Asian America. Pawan Dhingra

framed Asian Americans as the economically and morally threatening “yellow peril” (Ancheta 2006). More recently, President Trump, for instance, reportedly did not want immigrants from African “shithole” countries.⁵

      Comparisons are rarely made between such immigration laws and Jim Crow legislation that undermined African Americans’ freedoms and benefited whites. But such comparisons elucidate the racist nature of certain immigration laws. Both sets of laws framed minorities as antithetical to the nation because of their suspect culture and sexuality. And both were based on the economically motivated fears of white workers. Legally speaking, however, there is a difference. According to the Supreme Court, the United States has the right to exclude populations from immigrating, just as it has the right to defend itself against foreign invasions of war (Ancheta 2006). Acting in the name of national sovereignty, the Congress can enact practically any law it wants (Nguyen 2005).

      Asians and other immigrant groups also face indirect, institutional discrimination within immigration laws. Such laws are not understood in popular discourse as racially motivated or significant, especially given the popularity of color-blind ideology. But because they often are, immigrants experience racism in ways that are overlooked. For instance, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 seemed racially progressive by eliminating unequal quotas for Asian and other countries. But its preference for relatives of those already residing in the United States reinforced whites’ claims on the nation, since they were the ones with the most relatives abroad. Sexual minorities face discrimination within the law as well. It was not until 1990 that open gays and lesbians could immigrate legally to the United States. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act banned same-sex marriage at the federal level, which precluded sponsorship of same-sex partners abroad for immigration.

Even when a proposed law is popularly understood as racially motivated, it can still pass as race-neutral legislation. For instance, Proposition 187 in California in 1994 aimed to bar undocumented residents (and those suspected of being undocumented) from access to most public institutions (e.g. public schools, social services, and health care) and would have disproportionately impacted Latinxs. It was framed by proponents, however, as protective of state resources and as a deterrent to illegal immigration. As another example, the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act signed by President Clinton reorganized public assistance (aka welfare). It barred noncitizen, legal immigrants from receiving certain public assistance based partly on stereotypes of immigrant mothers abusing the system (Fujiwara 2008). One month later, Clinton signed into law the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which called for the deportation of noncitizen, legal immigrants convicted of a felony, even if that felony had no bearing on the political process. Taken together, these laws severely limited the rights of documented immigrants, which disproportionately impacted Latinx and Asian Americans, again without explicitly invoking race whatsoever within the laws. President Trump’s “Muslim ban” (formally Executive Order 13769) finally became law because it became understood as a matter of national security, which opponents objected to. Within the current popular ideology of color-blindness, discussed above, it is easier to promote anti-immigrant legislation without being accused of racism since race is downplayed in the public discourse.

      Similarly, English-only legislation often stems not simply from the officially stated desire for a simplified mode of communication but also from the belief that other languages, namely Spanish, are associated with inferior lifestyles and people (Chavez 2008). Non-English languages also threaten most white Americans’ linguistic privilege and their claim on the national language (even though English is not the official language of the United States) (Ancheta 2006). Partly for these reasons, local residents resist the growth of Asian ethnic enclaves that might not have English store signs but instead signs in the residing immigrant group’s language (Cheng 2013; Fong 1994). Such enclaves threaten to “take over” towns, reminiscent of “yellow peril” fears (Lung-Amam 2017). These examples of institutional discrimination are embedded within the presumption of Asian Americans (and Latinxs) as foreigners to the white nation, even when those “foreigners” live next door.

       Racial profiling

      Racial profiling refers to the use of an individual’s assumed race or ethnicity in creating suspicion about the person otherwise not targeted by an official investigation. Racial profiling has been judged to be ineffective and actually detrimental to crime prevention (Wu 2002).⁶ Still, when national security is at stake, as it is when dealing with “foreign” threats that Asians and Asian Americans stereotypically pose, almost any tactic becomes permissible.

A high-profile case of racial profiling has been the mistaken accusations and imprisonment, including solitary confinement, of nuclear physicist Wen Ho Lee in 2000. He worked at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. He was accused of sharing secret information regarding nuclear weapons with Chinese authorities. His Taiwanese ethnic background figured in suspicions of him. According to Gotanda, “The spy charges have been maintained, not by evidence, but by constant allegations linking Wen Ho Lee to China. In its reliance upon innuendo rather than facts, the federal government has emphatically played its race card” (2000: 1690). An apology was issued to Lee by the judge for the grave misconduct in the case. Even The New York Times offered an apology to its readers for its poor coverage of the affair. As part of a plea bargain, Lee admitted guilt to one charge of mishandling sensitive information. Lee won a civil lawsuit against the government and certain media for their mishandling of his case.⁷ Such incidents pale in comparison, of course, to the gross internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, discussed in the next chapter, yet the threat of imprisonment by a feared Asian “enemy” continues.⁸

      Some racial profiling is more racially and religiously based, again with the backdrop of Asian Americans as untrustworthy and possible threats. “Operation meth merchant” is the US Drug Enforcement Agency’s name given to its crackdown on Indian American-run convenience stores in northwest Georgia accused of selling common household items that, when mixed together, can help create methamphetamine (meth). While most stores in that area are white-owned, those targeted were run by Indian immigrants, often with limited English skills.⁹ Deportations resulted from this operation.

More wide-ranging government profiling of South Asian and Arab Americans has risen since 9/11 from its already high rate, with particular emphasis on men from predominantly Muslim countries.¹⁰ Under the “special registration program,” male residents in the United States who immigrated from one of twenty-five nations, practically all of which were Middle East and South Asian countries (including Bangladesh and Pakistan), were asked to register with the federal government. A portion of those who did were subsequently deported for having an undocumented status. If one did not report for registration, one could be “charged with ‘willful failure to register’, damaging their ability to obtain immigration benefits for which they were otherwise eligible” (SAALT congressional testimony, June 2010, p. 13).¹¹ Deportation increased significantly among South Asian and Arab American populations. As quoted in congressional testimony in June 2010, “In fact, in the weeks immediately after 9/11, South Asians, Muslims, and Arabs were apprehended and detained by the FBI and held without charge; eventually, most were deported for minor immigration violations rather than any terrorism-related offenses.”¹² Arab Americans and South Asian Americans, in particular Sikhs, were detained at airports for questioning by security officers without having committed any suspicious activity, based on the color of their skin, their religion, or their dress. Detentions have risen markedly since 9/11 for offenses not tied to terrorism (Shiekh 2011). This is another example of how international relations between the United States and Asian and Middle Eastern countries, often involving US imperial ambitions to shape the outcomes of these nations’ political and economic decisions, shape government treatment of US immigrants. In an act of pan-ethnic solidarity, following 9/11, the Japanese American Citizens League came out against the racial profiling of Arab and South Asian Americans.¹³

       Hate crimes

      Closely associated with racial profiling are hate crimes. The difference between racial profiling and hate crimes is that