Hubbry Logo
Paper sonsPaper sonsMain
Open search
Paper sons
Community hub
Paper sons
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Paper sons
Paper sons
Paper sons
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Paper Son

Paper sons or paper daughters were Chinese people who were born in China and illegally immigrated to the United States and Canada[1][unreliable source?] by obtaining documents that indicated they were the blood relatives of Chinese people who had already received U.S. or Canadian[2] citizenship residency or the residents themselves. Typically it would be relation by being a son or a daughter.[3] Several historical events such as the Chinese Exclusion Act and 1906 San Francisco earthquake caused the illegal documents to be produced.[4]

Background

[edit]

With the U.S. Chinese Exclusion Act enacted in 1882, and the Canadian Chinese Immigration Acts enacted in 1885 and 1923,[5] Chinese people were largely excluded from entering the United States and Canada.

In the United States

[edit]

The Chinese Exclusion Act, passed in 1882, was the first major U.S. immigration law to explicitly ban entry to the nation solely based on race or nationality. It targeted Chinese laborers, barring their immigration and prohibiting Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens. This law reflected growing anti-Chinese sentiment and marked the beginning of decades-long exclusionary policies against Asian immigrants in the United States.[6] It stated that the coming of Chinese laborers would endanger the order of localities.[4] As the American economy plummeted, problems of unemployment arose and blame was placed upon the Chinese for taking over jobs for low pay. In 1892, this act was renewed for another ten years in the form of the Geary Act. It was eventually made permanent in 1902.[7] While scholars traditionally mark the Chinese Exclusion Era as spanning from 1882 to 1943, lived experiences suggest a longer timeline—one in which paper sons and daughters continued to navigate its legacy well after the laws were repealed.[8]

Take the proceedings in the Commissioner's Court almost any morning. A Chinaman is before the Commissioner on a writ of habeas corpus; his attorney claims that he was born in the United States; the Chinaman does not claim it; he doesn't know enough about our language or customs to claim anything; but, nevertheless, there are a number of Chinese who can be found who will testify that they knew the applicant's father and mother twenty or twenty-five years ago; that applicant was born at 710 Dupont street, on the third floor, in-room No. 13; that when the boy was 2 years old he was taken to China by his mother to be educated; that he has lived in China ever since that time; that now his mother is dead and his father is dead and he wants to come back to his native America to take care of the business of his old uncle or cousin—and the uncle or cousin is there to swear to it. So common is this story, so well is it learned and so carefully is it presented in evidence in the courts, that one of the Federal Judges estimated that if the story were true every Chinese woman who was in the United States twenty-five years ago must have had at least 500 children.

— Duncan E. McKinlay, Assistant U.S. District Attorney, speaking at the 1901 Chinese Exclusion Convention[9]

In 1906, the San Francisco earthquake caused a huge fire that destroyed public birth documents. Suddenly a new opportunity for citizenship arose: Chinese men who were already in the United States could claim that they were born in the United States. Other Chinese men would travel back to China as United States citizens and report that their wives had given birth to a son. Consequently, this made the child eligible to be a United States citizen, for which they would receive a document. These documents could then be used for their actual sons, or sold to friends, neighbors, and strangers.[10] This was termed as a "slot" and would then be available for purchase to men who had no blood relationships in the United States in order to be eligible to enter the United States. Merchant brokers often acted as middlemen to handle the sale of slots.[11]

To enforce the Chinese Exclusion Act, officials at an immigration station (located in Angel Island in 1910) questioned and interrogated immigrants coming from 84 different countries with the majority of immigrants being Asian and Chinese. Since official records were often non-existent, an interrogation process was created to determine if the immigrants were related as they had claimed. Between 1882 and 1943, approximately 300,000 Chinese immigrants entered the United States. Historians estimate that over ninety percent of them used false identities and documents commonly through the paper son system to circumvent exclusionary laws. These identities often required careful memorization of family trees and village histories to survive lengthy interrogations.[12] On average an interrogation process could take up to 2–3 weeks, but some immigrants were interrogated for months.[13] Applicants were sometimes asked between 200 and 1,000 questions over the course of multiple days. Even minor inconsistencies could lead to detention, deportation, and permanent separation from families. Immigration officials often doubted testimony from Chinese witnesses and expressed preference for "old white persons" to verify claims, reflecting the racially biased nature of the process.[12] These questions had been anticipated and thus, irrespective of the true nature of the relationship to their sponsor, the applicant had prepared months in advance by committing these details to memory. Their witnesses—usually other family members living in the United States—would be called forward to corroborate these answers. Any deviation from the testimony would prolong questioning or throw the entire case into doubt and put the applicant at risk of deportation, and possibly everyone else in the family connected to the applicant as well. A detention center was in operation for thirty years; however, there were many concerns about the sanitation and safety of the immigrants at Angel Island, which proved to be true in 1940 when the administration building burned down. As a result, all the immigrants were relocated to another facility. The Chinese Exclusion Act was eventually repealed in 1943.[14]

While Ellis Island is often remembered as a gateway to opportunity, Angel Island where many Chinese immigrants were detained operated more like a prison. The story of Lee Puey You, detained for 20 months in 1939, reveals the harsh realities of this system. Immigrants were confined to locked barracks, subjected to repeated and invasive interrogations, and denied contact with the outside world except under heavy surveillance. Daily life was dull and empty, with captives allowed only minimal exercise and constantly watching for signs of escape, suicide, or communication between each other. Women like Lee faced additional gendered indignities, such as having to strip naked for medical exams by white male doctors.[15] Her story shows that detention on Angel Island wasn’t just bureaucratic delay, but dehumanization shaped by racial exclusion.

