas the United States instigated the negotiation of the Burlingame Treaty, ratified by the Senate on October 19, 1868, which permitted the free movement of the Chinese people to, from, and within the United States and accorded to China the status of “most favored nation”;
Whereas before consenting to the ratification of the Burlingame Treaty, the Senate required that the Treaty would not permit Chinese immigrants in the United States to be naturalized United States citizens;
Whereas on July 14, 1870, Congress approved An Act to Amend the Naturalization Laws and to Punish Crimes against the Same, and for other Purposes, and during consideration of such Act, the Senate expressly rejected an amendment to allow Chinese immigrants to naturalize;
Whereas Chinese immigrants were subject to the overzealous implementation of the Page Act of 1875 (18 Stat. 477), which–
(1) ostensibly barred the importation of women from “China, Japan, or any Oriental country” for purposes of prostitution;
(2) was disproportionately enforced against Chinese women, effectively preventing the formation of Chinese families in the United States and limiting the number of native-born Chinese citizens;
Whereas, on February 15, 1879, the Senate passed “the Fifteen Passenger Bill,” which would have limited the number of Chinese passengers permitted on any ship coming to the United States to 15, with proponents of the bill expressing that the Chinese were “an indigestible element in our midst . . . without any adaptability to become citizens”;
Whereas, on March 1, 1879, President Hayes vetoed the Fifteen Passenger Bill as being incompatible with the Burlingame Treaty, which declared that “Chinese subjects visiting or residing in the United States, shall enjoy the same privileges . . . in respect to travel or residence, as may there be enjoyed by the citizens and subjects of the most favored nation”;
Whereas in the aftermath of the veto of the Fifteen Passenger Bill, President Hayes initiated the renegotiation of the Burlingame Treaty, requesting that the Chinese government consent to restrictions on the immigration of Chinese persons to the United States;
Whereas these negotiations culminated in the Angell Treaty, ratified by the Senate on May 9, 1881, which–
(1) allowed the United States to suspend, but not to prohibit, the immigration of Chinese laborers;
(2) declared that “Chinese laborers who are now in the United States shall be allowed to go and come of their own free will”; and
(3) reaffirmed that Chinese persons possessed “all the rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions which are accorded to the citizens and subjects of the most favored nation”;
Whereas, on March 9, 1882, the Senate passed the first Chinese Exclusion Act, which purported to implement the Angell Treaty but instead excluded for 20 years both skilled and unskilled Chinese laborers, rejected an amendment that would have permitted the naturalization of Chinese persons, and instead expressly denied Chinese persons the right to be naturalized as American citizens;
Whereas, on April 4, 1882, President Chester A. Arthur vetoed the first Chinese Exclusion Act as being incompatible with the terms and spirit of the Angell Treaty;
Whereas, on May 6, 1882, Congress passed the second Chinese Exclusion Act, which–
(1) prohibited skilled and unskilled Chinese laborers from entering the United States for 10 years;
(2) was the first Federal law that excluded a single group of people on the basis of race; and
(3) required certain Chinese laborers already legally present in the United States who later wished to reenter to obtain “certificates of return”, an unprecedented requirement that applied only to Chinese residents;
Whereas in response to reports that courts were bestowing United States citizenship on persons of Chinese descent, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 explicitly prohibited all State and Federal courts from naturalizing Chinese persons;
Whereas the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 underscored the belief of some Senators at that time that–
(1) the Chinese people were unfit to be naturalized;
(2) the social characteristics of the Chinese were “revolting”;
(3) Chinese immigrants were “like parasites”; and
(4) the United States “is under God a country of Caucasians, a country of white men, a country to be governed by white men”;
Whereas, on July 3, 1884, notwithstanding United States treaty obligations with China and other nations, Congress broadened the scope of the Chinese Exclusion Act–
(1) to apply to all persons of Chinese descent, “whether subjects of China or any other foreign power”; and
(2) to provide more stringent requirements restricting Chinese immigration;
Whereas, on October 1, 1888, the Scott Act was enacted into law, which–
(1) prohibited all Chinese laborers who would choose or had chosen to leave the United States from reentering;
(2) cancelled all previously issued “certificates of return”, which prevented approximately 20,000 Chinese laborers abroad, including 600 individuals who were en route to the United States, from returning to their families or their homes; and
(3) was later determined by the Supreme Court to have abrogated the Angell Treaty;
Whereas, on May 5, 1892, the Geary Act was enacted into law, which–
(1) extended the Chinese Exclusion Act for 10 years;
(2) required all Chinese persons in the United States, but no other race of people, to register with the Federal Government in order to obtain “certificates of residence”; and
(3) denied Chinese immigrants the right to be released on bail upon application for a writ of habeas corpus;
