Talk:Cable Act

When I came upon the Cable Act entry originally it was under that old misconception that it took away womens rights. As I said then, people posted this up here because the read it from some other website that is unreliable. Think this subject over logically, why would a law be made to take away female citizenship when in 1920 the 19th Amendment was passed (the right for women to vote). I have posted references before and whoever edited the page after me had two mistakes:

1. "This piece of legislation made it so that any female citizen who married an "alien ineligible for citizenship" would give up her citizenship. She would regain her citizenship if she were to divorce the non citizen."

This is WAS the old law until it was changed in 1922, do your research from an official site, perhaps open a book, or visit a library and you will find this out yourself.

2. "The Cable Act of 1922 reveals the anti-nonwhite sentiment in the early 1900s. It is a blatant attack at male immigrants from the Pacific as well as African Americans, who were ineligible for citizenship, for attempting to be romantically involved with Caucasian women."

What do African Americans (unless your referring to African immigrants, which as you may not realize, are a insignificant percentage of immigrants in the 1920's) have to do with immigration status, they ARE ALREADY US CITIZENS.

So as you may already know, cite your source...especially if you edit this article. refer to my entry below for more info on why the misconception is false. -MarlonG — Preceding undated comment added 05:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

"...Happily, Congress was at work and on September 22, 1922, passed the Married Women's Act, also known as the Cable Act. This 1922 law finally gave each woman a nationality of her own. No marriage since that date has granted U.S. citizenship to any alien woman nor taken it from any U.S.-born women who married an alien eligible to naturalization.(11) Under the new law women became eligible to naturalize on (almost) the same terms as men."

This was taken from http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1998/summer/women-and-naturalization-1.html which as you can see is from the official US government archives. Also the other links I put up before on the reference portion will confirm this. Anyone really interested in this should note that specific restrictions were put on alien women marrying Naturalized men.(civilians not born in the US but have undergone US citizenship) Basically they had to apply for naturalization, which they could now attempt to do because of the Cable Act.

So once again, CITE YOUR SOURCES and make sure they are valid websites (an example is the government archives). Also please do not violate copyright laws by plagiarizing the government archives nor the quote above.-MarlonG — Preceding undated comment added 05:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

It appears that there have been some misunderstandings amongst article contributors, with regards to the changes that the Cable Act of 1922 did or did not effect.

I have done my best to go over the review history log, as well as the discussion for this article. There have been a series of revisions and reversions, presumably because of a lack of reliable source citations. I have done my best to utilize reliable sources, citing only university (.edu) and governmental (.gov) websites.

First, I would like to address MarlonG's point regarding "the old misconception that it took away womens rights" (sp). It is my understanding that MarlonG's position is that the Cable Act helped women's rights, since "women became eligible to naturalize on (almost) the same terms as men" under the new law. It is true that the Cable Act did reverse many of the old laws regarding female citizenship; it is true that the new law granted MANY women "a nationality of her own", independent of her husband.

However, we should pay close attention to the quotation that Marlon G cited earlier (http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1998/summer/women-and-naturalization-1.html):

"No marriage since that date has granted U.S. citizenship to any alien woman nor taken it from any U.S.-born women who married an alien eligible to naturalization.(11)"

Please pay attention to the key phrase "alien eligible to naturalization". Laws prior to 1922 "made no distinctions about the race of the foreigner; marriage to any alien would cause loss of citizenship" (http://mcel.pacificu.edu/aspac/home/papers/scholars/brown/brown.php3). However, the Cable Act only PARTIALLY reversed such laws. During the passing of the Cable Act, alien Asian men were NOT considered to be "eligible to naturalization", resultant from Imperial China's criminalization of Chinese Nationals who naturalized: beheading, upon return; wife and children sold into slavery, conspirators OR people who knew about the pending naturalization would be whipped, then exiled between 801 miles and 1200 miles, depending. This "whipping" and sending wife and children in to slavery was too distasteful for Antebellum Congress: the pressure was on the foreign nation to prevent naturalization of the Chinese national. This is supported by the following passage from a Smithsonian Institution website (http://www.apa.si.edu/Curriculum%20Guide-Final/teacherhistory.htm):

"In 1922, the Cable Act stripped American women of their citizenship if they married "aliens ineligible for naturalization," meaning Asians[ed. 2018: ineligible aliens were the entire category of aliens who were ineligible to citizenship, such as polygamists, persons likely to beoome a public charge, etc.]. In 1922 as well, the Japanese-born Takao Ozawa was denied naturalization, in accordance with the 1790 Naturalization Act, which allowed only "free White persons" to become U.S. citizens.