When ships arrived in San Francisco, travelers were separated based on their nationality. Europeans and other first or second-class ticket holders were allowed to disembark, while Asian and other immigrants or those who had health concerns and were in need for quarantine were sent to Angel Island for processing.[16]

Poetry at Angel Island Immigration Station

The living conditions at Angel Island were not to be desired. A poem that was engraved on the Angel Island immigration station wooden wall describes the difficult conditions that they were kept under. The poem indicates they had been kept in a wooden house for weeks on end, and all that could be done was to wait for the voice to call for interrogation.[17]

In Canada

[edit]

The Chinese Immigration Act prohibited most Chinese immigration to Canada beginning in 1923. All ethnic Chinese people in Canada were required to register with the government and were issued a number called a C.I.45, including both immigrants and Canadian-born Chinese.[18] The C.I.45 was a continuation of earlier registration cards issued to Chinese people in Canada, beginning with the C.I.5 which was issued beginning in 1885 to indicate whether they had paid the Chinese Head Tax to enter Canada.[19]

Even native-born Chinese-Canadians were required to register and issued C.I.28 certificates. Some Chinese people in Canada sold their certificates to prospective immigrants in China so that they could use these documents to enter Canada, assuming the identity of the original certificate holder. This is where the terms “paper son” and “paper daughter” came from, with immigrants posing as relatives of others using the C.I. they purchased.[18]

Even after the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Acts, it was difficult for people of Chinese origin to immigrate into Canada. They were required to be sponsored by either a father, mother, or spouse.[20][21]

Life after immigration

[edit]

Life for paper sons after immigrating to the United States was shaped by fear, secrecy, and resilience. Although they succeeded in entering the country often by impersonating the sons of U.S. citizens using fraudulent documents, their lives remained unpredictable due to the constant threat of exposure and deportation. Many maintained complex identities, which isolated them socially . Community networks within Chinatowns provided some protection, but also reinforced their separation from mainstream American society. In the 1950s, the U.S. government launched a campaign to expose illegal entries, culminating in the Chinese Confession Program, which pressured paper sons to admit their false identities in exchange for potential legal status.[22] While many gained legal residency through this process, others were left vulnerable, denied benefits, or subjected to prosecution especially those with suspected leftist ties. Despite these challenges, the paper sons’ confessions ultimately helped many Chinese American families reconnect and laid the groundwork for expanded immigration under the 1965 reform laws.

The state of California formally apologized to thousands of Chinese immigrants who helped build the state while facing persistent racism and debilitating laws targeting them in 2009.[23]

In Canada amnesty was provided by the Chinese Adjustment Statement Program starting in 1960.[24]

After the Chinese Exclusion Act

[edit]

After China became a World War II ally, that vast power over non-citizens was deployed in raids against immigrants of various ethnic groups whose politics were considered suspect. Many paper sons suddenly faced the exposure of their fraudulent documentations. The United States government was tipped off by an informer in Hong Kong as part of a Cold War effort to stop illegal immigration. Many paper sons were scared of being deported back to China.[25] Only in the 1960s did new legislation broaden immigration from Asia and gave paper sons a chance to tell the truth about who they were and restore their real names in "confessional" programs, but many chose to stick with their adopted names for fear of retribution and took their true names to their graves. Many paper sons never told their descendants about their past, leaving them with confusion and disconnecting them from their family history. Some paper sons even went as far as adopting the American lifestyle by not teaching their children their home languages and forgetting any Chinese cultural aspects such as their cultural foods and rituals.[26]

Notable people

[edit]

This is a partial list of people who were paper sons or daughters:

  • Tyrus Wong – Chinese-born American artist. His paper son name was Look Tai Yow.[27]
  • Jim Wong-Chu – Canadian author, poet, and community activist of Chinese descent. Jim Wong-Chu came to Canada in 1953 at age four as a paper son, to live with his aunt and uncle in British Columbia.[28]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Paper sons

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Paper sons were Chinese immigrants, primarily men, who circumvented the U.S. of 1882 and subsequent national origins quotas by fraudulently claiming to be the biological sons of who held U.S. , often purchasing fabricated identities and documents known as "paper" affiliations following the 1906 earthquake's destruction of official birth records. This practice emerged as a direct response to federal laws that barred Chinese laborers while exempting native-born citizens and their , leading thousands to memorize fabricated family genealogies from coaching books and endure grueling interrogations at entry points like to establish credibility. The system persisted until the Act's partial repeal in 1943, fostering underground networks for document and perpetuating generational secrecy within Chinese American communities, as "" identities were rarely disclosed even to spouses or children due to risks of and family separation. While enabling entry for an estimated tens of thousands amid explicitly race-based restrictions, it involved systematic deception that U.S. authorities countered with increasingly invasive "traps," including of alleged relatives and village verification attempts, highlighting the tensions between enforcement rigor and the policy's underlying exclusions. The phenomenon underscored the causal link between restrictive legislation—rooted in labor competition fears and nativist sentiments—and adaptive evasion strategies, with long-term effects including distorted family histories and cultural adaptations in diaspora communities that prioritized survival over legal compliance. Post-repeal, many paper sons integrated into urban enclaves, contributing to economic niches like laundries and restaurants, though lingering scrutiny from events like World War II loyalty probes exposed vulnerabilities in these constructed identities. This history reveals how empirical enforcement gaps, rather than policy intent alone, sustained Chinese inflows despite quotas, challenging narratives that overemphasize voluntary assimilation without accounting for coerced circumvention.

Historical Context

Chinese Exclusion Act and Precursor Policies

The Burlingame-Seward Treaty of 1868 established reciprocal rights between the and , including the free and of Chinese subjects within the U.S., reflecting an era of mutual economic openness amid Chinese labor recruitment for infrastructure projects like the . This policy shifted in the 1870s amid rising labor competition fears on the West Coast, where Chinese workers, comprising up to 90% of California's mining and railroad labor force by the late , were scapegoated for wage depression and unemployment among white laborers. By the early 1880s, these tensions culminated in federal legislation overriding the treaty's provisions. The , signed on May 6, 1882, suspended the entry of Chinese laborers—skilled or unskilled—for a 10-year period, marking the first U.S. law to restrict immigration by nationality and ethnicity. It exempted specific non-laborer classes, including merchants, teachers, students, diplomats, and travelers, while also permitting the return of laborers present in the U.S. before November 17, 1880, or those leaving temporarily for visits abroad. These exemptions, intended to preserve trade and elite exchanges, inadvertently created verifiable pathways for entry claims, as authorities had to adjudicate occupational and familial statuses at ports like , where over 20,000 Chinese arrivals were processed annually pre-exclusion. The Act further barred Chinese immigrants from , reinforcing jus soli citizenship for U.S.-born Chinese under the 14th Amendment while denying it to their parents, thus limiting but not eliminating family-based exemptions for relatives of citizens. Congress extended the ban via the of May 5, 1892, adding 10 years to the suspension and mandating certificates of residence for resident Chinese laborers, with penalties including or for non-compliance. challenges arose from the exemptions' ambiguities, as federal agents struggled to distinguish genuine merchants (exempt under treaty obligations) from laborers posing as such, leading to inconsistent port rulings. The prohibition became indefinite in 1902, applying to annexed territories like and the , solidifying exclusion until partial repeal in 1943. Parallel restrictions emerged in with the Chinese Immigration Act of July 20, 1885, imposing a $50 head on Chinese entrants to curb post-railway labor influxes, exempting merchants, students, and officials while targeting workers. The escalated to $100 in 1900 and $500 by 1903—equivalent to two years' wages for many laborers—reducing arrivals from 7,000 in 1903 to under 500 annually by 1907, yet preserving loopholes for exempt classes requiring proof of status. The Chinese Immigration Act of 1923 then enacted near-total exclusion, prohibiting virtually all Chinese immigration except diplomats and students, abolishing prior exemptions and head taxes in favor of blanket denial, which halved 's Chinese population by 1947. These measures, driven by similar economic , similarly incentivized status misrepresentation among border crossers.

