Source: Mid-Term Guide, Lectures, Course Reader
Tags: slave laws, Chinese Exclusion Act, Indian Removal Act, Three-Strikes Law, Ozawa v US, US v Thind, Alien Land Act, War on Drugs, War on Crime, immigration enforcement, mass incarceration, XETHSTD 21AC, ethnic studies
U.S. law has been one of the primary vehicles for systemic racism. From early slave codes through the Chinese Exclusion Act, Indian Removal Act, and modern "tough on crime" policies, legislation has repeatedly targeted communities of colour. Two Supreme Court cases (Ozawa and Thind) reveal how "whiteness" was defined and redefined to exclude non-Europeans from citizenship. Even policies framed as racially neutral have produced deeply racially disproportionate outcomes.
Chattel slavery
A system in which enslaved people are treated as personal property, bought and sold as commodities. In the U.S., it was hereditary and race-based.
Slave codes
Laws enacted in the 1600s–1710s that stripped enslaved people of legal personhood: prohibiting them from testifying against whites, owning property, leaving without a pass, congregating in groups, signing contracts, marrying, or bearing arms.
Chinese Exclusion Act (1882)
The first U.S. federal law to ban immigration on the basis of race. Signed by President Chester A. Arthur, it made it illegal for Chinese people to enter the country or become citizens, and remained enforced for over 60 years.
Alien Land Act (1920)
A California law that barred Japanese Americans from purchasing land.
Indian Removal Act (1830)
Signed by President Andrew Jackson, authorising the federal government to negotiate treaties with Native Americans to exchange their land for territory west of the Mississippi. In practice, it led to forced removal.
Three-Strikes Law (1990s)
Enacted in many states (notably California) during Clinton's presidency. Imposed life sentences for people convicted of three or more offences, even minor ones. Disproportionately affected Black and Latino men.
Anti-miscegenation laws
Laws prohibiting interracial marriage or sexual relations, used to maintain racial boundaries and "white purity."
Virginia slave laws (1661–1662)
1661, Virginia: Black servants would serve throughout their lifetime (converting indentured servitude into permanent bondage)
1662, Virginia: "The status of the child follows that of the mother," applying only to Black women. This codified hereditary slavery, ensuring that children of enslaved mothers were automatically enslaved regardless of the father's status
Interracial sexual contact was punished more harshly: any Christian (white person) who committed "fornication with a negro" paid double the fine for the same act with a white person
Slave codes (1600s–1710)
Enslaved people were prohibited from:
Testifying against whites
Owning property
Leaving without a pass
Congregating in groups of three to five
Signing contracts
Marrying or bearing arms
Mixed-race rulings
1656, Re Mullato: a mixed-race individual was "held to be a slave and an appeal was taken," establishing precedent that mixed-race children inherited enslaved status
Constitutional provisions
The three-fifths clause: enslaved people counted as three-fifths of a person for purposes of congressional representation
Fugitive slave provisions: mandated the return of runaway slaves
Slave trade clause: permitted the continuation of the transatlantic slave trade until 1808
Chinese Exclusion Act (1882)
Signed by President Chester A. Arthur on 6 May 1882
First federal act to target a specific race for immigration exclusion
Framed Chinese immigrants as "unassimilable": always foreign, always a threat
Remained enforced for over 60 years
Anti-Japanese and Korean Exclusion League (1905)
A San Francisco-based organisation that sought to ban Japanese and Korean immigrants from the U.S.
Functioned as an extension of the logic behind the Chinese Exclusion Act
Alien Land Act (1920)
California legislature barred Japanese Americans from purchasing land
Part of a broader pattern of using property law to restrict nonwhite economic power
1871 Los Angeles Chinese Massacre
Approximately 500 white and Latino Americans attacked Chinese residents in "old" Chinatown, Los Angeles
Many were murdered
An early instance of large-scale racial violence against Asian Americans
Indian Removal Act (1830)
Signed by President Andrew Jackson
Authorised the federal government to negotiate treaties exchanging Native lands for territory in the West
Grounded in the constructed belief that white settlers were "civilised" and destined to rule
Led to forced displacement, including the Trail of Tears
The Trail of Broken Treaties (1972)
A major American Indian Movement (AIM) march on Washington, D.C.
Activists presented a 20-point position paper demanding sovereignty, land, and cultural rights
Porvenir Massacre (1918)
Texas Rangers killed 15 Mexican-origin men
Part of a long pattern of state-sanctioned violence against Latinos along the U.S.–Mexico border
Ponce Massacre (1937)
Puerto Ricans were shot by U.S. police for protesting
Demonstrates the extension of state violence to Puerto Rican communities under U.S. jurisdiction
Modern patterns
2013–2020: at least 1,500 Latinos killed by police (likely undercounted)
Over-policing and racial profiling are common in Latino neighbourhoods
Invisibility in data: Latino disparities are often untracked or ignored in official statistics
These two cases, taken together, reveal how "whiteness" was legally constructed and selectively applied.