In 1923, insisting that he was biologically Caucasian, Bhagat Singh Thind applied for naturalization, but the U.S. vs. Bhagat Singh Thind decision officially barred Asian Indians, as well, from citizenship. " [ed. 2018: By 1923, opium was a large problem in India and Pakistan. A conference at Geneva in November 1924 to address the issue ended with India and Pakistan demanding that other crops be introduced ^[1]. Opium usage was considered in conjunction with the Golden Triangle Opium production, and used in conjunction with Imperial China's criminalization of naturalization, as well as various exclusions under the 1892 Immigration Act. The 1907 Gentleman's Agreement with Japan: Japan stopped issuing passports to Japanese (except to Hawaii), which effectively barred Japanese males from being "eligible to [US] citizenship. The "Asian" blockade requires that one look across treaties and also interaction with U.S. laws. Effect 1: the 1907 Gentlemen's Agreement where Japan refused to issue passports except to Hawaii excluded NEW Japanese immigration (thus making those Japanese males who immigrated after 1907 INELIGIBLE to citizenship interacted with the 1907, 1922 and 1930 Cable Citizenship Acts, which removed citizenship upon marriage to an alien ineligible to citizenship.

Thus, if a Japanese male who immigrated after 1907 (or had married an American woman in Japan, or in America while visiting), would have been deemed an alien ineligible to citizenship because of the 1907 Gentlemen's Agreement, which, though never ratified, was considered as an "contract" between a duly-elected sitting President and a Foreign Power. </blocquote>

The following timeline from a University of Houston website also supports this point (http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/asian_voices/asian_timeline.cfm):

"The Cable Act revokes the American citizenship of any woman who marries an alien ineligible for U.S. citizenship. In Takao Ozawa v. United States, the Supreme Court upholds the Naturalization Law which declared Japanese and other Asian immigrants ineligible for citizenship."

Finally, let's look at the National Archives website that MarlonG originally referred to. The original statement in question is followed by footnote #11. That footnote, on the second page of that site (http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1998/summer/women-and-naturalization-2.html), states that:

"11. Until 1931, women still expatriated themselves by marriage to an alien racially ineligible to naturalize."

Therefore, we can see that, in addition to other reliable academic sources, the very website that MarlonG cited acknowledges that the Cable Act's guarantee of independent female citizenship DID NOT apply to women who were married to “racially ineligible” alien Asian men.

Secondly, I would like to address the question in which MarlonG asked: "why would a law be made to take away female citizenship when in 1920 the 19th Amendment was passed (the right for women to vote)"?

The Cable Act's exclusion of women married to alien Asian men was not so much a matter of taking away female citizenship/rights, as it was a matter of discrimination against Asian men. As the following paper from Pacific University's Asian Studies website states (http://mcel.pacificu.edu/aspac/home/papers/scholars/brown/brown.php3):

"...legislators began to define the type of foreigner an American woman may marry. Although they still wished to combine the goals of encouraging world harmony through international marriages with their desire to grant equality to white women, they qualified their effort with the caveat that the foreigners they marry not be Japanese or Chinese [...] Because the only aliens deemed ineligible for American citizenship were Chinese and Japanese, the law effectively proscribed marriages with them."

Thus, in the minds of legislators, the Cable Act did not conflict with the precedents of increasing womens' rights (e.g.: the 19th amendment). Furthermore, the Cable Act was also consistent with an overall trend of national and state laws which discriminated against Asians and Asian males in particular.

These are the justifications for my revision of the article on the Cable Act of 1922 to include the information regarding the denial of U.S. citizenship to women married to "aliens ineligible for naturalization". I have done my best make my revisions on the main article with neutral language and several reliable academic sources. I may provide additional paper-based academic sources sometime in the future. I respectfully ask other contributors to NOT blindly revert this article to a previous state without first providing reliable academic sources as justification, and/or attempting to at least engage in further discussion on the talk page. JK Hahn 21:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your additions and for properly citing your sources in an articulate and correct fashion. I would like to stress though that while the law did discriminate against Chinese and Japanese (and possibly other Asian nationalities), for most situations this law was a great relief for women who married any other foreign nationality. The law went from discriminating wives of foreigners to specifically wives of people with Asian ethnicity. This was still an improvement within our legal system, granted it was very flawed. I am very sceptical about these other "sections" as the law is mainly about the rights of female citizens and now the article consists of 2/3 about discriminating against Asians. The article stub reads like it skims over what benefits women received. -MarlonG

I understand and acknowledge your concern about the benefits that women received as a result of the Cable Act. However, I think the idea that the law was "mainly" about female citizens' rights should be balanced with consideration that legislators and advocates of the bill (both male and female) often held discriminatory positions which were made explicit during the course of the law's enactment. Also, whether the Cable Act led to an "improvement" within the legal system depends on whom you ask.

I believe that your concerns could be addressed by the addition and supplementing of material about women's rights, rather than exclusion or removal of material dealing with discrimination against Asians.