Economic and Security Rationales for Exclusion

The exclusion of Chinese laborers was predicated on economic pressures arising from their role in undercutting wages during major infrastructure projects. In the construction of the , completed on May 10, 1869, Chinese immigrants comprised approximately 90% of the workforce, performing grueling tasks such as tunneling through the Sierra Nevada mountains while receiving roughly 30% lower pay than white counterparts—typically $26–$35 per month versus $40 for others, excluding the cost of food and supplies that workers often had to cover themselves. This disparity stemmed from the recruitment of Chinese "coolies" under contract systems that prioritized volume over remuneration, enabling railroad companies to minimize labor costs but exacerbating and wage stagnation among native-born Americans and European immigrants in . Contemporaneous reports from labor committees, such as California's 1876 investigation, documented how this influx displaced workers in and , with Chinese laborers accepting substandard conditions that native workers rejected. Demographic shifts amplified these labor market distortions, as Chinese immigrants constituted a substantial share of 's manual workforce by the 1870s. By 1870, the U.S. Chinese population reached 63,000, with 77% concentrated in California, dominating sectors like cigar manufacturing—where they formed over 90% of the labor force—and comprising up to half the operatives in boot and shoe production. Proponents of exclusion argued this concentration hindered for non-Chinese workers, as Chinese communities maintained low-wage networks tied to remittances and temporary migration rather than permanent settlement and upward integration. Security rationales centered on risks and vice associated with Chinese enclaves. The 1900–1904 outbreak in , which killed 119 people mostly confined to , was traced to unsanitary conditions including overcrowded tenements, inadequate waste disposal, and rat infestations that bred fleas carrying Yersinia pestis. Health officials, including U.S. George M. Sternberg, linked the epidemic's persistence to resistance against inspections and poor hygiene practices in these districts, prompting quarantines and disinfection campaigns. Concurrently, the trade, largely operated through Chinese networks, generated moral alarms over addiction and criminality; federal reports from the era estimated thousands of dens in , associating them with social decay and pressuring policymakers to view unrestricted entry as a vector for such threats. Perceptions of non-assimilation further underscored security worries, as Chinese men retained the queue—a long braid mandated by the since 1644 as a sign of fealty to Manchu rule, with the shaved forehead and ponytail rejecting Western grooming norms. This visible marker of loyalty to , rather than adoption of American customs, fueled fears of dual allegiances amid geopolitical tensions like the Boxer Rebellion (1899–1901), reinforcing arguments that Chinese immigrants formed insular communities unlikely to integrate or prioritize U.S. interests.

Origins of the Paper Sons Scheme

Post-1906 San Francisco Earthquake Exploitation

The San Francisco earthquake struck on April 18, 1906, followed by fires that destroyed City Hall and virtually all local birth, marriage, and death records, including those relevant to Chinese residents. This devastation eliminated documentary proof required under the for verifying U.S. citizenship claims by birthright, as affirmed in the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In response, federal authorities shifted to accepting affidavits from white witnesses as sufficient evidence for Chinese individuals to claim native-born citizenship, creating an administrative loophole amid the chaos. This policy enabled a surge in fraudulent claims, with thousands of Chinese men asserting U.S. birth in the years immediately following the disaster, far exceeding plausible demographic records of actual native-born Chinese. Genuine or newly "certified" citizens, along with families of deceased individuals, began fabricating and auctioning "slots" as sons of these citizens, selling paper identities for sums equivalent to $100 per claimed year of age—often $500 to $2,000 for adults, representing multiple years' wages for laborers. These initial sales established a market for lineages retroactively traced to pre-Exclusion Act arrivals during the 1850s California Gold Rush, when some Chinese had established legitimate U.S. residency or birth claims. The unverifiable nature of post-disaster attestations thus catalyzed the systematic exploitation underlying the paper sons scheme, transforming administrative necessity into a widespread fraud network.

Emergence of Fraudulent Family Claims

The fraudulent family claims underpinning the paper sons scheme transitioned from opportunistic individual assertions to coordinated operations by the early 1910s, as demand for entry grew amid tightening enforcement of the . Brokers, often embedded in Chinese villages in province and ethnic enclaves in U.S. port cities like , systematically fabricated genealogical pedigrees to connect migrants to "anchor" relatives—exempt individuals such as merchants, students, or U.S.-born citizens whose status permitted derivative admissions for family members. These pedigrees detailed fictitious lineages, including birth dates, village layouts, and familial events, sold for fees ranging from several hundred to thousands of dollars, enabling buyers to claim lawful ties without verifiable pre-existing records. Central to this evolution was the "paper family" model, where a single legitimate or previously admitted served as the , vouching for multiple fabricated siblings or nephews through shared on interrogable details. This structure not only amplified the throughput of fraudulent entries but also sustained intergenerational chains: admitted paper sons, upon gaining derivative citizenship, could replicate the process by inventing their own nonexistent offspring, creating layered deceptions that obscured origins over decades. Such networks thrived on clan associations (huiguan) in both and the U.S., which facilitated document forgery and witness coordination while maintaining . Immigration records from the period underscore the scheme's proliferation, with historians estimating that over 90 percent of the approximately 300,000 Chinese admissions between 1882 and 1943 involved fraudulent claims, many crystallized in organized form by the 1910s and peaking before the 1924 Act's quotas. U.S. Customs and Immigration Service data from Angel Island and other stations reveal thousands of successful derivative entries annually in the pre-1924 era, despite heightened scrutiny, as the volume overwhelmed verification capacities reliant on inconsistent consular reports from .