Whereas on an explicitly racial basis, the Geary Act deemed the testimony of Chinese persons, including American citizens of Chinese descent, per se insufficient to establish the residency of a Chinese person subject to deportation, mandating that such residencebe established through the testimony of “at least one credible white witness”;
Whereas in the 1894 Gresham-Yang Treaty, the Chinese government consented to a prohibition of Chinese immigration and the enforcement of the Geary Act in exchange for the readmission of previous Chinese residents;
Whereas in 1898, the United States–
(1) annexed Hawaii;
(2) took control of the Philippines; and
(3) excluded thousands of racially Chinese residents of Hawaii and of the Philippines from entering the United States mainland;
Whereas on April 29, 1902, Congress–
(1) indefinitely extended all laws regulating and restricting Chinese immigration and residence; and
(2) expressly applied such laws to United States insular territories, including the Philippines;
Whereas in 1904, after the Chinese government exercised its unilateral right to withdraw from the Gresham-Yang Treaty, Congress permanently extended, “without modification, limitation, or condition”, all restrictions on Chinese immigration and naturalization, making the Chinese the only racial group explicitly singled out for immigration exclusion and permanently ineligible for American citizenship;
Whereas between 1910 and 1940, the Angel Island Immigration Station implemented the Chinese exclusion laws by–
(1) confining Chinese persons for up to nearly 2 years;
(2) interrogating Chinese persons; and
(3) providing a model for similar immigration stations at other locations on the Pacific coast and in Hawaii;
Whereas each of the congressional debates concerning issues of Chinese civil rights, naturalization, and immigration involved intensely racial rhetoric, with many Members of Congress claiming that all persons of Chinese descent were–
(1) unworthy of American citizenship;
(2) incapable of assimilation into American society; and
(3) dangerous to the political and social integrity of the United States;
Whereas the express discrimination in these Federal statutes politically and racially stigmatized Chinese immigration into the United States, enshrining in law the exclusion of the Chinese from the political process and the promise of American freedom;
Whereas wartime enemy forces used the anti-Chinese legislation passed in Congress as evidence of American racism against the Chinese, attempting to undermine the Chinese-American alliance and allied military efforts;
Whereas, in 1943, at the urging of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and over 60 years after the enactment of the first discriminatory laws against Chinese immigrants, Congress–
(1) repealed previously enacted anti-Chinese legislation; and
(2) permitted Chinese immigrants to become naturalized United States citizens;
Whereas despite facing decades of systematic, pervasive, and sustained discrimination, Chinese immigrants and Chinese-Americans persevered and have continued to play a significant role in the growth and success of the United States;
Whereas 6 decades of Federal legislation deliberately targeting Chinese by race–
(1) restricted the capacity of generations of individuals and families to openly pursue the American dream without fear; and
(2) fostered an atmosphere of racial discrimination that deeply prejudiced the civil rights of Chinese immigrants;
Whereas diversity is one of our Nation’s greatest strengths, and, while this Nation was founded on the principle that all persons are created equal, the laws enacted by Congress in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that restricted the political and civil rights of persons of Chinese descent violated that principle;
Whereas although an acknowledgment of the Senate’s actions that contributed to discrimination against persons of Chinese descent will not erase the past, such an expression will acknowledge and illuminate the injustices in our national experience and help to build a better and stronger Nation;
Whereas the Senate recognizes the importance of addressing this unique framework of discriminatory laws in order to educate the public and future generations regarding the impact of these laws on Chinese and other Asian persons and their implications to all Americans; and
Whereas the Senate deeply regrets the enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Act and related discriminatory laws that–
(1) resulted in the persecution and political alienation of persons of Chinese descent;
(2) unfairly limited their civil rights;
(3) legitimized racial discrimination; and
(4) induced trauma that persists within the Chinese community: Now, therefore, be it
SECTION 1. ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND EXPRESSION OF REGRET.
(1) acknowledges that this framework of anti-Chinese legislation, including the Chinese Exclusion Act, is incompatible with the basic founding principles recognized in the Declaration of Independence that all persons are created equal;
(2) deeply regrets passing 6 decades of legislation directly targeting the Chinese people for physical and political exclusion and the wrongs committed against Chinese and American citizens of Chinese descent who suffered under these discriminatory laws; and
(3) reaffirms its commitment to preserving the same civil rights and constitutional protections for people of Chinese or other Asian descent in the United States accorded to all others, regardless of their race or ethnicity.
SEC. 2. DISCLAIMER.
Nothing in this resolution may be construed–
(1) to authorize or support any claim against the United States; or
(2) to serve as a settlement of any claim against the United States.