Ozawa v. U.S. (1922)
Takao Ozawa, a Japanese-born resident who had lived in the U.S. for 20 years, sought naturalised citizenship
He argued that his pale skin made him eligible under "free white citizen" laws
Court's ruling: the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Japanese immigrants were not "white" and therefore ineligible for citizenship
Reasoning: "white person" was intended to refer to people of the Caucasian race; since Japanese people are not Caucasian, they did not qualify under the Naturalization Act of 1906
U.S. v. Thind (1923)
Bhagat Singh Thind, an Indian Sikh man considered Aryan and of high-caste Hindu stock, had his citizenship granted by a lower court, then challenged by the U.S. government
Court's ruling: the Supreme Court overturned the lower court and declared Thind ineligible
Reasoning: even though Thind might be scientifically categorised as Caucasian, he was not "white in the eyes of the common man." The classification of "white" was based on popular understanding, not scientific data
Why these cases matter together: In Ozawa, the court used science (Caucasian classification) to exclude. In Thind, the court abandoned science when it would have included a non-European. This contradiction shows that "whiteness" was defined to exclude whichever group was before the court, revealing it as a social and legal construction rather than a fixed category.
War on Crime (1960s)
Initiated under President Lyndon B. Johnson
Framed as a response to rising urban crime; expanded federal control over local policing
Led to the militarisation of police forces and increased surveillance in communities of colour
Established funding systems that rewarded police departments for arrests rather than community safety
War on Drugs (1970s–1980s)
Declared by President Richard Nixon, intensified under Reagan in the 1980s
Introduced mandatory minimum sentencing and harsher drug laws targeting urban areas
Framed as "tough on crime" but disproportionately targeted Black and Latino communities
Produced massive racial disparities in drug-related arrests and incarceration rates
Three-Strikes Law (1990s)
Enacted in many states (notably California) during Clinton's presidency
Imposed life sentences for people convicted of three or more offences, including minor ones
Promoted by a "law and order" agenda that criminalised poverty and reinforced stereotypes of Latino and Black men as "dangerous"
Increased mass incarceration and broke families and communities apart
Immigration enforcement (1990s–ongoing)
Built on policies such as the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
Created broad categories of "aggravated felonies" applying harsh penalties to minor infractions
Enabled deportation without due process, family separation, and surveillance through ICE
Reinforced the image of Latinos as "illegal" or "criminal," making race a key factor in immigration control
Connection to systemic racism: each of these policies is framed in racially neutral language ("crime," "drugs," "immigration enforcement") yet produces racially disproportionate outcomes, criminalising communities of colour and fuelling mass incarceration.
⚠️ The Ozawa/Thind pairing is a favourite exam topic. Be ready to explain the contradiction: the court used "science" to exclude in one case and abandoned science to exclude in the other, revealing whiteness as a moving target.
⚠️ Know the progression of slave laws: from lifetime servitude (1661) to hereditary slavery through the mother (1662) to comprehensive slave codes. This shows how racism was built incrementally through law.
⚠️ The Three-Strikes Law, War on Drugs, and War on Crime are modern examples of systemic racism. The exam may ask you to connect them to earlier laws (slave codes, Chinese Exclusion Act) to show continuity.
⚠️ The 1996 immigration act's "aggravated felony" provision is a concrete example of racially neutral language producing racially disproportionate outcomes.
⚠️ The Porvenir and Ponce Massacres may appear as examples of state-sanctioned violence against Latinos.
Q: How did the 1662 Virginia law codify hereditary slavery?
A: It established that "the status of the child follows that of the mother," applying only to Black women. This meant children born to enslaved mothers were automatically enslaved regardless of the father's race or status, turning slavery into a self-perpetuating, hereditary system.
Q: Explain the contradiction between the Ozawa and Thind Supreme Court rulings.
A: In Ozawa (1922), the court ruled that "white" meant Caucasian, excluding Ozawa because Japanese people are not Caucasian. In Thind (1923), the court ruled that even though Thind was scientifically Caucasian, he was not "white in the eyes of the common man." The court shifted its definition of whiteness to exclude whichever group was before it, revealing that whiteness was a social and legal construction, not a fixed scientific category.
Q: How do the War on Crime, War on Drugs, and Three-Strikes Law connect to systemic racism?
A: All three policies are framed in racially neutral language but produced racially disproportionate outcomes. They expanded policing and incarceration in communities of colour, introduced harsh sentencing that disproportionately affected Black and Latino men, and reinforced racial stereotypes of dangerousness. They represent the continuation of systemic racism through modern policy.
Q: Why is the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) historically significant?
A: It was the first U.S. federal law to ban immigration on the basis of race. It explicitly targeted Chinese immigrants as "unassimilable," set a precedent for race-based exclusion in immigration policy, and remained enforced for over 60 years.
Q: What is the connection between early slave codes and modern mass incarceration?
A: Slave codes stripped Black people of legal rights, autonomy, and personhood through law. Modern policies like the War on Drugs and Three-Strikes Laws similarly use the legal system to disproportionately criminalise and incarcerate Black and Latino communities, maintaining racial control through institutional means rather than individual prejudice.
slave codes, chattel slavery, hereditary slavery, 1662 Virginia law, one-drop rule, three-fifths clause, Chinese Exclusion Act, Alien Land Act, Indian Removal Act, Trail of Broken Treaties, AIM, Ozawa v US, US v Thind, whiteness as legal construction, Naturalization Act 1906, Porvenir Massacre, Ponce Massacre, War on Crime, War on Drugs, Three-Strikes Law, mass incarceration, immigration enforcement, 1996 IIRIRA, aggravated felony, racially neutral policy, systemic racism through law, XETHSTD 21AC