Operational Methods

Acquisition and Sale of Paper Identities

The acquisition of paper son identities relied on an underground economy where Chinese American citizens, frequently those intending to repatriate to , sold fabricated claims of U.S. birthright to prospective immigrants. Following the , which destroyed vital records, these citizens exploited the absence of documentation by filing affidavits asserting the existence of U.S.-born sons—often fictitious or adopted —and then transferred these "slots" via forged certificates of citizenship, seals, and sworn statements to unrelated individuals in . This practice enabled sellers to finance their return home or family support, as the proceeds from sales provided substantial sums amid economic pressures in the U.S. Transactions occurred through informal black markets in Chinatowns and Chinese villages, where brokers facilitated connections between sellers and buyers, often involving intermediaries like merchants or networks to minimize detection. Documents were forged using replicated official seals and affidavits mimicking consular or municipal formats, creating plausible trails of parentage. Economic incentives drove participation: for sellers, it offered a lucrative from discriminatory U.S. labor markets; for buyers, it promised access to citizenship-derived rights despite exclusion laws. Pricing varied but typically scaled with the claimed age of the fictitious son, at approximately $100 per year by the early , resulting in costs of $1,000 to $3,000 for adult claimants in the —equivalent to several years' wages for Chinese laborers. These fees were financed through loans from networks, village associations, or fraternal organizations like tongs, which advanced funds against future remittances, often binding buyers to repayment obligations that resembled upon successful entry. In some cases, groups pooled resources via informal partnerships to acquire shared identities, distributing the burden and risks among participants who would alternate or support claims collectively. This system perpetuated a cycle of , as high costs reflected not only forgery expenses but also broker commissions and bribes to evade scrutiny.

Coaching Books and Interrogation Preparation

Coaching books, also known as study guides or preparation manuals, were compact documents produced in China to aid paper sons in fabricating credible identities for U.S. immigration officials. These books typically included detailed fabrications such as family genealogies, village layouts with sketches of house positions, local landmarks like schools and missions, resident names with ages and progeny, and anticipated question-and-answer formats tailored to expected interrogations. Immigrants often acquired them through brokers or family networks, memorizing contents before destroying the physical copies to evade detection upon arrival. A preserved example is the 1922 coaching book used by Fong Horn and his paper brother during their voyage on the S.S. Nanking, which departed in August 1922 and arrived in on September 12, 1922. Written in precise on rice paper and hidden in a steamer trunk, it detailed the Fong village's geography—including proximity to a river, Catholic mission, and school—alongside sample interrogative exchanges to align with testimonies from U.S.-based "relatives." Such materials formed part of a broader cottage industry responding to exclusionary laws, enabling claimants to assert fictitious ties to exempt classes like U.S. citizens' offspring. Preparation extended beyond rote memorization to intensive rehearsals, often spanning weeks or the duration of trans-Pacific voyages, where immigrants drilled minutiae like household compositions and village features to ensure consistency with sponsoring "fathers'" accounts. This training emphasized cross-verifiable details, such as generational lineages or spatial orientations, to withstand discrepancies in officials' records. As enforcement intensified post-1910 with refined verification methods under the , coaching evolved into more layered narratives, incorporating false birth dates and adaptive responses to "trap" questions designed to expose . The prevalence of these techniques contributed to entry success rates of 75-80 percent among Chinese detainees at Angel Island, underscoring their effectiveness despite risks of deportation for inconsistencies.

Application in the United States

Angel Island Detentions and Interrogations

![Poetry carved by Chinese detainees on the barracks walls at Angel Island Immigration Station][float-right] The , operational from 1910 to 1940, served as the principal U.S. entry point for Chinese immigrants arriving via the Pacific, where officials enforced the through rigorous inspections. Over this period, approximately 175,000 Chinese individuals underwent processing, with many suspected of being "paper sons"—fraudulent claimants to exempt statuses—subjected to prolonged detentions in wooden while awaiting verification. Detainees, often held for weeks or months, expressed their anguish through carved into the barracks walls using knives or fingernails, with over 150 such inscriptions documenting themes of despair, , and amid the uncertainty of . Interrogations targeted potential paper sons with exhaustive questioning designed to uncover inconsistencies in family claims, contrasting sharply with the cursory reviews for European immigrants, who typically faced one- to two-day processing and exclusion rates under 2 percent. Chinese applicants, particularly those claiming son status, endured sessions lasting days or weeks, involving hundreds of detailed queries on minutiae such as ancestral village layouts, migration histories, and precise trivia, cross-referenced against testimony from U.S.-based relatives or witnesses. Any discrepancies, like mismatched descriptions of household items or birth sequences, triggered further scrutiny or referral to a three-member board of , often resulting in for 15 to 20 percent of Chinese cases as indicated by station records. These procedures reflected empirical detection efforts reliant on verbal inconsistencies rather than advanced forensics, with Chinese detainees facing average stays of 16 days—far exceeding the 1-2 days for other groups—and up to a year for the most suspicious, exacerbating physical and psychological strain in cramped, guarded facilities. exams preceded interrogations, but the core barrier was the adversarial questioning, which privileged testimonial reliability over documentary evidence vulnerable to , underscoring the system's toward exclusion under exclusionary laws.

Scale, Success Rates, and Enforcement Challenges

Estimates indicate that from 1882 to 1943, roughly 300,000 Chinese individuals gained admission to the despite exclusionary laws, with the paper sons scheme enabling the majority of entries after by fabricating derivative citizenship claims from U.S.-born or naturalized relatives. This fraudulent system proliferated following the destruction of San Francisco's federal records in the 1906 earthquake, which allowed pre-existing Chinese residents to assert unsubstantiated U.S. citizenship and generate "slots" for fictitious offspring. Federal officials contemporaneously assessed fraud rates as high as 90% among Chinese claimants, underscoring the scheme's dominance in circumventing statutory quotas that permitted only limited categories like merchants, students, and citizens' relatives. Success rates for paper sons remained high, with exclusion occurring in only about 10-15% of cases despite rigorous interrogations at facilities like Angel Island, where detainees prepared extensively using coaching books detailing family minutiae, village layouts, and fabricated histories. This efficacy stemmed from the scheme's organized nature, including memorized discrepancies minimized through shared "family trees" sold via brokers, which often withstood cross-examinations unless glaring inconsistencies emerged in corroborating testimony. Enforcement proved persistently challenging due to resource shortages, systemic corruption, and evidentiary hurdles; immigration inspectors, often outnumbered by caseloads, relied on a small cadre of personnel for thousands of annual probes, while Chinese interpreters and some officials accepted bribes to overlook fraud or provide favorable translations. Investigations from 1914 to 1924, including case files probing suspected paper identities, exposed widespread perjury from Chinatown witnesses and document forgery, yet deportations remained low because official certificates—once issued—complicated retroactive proof of fraud, and statutes required demonstrating illegal entry beyond doubt rather than mere suspicion. These gaps allowed the practice to endure, as community solidarity and economic incentives deterred whistleblowers, further straining underfunded oversight.