Sen. Leahy’s remarks:
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, beginning more than 140 years ago, Congress enacted a series of racist and discriminatory laws directed specifically at persons of Chinese descent. Collectively known as the Chinese Exclusion Laws, these laws remained in force for more than 60 years, and were repealed only as a matter of wartime expediency during World War II. These laws conflicted directly with the fundamental principles of equality and justice upon which our Nation was founded. It is long past time for Congress to affirmatively reject the ignorance and hate that spurred passage of those laws.
S. Res. 201 reflects the Senate’s regret for the passage of those unjust laws, but also affirms our commitment to ensuring that such policies never become law again. I commend the individuals and organizations that have advocated for this important resolution.
The Chinese Exclusion Laws reflected a climate of intolerance and xenophobia that viewed immigrants of Chinese descent as inferior and incapable of assimilating as loyal Americans. Fueled in large part by an economic crisis and fears that Chinese immigrants would take jobs away from other workers, the hostility against Chinese immigrants sometimes turned violent. Through a number of state laws and ordinances in many Western states and several questionable court rulings, Chinese immigrants were systematically deprived of fundamental civil rights and privileges, rights that should be guaranteed to all by our Constitution.
Eventually, political pressure led Congress to prohibit the immigration of all Chinese persons into the United States. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 explicitly banned Chinese immigrants from entering the United States for 10 years, and this ban was renewed and ultimately made permanent by Congress through subsequent enactments. In passing these laws, Congress failed to adhere to our Nation’s basic founding principles that all are created equal, and that all persons deserve basic human and civil rights. Instead, Congress allowed fear and ignorance to drive our Nation’s immigration policy and, for the first time, to exclude from our country a single group of people based solely on their race.
That was wrong. Ours in a Nation of immigrants and of equality and these laws offended both of those fundamental precepts of America.
While Congress was right to repeal the Chinese Exclusions Laws in 1943, it is important to note that Congress was motivated primarily by the fear that the Japanese would use the racist laws as part of its propaganda campaign to drive a wedge between the U.S. and its Chinese allies. The repeal of the Chinese Exclusions Laws was not accompanied by any genuine sense of regret for the decades of discriminatory policies, or any proclamation by the Congress that it would guard in the future against the type of racism and xenophobia that allowed such laws to pass in the first place. Instead, the exclusion laws were simply supplanted by application of strict race-based quotas that remained in place for more than 20 years. Let us not forget that at the same time that Congress was repealing the Chinese Exclusion Laws, the U.S. Government was imprisoning thousands of loyal Americans of Japanese descent in internment camps throughout the West. Thus, the repeal of the exclusion laws in 1943 can hardly be viewed as a genuine acknowledgement by Congress of the racist nature of its actions. In order to close the book on this series of unjust laws, I urge support of this resolution to express the Senate’s regret, albeit belatedly, for these shameful pieces of legislation.
Going forward, this resolution also reaffirms our commitment to the principles of equality and justice upon which our Nation was founded. I was disappointed that, at the insistence of some anonymous Republicans, the resolution is being stripped by amendment of any reference to the Constitution of the United States. That is inexplicable to me. No one has anyone come forward to take responsibility for this change. It is being done in the shadows, without accountability. I believe that the Chinese Exclusion Laws were incompatible with the spirit, and indeed the text, of our Constitution, our fundamental charter. I challenge whoever felt it necessary to remove the original reference in our resolution to the affront to the Constitution to come forward and explain why they were blocking this resolution unless that change was made.
Contrary to the claims in the 1880s that Chinese immigrants looked, acted, and sounded too different–too foreign–to ever become loyal Americans, we have all witnessed the incredible contributions that Chinese Americans have made to our country. America has come a long way since the days of the Chinese Exclusion Laws. I hope that we all appreciate how our Nation’s diversity makes America better and stronger.
As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have supported the nominations and recognized the service of many Americans of Chinese descent serving as attorneys and judges throughout the country, such as former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Bill Lann Lee, and Federal Judges Denny Chin, Edmond Chang, Ed Chen, and Dolly Gee. I am also mindful of the service of the late Thomas Tang, a Chinese American trailblazer on the Federal judiciary.
I hope that passage of S. Res. 201 will mark a step in the Senate’s progress toward greater commitment to protecting the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, regardless of race or ethnicity. Unfortunately, in these tough economic times, it is not difficult to hear echoes of the intolerance that led to the Chinese Exclusion Laws in some of the rhetoric of recent immigration debates. Congress should not legislate out of fear and intolerance, and we must not allow laws like the Chinese Exclusions Laws ever to pass again.