Perhaps the article can elaborate upon the significance of the act on the rights of female citizens. I am not too familiar with all the categories on Wikipedia, but perhaps this article could also be included in a women's rights-related category. JK Hahn 10:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Time Magazine 12/24/1923

Addition of Categories

edit

I am including this article into the "Chinese American History" and "Japanese American History" categories, as this piece of legislation was meant to specifically exclude women married to alien Chinese and Japanese men in the United States. I believe there may be other categories to which this article could be added; however, I am taking a conservative approach at this time. I do know if others here would regard this as a minor or major edit; regardless, I believe changes to this article's categorization should be open to discussion, just to be safe. JK Hahn 19:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to above comment. -MarlonG

As noted earlier, perhaps this article could also be included under some women's rights-related categories. JK Hahn 10:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Repealed

edit

It might be good information for the article to mention when this law was not repealed. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the University of Houston site (http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/asian_voices/asian_timeline.cfm): In 1931, the Cable Act was amended "to allow American women to retain their citizenship after marrying aliens ineligible for U.S. citizenship." And in 1936, Congress did make some fixes but did not repeal(http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=49&page=1917) and (http://legisworks.org/sal/49/stats/STATUTE-49-Pg1917.pdf) the Cable Act was NOT repealed: it survives in 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 324. JK Hahn 08:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC). Mr. Hong is incorrect: the verbiage as verbatim from the legislation continues--to this day--to strip women of citizenship when married to ANY alien ineligible to citizenship (not just by "race" but such other factors like polygamy, mental illness, etc), reads thusly in Section 3(b) NOT 3(a): SEC. 3. (a) A woman citizen of the United States shall not cease

to be a citizen of the United States by reason of her marriage after this section, as amended, takes effect, unless she makes a formal renunciation of her citizenship before a court having jurisdiction over naturalization of aliens . "(b) Any woman who before this section, as amended, takes effect, has lost her United States citizenship by residence abroad after marriage to an alien or by marriage to an alien ineligible to citizenship may, if she has not acquired any other nationality by affirmative act, be naturalized in the manner prescribed in section 4 of this Act, as if citizen at birth, amended. Any woman who was a citizen of the United States at naturalization not denied on account of race. birth shall not be denied naturalization under section 4 on account of her race. (http://legisworks.org/sal/46/stats/STATUTE-46-Pg1511.pdf) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.36.253 (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cable Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422015759/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/asian_voices/asian_timeline.cfm to http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/asian_voices/asian_timeline.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422015759/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/asian_voices/asian_timeline.cfm to http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/asian_voices/asian_timeline.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Severe Bias

edit

As of today, this entire article is about loss of citizenship. This seems to be very tangential to the actual effects of the Cable Act. "No marriage since that date has granted U.S. citizenship". If the quoted source is accurate, then this needs to be described in the article somewhere. Whether or not this was the intent of the Act, it did become one of its major outcomes. Miqrogroove (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Article improvements

edit

The lead section of the cable act is very confusing and should be clarified. I think most contemporary interest in this law relates to the historical injustice it documents. This law perpetuated unequal rights for women and Asian men, which should be emphasized in this article. The Context of the Law section is good, but the leading paragraph should preview that section better. The John L. Cable information is important, but I think it should be removed from the leading paragraph and put in the Context Section. I also suggest improving the "Amendments to 1922 Act" section. Those amendments aren't discussed on other Wikipedia pages. At a minimum we should summarize what the amendments did in that section. Doing so would add historical context and display progress that has occurred towards equality.

I don't agree with Miqrogroove in saying that loss of citizenship is tangential, the contribution that this act had to the discrimination of Asians cannot be ignored. Though I do agree in that the the quip about the law not applying to men should be removed. The law clearly marginalized women and this page doesn't need more evidence of that. In regards to the Expatriation act, the cable act did in fact repeal sections 3 and 4. Reading the text of the Expatriation act, section 3. caused American women to take the nationality of their husbands after marriage. The Cable act allowed American women to retain their citizenship if they married foreign men, unless if was "an alien ineligible to citizenship". As JK Hahn said, this caused women to lose their citizenship if they married Asians. Section 4. said "That any foreign woman who acquires American citizenship shall be assumed to retain the same after the termination of the marital relation if she continue to reside in the United States." The effect of the cable act was that foreign women had to now apply for citizenship/naturalization after marrying a male American citizen, but it did waive the 5 year residence period. As I understand it, previously they would instantly become an American citizen through marriage, but now they needed apply and have resided in the USA for a year.

Public law 67-346 link is broken and should be fixed. The Statute link 1021b is fine, but I'm not sure why it is called 1021b because I don't see the "b" in public documents. I propose changing the text to: 42 Stat. 1021. Anonkiwi (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Poorly written and confusing

edit

This article lacks a clear and direct explanation of what the Cable Act actually did, instead focusing entirely on an analysis of the problems that it addressed and the related issues of women's rights. Not to take away from the importance of that context, but the article needs a clear and direct explanation of what the act actually says and does. 24.6.0.156 (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)