Application in Canada

Canadian Immigration Restrictions

The Chinese Immigration Act of 1885 imposed a head tax of $50 on every Chinese immigrant entering , equivalent to several months' wages for laborers, with the explicit aim of restricting influx after the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway. This fee was raised to $100 in 1900 and further to $500 in 1903, approximating two years' earnings for typical Chinese workers, while exemptions applied narrowly to merchants, students, diplomats, and their immediate families. Between 1885 and 1923, approximately 82,000 Chinese individuals paid the head tax, totaling nearly $23 million in revenue, though this figure includes re-entries by laborers rather than solely new permanent settlers, reflecting a policy designed to limit and community growth. These measures paralleled U.S. exclusionary policies but operated on a smaller scale in Canada, where the Chinese population numbered around 17,000 by 1901, concentrated primarily in . The escalating taxes prompted fraudulent "paper" claims, with immigrants asserting fictitious ties as sons or relatives of exempt classes or Canadian-born citizens to bypass fees and entry barriers, adapting schemes similar to those in the United States. The Chinese Immigration Act of 1923, often termed the , effectively banned nearly all Chinese by prohibiting laborers, farmers, and most family members, permitting entry only for diplomats, merchants, students, and children born in to permitted residents. This legislation, enacted on July 1, 1923, reduced annual Chinese arrivals to fewer than 100, compared to thousands under prior head tax regimes, and required all Chinese residents to register and carry identification certificates, intensifying scrutiny at ports like . 's immigration facilities mirrored the rigorous interrogations of U.S. sites such as Angel Island, with officials probing family pedigrees, village details, and documentation to detect fabricated identities, leading to frequent detentions and deportations for suspected fraud. The policy persisted until its repeal in 1947, amid post-World War II shifts in and commitments.

Localized Adaptations and Enforcement

In , adaptations to paper sons tactics under the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923 centered on exploiting pre-exclusion Certificates of Identification (C.I.) held by established Chinese residents, particularly those who had paid the head prior to the ban. These documents, issued to merchants, students, and earlier laborers in regions like and the Prairie Provinces, were sold or loaned to new arrivals in , allowing claimants to pose as sons or daughters of legal residents and enter via loopholes that persisted for limited exemptions. Unlike the U.S., where post-1906 earthquake record losses enabled broader forgery, Canadian fraudsters focused on authenticating pre-1923 papers through coaching on village details and family genealogies tied to head tax payers' verifiable records. Trans-Pacific shipping routes directly to or Victoria further localized the method, evading U.S. Angel Island-style detentions by landing at Canadian ports where initial scrutiny occurred under federal branches rather than shared border oversight. Between 1923 and 1947, the Act's near-total prohibition—permitting only an estimated 15 to 50 legal Chinese entries—compelled reliance solely on these legacy papers, as new C.I. issuance halted, heightening the premium on and coastal community networks for fabricating credible claims. Enforcement adapted through intensified port interrogations, requiring claimants to produce singular C.I. certificates and endure hours of questioning on minutiae like ancestral homes and migration dates, with discrepancies triggering detention or . The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (successor to the ) conducted investigations into fraud rings, as early as the 1920s, targeting sales of bogus documents in Chinatowns and cross-border smuggling, though the low volume of attempts—due to the Act's severity—yielded fewer detections than in the U.S., where higher traffic strained resources. Failure carried penalties of $500 fines, , or expulsion, reinforcing compliance among established communities wary of collective reprisal.

Individual and Immediate Consequences

Personal Ordeals: Detention, Deportation Risks, and Costs

Paper sons faced prolonged detentions at Angel Island Immigration Station, often lasting weeks to months, with some held for over a year in cramped, segregated barracks featuring stacked metal cots and substandard sanitary conditions. Detainees underwent humiliating medical examinations and exhaustive interrogations by the Board of Special Inquiry, which scrutinized details of claimed family lineages and village life to detect fraud. These processes segregated individuals by race, gender, and class, fostering isolation and uncertainty. The psychological toll was profound, as evidenced by poetry detainees carved into wooden walls, lamenting confinement, frustration, anger, and hopelessness—likening the barracks to a "cage" that trapped aspirations. Documented cases include fewer than a dozen suicides among Chinese immigrants, with some opting for death rather than facing deportation and return to China in despair. Deportation risks affected approximately 10 percent of Chinese arrivals—who comprised about one-third of detainees—far exceeding the 1-2 percent rate at . Failed entrants forfeited substantial family investments in fraudulent papers, materials, and passage, often returning penniless after relatives in had liquidated assets to finance the attempt. Even those who gained entry bore lasting hardships, including separation from families in and a pervasive fear of future exposure, as inconsistencies in fabricated identities could trigger investigations and removal at any time. This anxiety persisted for decades, shaping lives marked by secrecy and vigilance against scrutiny.

Short-Term Economic Integration and Exploitation

Upon gaining entry through fraudulent claims of U.S. , paper sons typically integrated into the urban economy by taking up low-skill, labor-intensive roles in ethnic enclaves, such as hand laundries and restaurants, which were among the few occupations accessible amid widespread and legal barriers to other sectors like or . These jobs emerged as alternatives after earlier exclusion from via taxes like the 1852 Foreign Miners’ Tax and from railroads post-completion of major lines in the , channeling workers into in growing Chinatowns. By the early 1900s, laundries alone employed thousands of Chinese men in cities like and New York, with over 500 such establishments in by 1931, providing essential but grueling manual labor under 12- to 16-hour shifts. A primary motivation for many paper sons was temporary sojourning to remit earnings to families in , sustaining villages amid exclusion-era and famines; these funds formed a stable flow supporting rural economies, with individual daily wages around $1 in the late 19th to early 20th centuries often directed homeward rather than accumulated locally. remittances from the U.S. contributed significantly to this pattern between 1900 and 1940, bolstering kinship networks but reinforcing the sojourner mindset that limited deeper economic rooting. This short-term orientation aided survival in , where exclusion had severed legal migration paths, yet it perpetuated cycles of from purchasing paper identities, often costing $500–$1,000 per slot in the –. Exploitation arose from their precarious status: ineligible for naturalization under the 1870 Naturalization Act amendments and 1882 Exclusion Act, paper sons were confined to low-wage niches paying 20–50% less than native workers, with fraudulent documents restricting geographic or occupational mobility to avoid scrutiny. Employers capitalized on this vulnerability, hiring for undesirable tasks shunned by others, while the constant deportation risk—heightened by intermittent INS raids—fostered dependency on Chinatown networks for shelter and leads, straining communal resources without broader welfare access. Though filling urban service gaps via illegal entry, their integration via underpaid labor fueled native resentments over wage suppression, even as it supported enclave economies like post-1906 San Francisco Chinatown reconstruction.

Repeal of Exclusion Laws and Confessions Program

The Magnuson Act of December 17, 1943, formally repealed the of 1882 and related bans, replacing them with an annual immigration quota of 105 for persons of Chinese origin while authorizing Chinese non-citizens already in the United States to naturalize, marking the first such eligibility since the Act of 1870. This shift aligned with wartime alliances against and efforts to project inclusivity amid global scrutiny of U.S. racial policies. In , the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923—which had prohibited nearly all Chinese entry for 24 years—was repealed effective May 14, 1947, following advocacy by Chinese Canadian groups and post-World War II commitments to principles, though it retained quotas and higher fees for Chinese applicants until broader liberalization in the . Despite these repeals, thousands of pre-1943 paper sons faced exposure risks as enforcement intensified under McCarthy-era anti-communist pressures, prompting the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service to initiate the Chinese Confessions Program from 1956 to 1965 as an alternative to widespread deportations that could undermine Cold War propaganda portraying America as a beacon of opportunity. The program incentivized voluntary admissions of fraud—such as fabricated sonship claims—by granting lawful permanent resident status to confessors, who then qualified for after five years of continuous residency, a standard period for such adjustments, while sparing them criminal penalties. By 1965, 11,336 individuals had participated directly, with confessions implicating an additional 19,124 relatives and nullifying about 5,800 fictitious kinship slots in community records, thereby regularizing statuses without systemic upheaval. Participation was promoted through discreet outreach in Chinatowns, though it carried risks of family disruption and stigma, as admissions often required detailing generational deceptions. No equivalent formalized program emerged in , where paper son equivalents were addressed piecemeal through post-repeal applications amid ongoing restrictions.

Investigations, Prosecutions, and Systemic Reforms

In the 1950s, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) intensified investigations into paper son fraud amid Cold War-era suspicions of communist infiltration, unmasking networks through interrogations and tips, which resulted in the of hundreds of individuals whose entries dated back decades. These probes targeted community leaders and laborers alike, leveraging discrepancies in family testimonies to expose fabricated lineages, though enforcement was selective and often aimed at political dissidents rather than comprehensive sweeps. Criminal prosecutions remained rare, constrained by the five-year for non-capital offenses under federal law, which barred action on entries from the –, and by evidentiary challenges including faded memories and deceased witnesses after 30–40 years. INS records indicate that while thousands of cases surfaced, few led to indictments, as proceedings—possible without time limits for proven in citizenship acquisition—were pursued sparingly due to resource limits and community resistance. The Chinese Confessions Program, initiated by INS in 1956 and running until 1965, marked a pivotal shift by offering fraudulent entrants a path to in exchange for admitting and identifying accomplices, thereby closing 11,294 bogus slots across family chains. This approach yielded 13,895 confessions implicating 22,083 persons but prioritized administrative regularization over punitive measures, effectively curtailing aggressive prosecutions and deportations by incentivizing self-reporting and dismantling paper son infrastructures without widespread removal. Earlier systemic reforms under the imposed visa prerequisites and rigorous pre-entry documentation for exempt classes like merchants and students, aiming to sever new fraudulent chains by requiring consular abroad, though pre-1924 paper sons exploited grandfathered slots. Enhanced port procedures, including cross-referenced village and prolonged detentions, reduced successful evasions post-1924, but entrenched family networks persisted until confessions systematically invalidated them. Fingerprinting, adopted by INS for alien registration in the under wartime security mandates, provided retrospective verification in some probes but proved insufficient against decades-old deceptions reliant on verbal alibis. Overall, these efforts exposed the limits of retrospective enforcement, as fraud's scale—estimated at tens of thousands—overwhelmed punitive capacity, favoring pragmatic slot closures over exhaustive legal reckoning.

Broader Impacts and Criticisms

Contributions to Labor and Communities vs. Fraudulent Foundations

The influx of paper sons substantially augmented the Chinese American population during the exclusion era, enabling community persistence and labor contributions amid restrictive laws. Historians estimate that between 1882 and 1943, approximately 300,000 Chinese individuals gained admission to the , with over 90 percent after 1906 relying on paper son claims or similar fraudulent exemptions from the . This demographic expansion, which maintained and grew ethnic enclaves like San Francisco's Chinatown—rebuilding it after the 1906 earthquake—provided essential manpower for urban reconstruction and service industries. During , many paper sons enlisted in the U.S. military or filled labor shortages in defense sectors, supporting the war economy despite their undocumented origins. These communities fostered cultural institutions, family networks, and economic niches that endured beyond exclusion. However, these contributions rested on systemic , involving fabricated identities that severed ties to authentic genealogies and perpetuated intergenerational . Paper sons purchased or assumed false papers, often claiming nonexistent filial links to U.S. residents, which required coaching in fabricated family histories and during immigration interrogations. This created "perjury networks" where entire clans upheld lies under oath to evade detection, distorting personal and communal records for decades. Descendants frequently discovered these discrepancies through genealogy research, revealing how initial evasions obscured biological lineages and complicated heritage tracing. Following the 1943 repeal of exclusionary laws via the Magnuson Act, paper son descendants integrated into broader society, contributing to postwar economic growth and civic life, yet their foundational status remained linked to prior illegal entries. While this integration yielded long-term societal benefits, such as diversified labor pools and vibrant diasporic cultures, it originated from mechanisms designed to circumvent federal prohibitions, underscoring a tension between pragmatic adaptation and legal illegitimacy.

Undermining Immigration Enforcement and

The paper son system fostered widespread , as applicants memorized fabricated family histories from coaching books to deliver consistent false under during interrogations, with corroborating witnesses—often purported relatives—similarly committing felonies by affirming invented details. This practice normalized deceit in official proceedings, eroding the integrity of testimonial evidence and establishing a precedent for suborning false statements within affected communities to evade detection. Such systemic fraud imposed substantial operational burdens on enforcement agencies, requiring protracted, resource-intensive probes at sites like Angel Island, where detainees faced weeks or months of questioning to uncover discrepancies, yet an estimated 110,000 to 300,000 Chinese individuals still entered illicitly between and 1943 despite exclusion statutes. These efforts diverted federal personnel and funds from broader border security, while unvetted entrants contributed to undocumented labor pools that bypassed legal vetting processes, diminishing incentives for compliance with protocols. By demonstrating the feasibility of large-scale document forgery and familial impersonation, the phenomenon undermined policy deterrence, signaling that restrictive laws could be routinely circumvented through organized evasion networks, a dynamic that persisted into post-exclusion eras and paralleled later tolerance for irregular migration tactics. This erosion of enforcement credibility fostered skepticism toward legal immigration pathways, as successful fraud cases illustrated the limits of statutory barriers against determined circumvention.

Controversies and Debates

Ethical Justifications for Fraud vs. Criminal Accountability

Some advocates for the paper sons practice, including certain historians and descendants of participants, frame the as a form of justified resistance against explicitly racist and unjust exclusionary laws that barred and economic migration for Chinese individuals, positioning circumvention as a moral necessity to affirm human dignity and familial bonds amid systemic . Personal testimonies from immigrants and their families often portray the acquisition of false documents as an imperative driven by , persecution in , and the denial of basic opportunities, with entrants viewing the as a survival strategy rather than criminal intent, as evidenced in accounts of purchasing "slots" from established citizens to escape dire conditions. These narratives emphasize that the underlying laws violated principles of equity, rendering compliance unethical and a pragmatic assertion of agency against state-imposed barriers. Opposing this, legal scholars and enforcement perspectives maintain that immigration fraud constitutes a felony offense, such as perjury and document falsification under statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and § 1546, which erodes national sovereignty and the rule of law irrespective of the immigration policy's perceived flaws, as fraudulent entries foster systemic distrust and incentivize broader noncompliance with borders and verification processes. Prosecutions during and after the era, including those tied to confessions of false claims, underscore criminal accountability, with authorities arguing that excusing fraud based on policy critique invites anarchy, as sovereignty demands consistent enforcement to prevent unchecked inflows that strain resources and dilute legal immigration pathways. Critics of the pro-fraud stance further highlight causal economic repercussions, contending that paper sons entries augmented labor supply in low-wage sectors, displacing native workers and depressing wages in regions with high Chinese concentrations prior to stricter enforcement, as the Exclusion Acts themselves were enacted by in response to documented job and pressures cited by labor unions and Western state legislatures. Empirical analyses of the era indicate that unrestricted Chinese labor inflows correlated with reduced employment opportunities for unskilled natives in and , justifying the laws' intent to safeguard domestic labor markets, though long-term studies debate the net effects post-enactment. This viewpoint prioritizes accountability to verifiable harms over retrospective moral rationalizations, asserting that flawed policies warrant reform through democratic means, not individual felonies that undermine collective order.

Historical Reassessments and Policy Lessons

In the early , scholars reassessed the paper sons system as a form of undocumented migration predating modern terminology, with some portraying the as adaptive resistance to exclusionary laws that barred legal entry for most Chinese laborers from to 1943. This view, prevalent in academic histories, emphasizes survival amid policy-induced desperation, estimating that 20,000 to 30,000 individuals entered via fabricated "paper" identities claiming U.S. citizen fathers, often leveraging sold slots from the 1906 earthquake's citizenship record losses. Counterperspectives, including firsthand accounts from descendants, stress the criminality of the deception, noting rejection rates exceeding 30% at entry points like Angel Island due to interrogation discrepancies, which foreshadowed systemic vulnerabilities in later waves. The Chinese Confessions Program (1957–1965), which allowed voluntary admission of for adjusted status, yielded mixed outcomes: over 13,000 participants gained derivative citizenship, but disclosures unraveled extended "" family networks, prompting deportations for non-confessors and derivatives whose claims proved baseless, thus driving survivors deeper rather than resolving the legacy. This illustrates a core policy lesson: amnesties tied to self-reporting can amplify risks and incentivize evasion, as partial leniency signals potential future waivers, eroding deterrence without comprehensive verification. Empirical data from the show heightened post-program correlated with reduced but persistent illicit claims, underscoring the causal primacy of strict, antecedent over retrospective pardons in upholding . Contemporary 2020s analyses link paper sons to undocumented immigration debates, critiquing narratives that prioritize equity or "survival" rationales over verifiable processes, which historically enabled fraud networks profiting from document and . Such reassessments advocate reforms emphasizing biometric and digital vetting to preempt evasion, warning that institutional biases toward leniency—evident in academic downplaying of 's scale—mirror exclusion-era lapses, where unaddressed violations compounded rule-of-law erosion. Lessons persist: systems must enforce causal accountability through upfront barriers, as evasion tactics evolve but thrive on perceived policy pliability, per patterns from 1924 quotas to post-1965 surges.

Notable Examples

Prominent Cases and Personal Accounts

Tung Pok Chin immigrated to the in 1934 at age 19 using falsified documents that claimed him as the son of a U.S. citizen, exemplifying the paper son method to evade exclusion laws. His subsequent life involved labor in laundries and restaurants while concealing his true identity to avoid , ultimately enabling him to establish a family and contribute to Chinese American communities through his writings. Chin's 2000 memoir, Paper Son: One Man's Story, provides a firsthand account of the psychological toll and strategic deceptions required to maintain the over decades. During the Chinese Confession Program from 1956 to 1965, Ernest Wong publicly admitted to entering as a paper son, cooperating with authorities to regularize his status amid investigations that exposed over 19,000 fraudulent claims. This confession, while granting him , unraveled family networks built on shared deceptions, leading to deportations and social for relatives whose paper identities were invalidated. Wong's case highlighted the program's dual role in offering to confessor but precipitating ruin for extended kin through chain-reaction exposures. In , Jim Wong-Chu arrived in 1953 at age four, smuggled under a paper son identity as the relative of established Chinese residents to circumvent the 1923 Chinese Immigration Act's head tax and exclusion provisions. This fraudulent entry allowed him to grow up in , later becoming a prominent and archivist who documented Chinese Canadian histories, though the hidden origins imposed lifelong secrecy on his family. Wong-Chu's experience underscores how paper son successes facilitated cultural contributions, yet carried risks of exposure that could dismantle personal and communal stability.

References

  1. https://blogs.loc.gov/manuscripts/2024/05/paper-sons-in-the-era-of-immigration-restriction-chinese-immigration-and-the-immigration-act-of-1924/
  2. https://www.archives.gov/research/chinese-americans/guide
  3. https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object/nmah_1332717
  4. https://studentbriefs.law.gwu.edu/ilpb/2021/11/10/paper-sons-and-daughters-a-brief-history-of-chinese-exclusion-in-america/
  5. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/704718
  6. https://prizedwriting.ucdavis.edu/stanley-hom-lau-paper-son
  7. https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/immigration/chinese/growth-and-inclusion/
  8. http://teachingresources.atlas.illinois.edu/chinese_exp/resources/resource_3_4.pdf
  9. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/burlingame-seward-treaty
  10. https://immigrationhistory.org/item/burlingame-treaty-of-1868/
  11. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/chinese-immigration
  12. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/chinese-exclusion-act
  13. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/chinese_exclusion_act.asp
  14. https://immigrationhistory.org/item/geary-act/
  15. https://guides.loc.gov/chinese-exclusion-act
  16. https://pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/the-chinese-immigration-act-1885
  17. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/campaigns/asian-heritage-month/important-events.html
  18. https://parks.canada.ca/culture/designation/evenement-event/exclusion-chinois-chinese
  19. https://www.nps.gov/gosp/learn/historyculture/chinese-labor-and-the-iron-road.htm
  20. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/report/nae-chinese-americans/
  21. https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/immigration/chinese/struggling-for-work/
  22. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/goldrush-chinese-immigrants/
  23. https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/5views/5views3c.htm
  24. https://www.hoover.org/research/chinese-exclusion-act-and-us-economic-development
  25. https://www.foundsf.org/To_Contain_or_to_Conceal:_San_Francisco%25E2%2580%2599s_Plague_Epidemic%2C_1900
  26. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/197753
  27. https://www.jstor.org/stable/828412
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7678810/
  29. https://publicdomainreview.org/essay/splitting-hairs/
  30. https://www.calmigration.org/learn-chapter/paper-sons
  31. https://www.aiisf.org/mosaic-profiles/papersons
  32. https://homesteadmuseum.blog/2024/02/16/rise-of-the-paper-son/
  33. https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/paper-sons-daughters-complexity-choices-during-exclusion-era
  34. https://theamericanscholar.org/birthright-citizens-and-paper-sons/
  35. https://usdandelion.com/archives/7388
  36. https://usdandelion.com/archives/2299
  37. https://www.immigrant-voices.aiisf.org/737-my-father-was-a-paper-son/
  38. https://www.immigrant-voices.aiisf.org/616-horn-fong/
  39. https://www.si.edu/object/chinese-immigrant-study-guide%253Anmah_1332717
  40. https://apa.si.edu/now/chinese-coaching-book-1938/
  41. https://www.nps.gov/articles/asian-americans-and-pacific-islanders-in-the-making-of-the-nation.htm
  42. https://www.mocanyc.org/collections/stories/paper-son-coaching-book/
  43. https://americansall.org/legacy-story-group/angel-island-immigration-station
  44. https://www.aiisf.org/history
  45. https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-36
  46. https://www.aiisf.org/finder
  47. https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2004/spring/alleged-wife
  48. https://www.aiisf.org/vault/16questions
  49. https://uwpressblog.com/2014/12/10/poetry-and-the-politics-of-chinese-immigration-on-angel-island-qa-with-judy-yung/
  50. https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=1309
  51. https://tropicsofmeta.com/2024/10/03/sadness-of-the-paper-son-the-travails-of-asian-immigration-to-the-u-s/
  52. https://www.ohs.org/oregon-historical-quarterly/upload/02_Coe_Chinese-in-Astoria.pdf
  53. https://wheninyourstate.com/california/the-elaborate-fake-identity-network-that-smuggled-thousands-of-chinese-men-into-1920s-america/
  54. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-american-history/article/paper-lives-of-chinese-migrants-and-the-history-of-the-undocumented/1FD65EDBA52DCBDFE118024C501CA77C
  55. https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1063&context=honorscollege_theses
  56. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%257CA581024572&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=10517642&p=AONE&sw=w
  57. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-history-review/article/strange-career-of-the-illegal-alien-immigration-restriction-and-deportation-policy-in-the-united-states-19211965/BE43E7F16AF4960EC0F7909550BF858F
  58. https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/chinese-head-tax-in-canada
  59. https://www.sfu.ca/chinese-canadian-history/chart_en.html
  60. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/chinese-exclusion-act-paper-trail-exhibition-chinese-canadian-museum-july-1-vancouver-1.6890114
  61. https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/chinese-immigration-act
  62. https://pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/chinese-immigration-act-1923
  63. https://thetyee.ca/News/2021/07/01/Chinese-Canada-Numbered-Interrogated-Excluded-Humiliation-Paper/
  64. http://www.roadtojustice.ca/laws/chinese-exclusion-act
  65. https://pier21.ca/before-and-after-1923-chinese-exclusion-context
  66. https://www.sencanada.ca/en/sencaplus/opinion/the-chinese-exclusion-acts-dark-centennial-holds-lessons-for-today-senator-simons/
  67. https://open.library.ubc.ca/media/stream/pdf/52966/1.0413619/5
  68. https://savingplaces.org/stories/messages-from-angel-island-powerful-personal-histories-at-a-former-us-immigration-station
  69. https://www.immigrant-voices.aiisf.org/930-imprisonment-at-angel-island/
  70. https://chsa.org/chinese-laundries-in-the-u-s/
  71. https://scholars.org/brief/untold-story-chinese-restaurants-america
  72. https://aapihistorymuseum.org/what-was-it-like-for-chinese-people-on-the-east-coast-during-the-chinese-exclusion-act/
  73. https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/chinese-boycott
  74. https://joysauce.com/442-paper-sons-rebuilt-san-franciscos-chinatown-after-1906-quake/
  75. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/chinese-exclusion-act-repeal
  76. https://immigrationhistory.org/item/1943-repeal-of-chinese-exclusion/
  77. https://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/page_nhs_eng.aspx?id=17372
  78. https://immigrationhistory.org/item/chinese-confession-program/
  79. https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/APA/Historical-Essays/Exclusion-to-Inclusion/Immigrants-and-Refugees/
  80. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/mccarthy-numbed-with-fear-chinese-americans/
  81. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-650-length-limitations-period
  82. https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/denaturalization_pa.pdf
  83. https://www.chsne.org/exclusion-timeline/
  84. https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0200302970
  85. https://www.aiisf.org/vault/papersonsoldiers
  86. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/12/17/251833652/chinese-american-descendants-uncover-forged-family-history
  87. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-aug-02-oe-see2-story.html
  88. https://gombenn.org/paper-sons-entrance-exam/
  89. https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook_print.cfm?smtid=3&psid=4055
  90. https://www.facinghistory.org/ideas-week/confronting-legacy-chinese-exclusion
  91. https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/uscis-announces-results-of-operation-twin-shield-a-large-scale-immigration-fraud-investigation
  92. https://www.nber.org/digest/202412/chinese-exclusion-act-1882-and-american-labor-markets
  93. https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2015/09/19/illegal-immigration-paper-son/32574647/
  94. https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/the-long-shadow-of-the-chinese-exclusion-act
  95. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00961442251359182
  96. https://www.mocanyc.org/collections/stories/paper-son-one-mans-story/
  97. https://apa.si.edu/bookdragon/paper-son-one-mans-story-by-tung-pok-chin-with-winifred-chin/
  98. https://guides.library.ubc.ca/asian-canadian-archives/chinese
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.