(Actual paper with editing information is Link)

Abstract:

Immigration is a topic of controversy in the U.S. Furthermore, Chinese and Mexican immigrant groups are the top two largest ethnic groups migrating to the U.S. currently. Both groups of immigrants hold similar reasons for wanting to enter the United States, and they have different laws targeted at prohibiting their entrance to the U.S. Their roles in the U.S. are shaped by their voice, and how they have been criticised within American society. This paper will target the role of free speech and its context in terms of the treatment of these immigrant groups as one of America’s social minority groups, and how the first amendment right has affected these groups in terms of creation of targeted policies, and their portrayal in news sources. This paper will further discuss the phrasing of the First Amendment, and how this interpretation potentially affects these groups, leading to the creation of a social and political problem. This paper will not discuss the effect towards people who immigrate getting visas, green cards, or are refugees from Chinese countries or Mexico. The paper only targets illegal immigrants coming to the U.S.

How does the U.S. react socially and politically to Chinese immigration during the 1890’s- 1940’s in comparison to Mexican immigration during the 1980’s-present day America in terms of the First Amendment and the economy?

Hispanic immigrants seek emigration to the U.S. due to a binational wage gap, the healthy environment in which one can work in, the natural environment in which one lives in, and due to the high crime rates in Mexico. Taking Mexico, as an example, it is arguably one of the most corrupt governments found in the world; researching specifically the reason why people would want to leave Mexico, research has found many fall to poverty because of the lack of opportunities available in Mexico; a person can work for months in the country and earn as little as $3.60 a day for eight hours of work while in the U.S they can earn up to $10.80 an hour. People do not leave their country because they want to leave their family, but rather because they have to leave their family in order to ensure their survival. At times people live without having much to eat, so they turn to their only possibility: a chance of gaining a better life in the “land of opportunities,” even while risking being an “illegal alien,” or  even death while crossing the border be it by desert or on a railroad way as is shown in the film  The Other Side of Immigration directed by Roy Germano. Most Mexican immigrants don’t plan to stay in the U.S. permanently; they only plan to stay until they earn enough money to go back to their country and create their own business, but most of the time this isn’t the case.

Chinese immigrants, similarly, also look for better opportunities, better working conditions, and the American dream everyone talks about; they want qualities that the First Amendment may guarantee like freedom of speech. The majority of Asiatic migration occurred during the Gold Rush era in the 1890s where Chinese came to the United States in search for any jobs even if the jobs paid them poorly. This was because in their country it was a time for hardships, and there were revolutions that'd eventually lead to the Chinese Civil War.

Chinese present day minimum wages include $1.70 an hour, and for Mexican’s is less than $5 a day. An immigrant might be paid only six dollars an hour or even one hundred dollars a week, and at times they aren’t even paid overtime, but sometimes even that is better than what they could’ve found in their hometowns.

Chinese immigrants were often recruited by work labourers to work in plantations where they were exploited, and they worked during the gold rush periods for very little wage in comparison to American workers, but they did earn more than they would’ve earned in their home country.

Chinese immigration first began around 1843 with the Chinese due to political, social, and cultural changes occurring within their new government as a result of the Meiji Restoration. Later Chinese immigration was marked with the building of the American Railroads in 1869. What this group did not count on was the racial discrimination they would suffer such as hate crimes led by widespread sentiments of unfairness and fear believing Chinese immigrants were stealing American jobs. These hate crimes often led to individuals violence and even possible death.

Hate crimes are different than freedom of speech and the rights given by the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects against freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom to march peacefully, and petition the government(according to the United States Constitution). Hate crimes, in contrast, are usually, “crime(s) motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically involving violence,” according to the FBI definition. However, freedom of speech at times does affect the actions of certain individuals or groups in the way the interpreter takes the given facts and is manipulated by fear(Lewis, 112). In the early 1900s when large numbers of immigrant groups began coming to the U.S. the current Commissioner General of Immigration, Frank Pierce Sargeant, largely based most of his laws to represent the interests of laborers who were often against illegal immigration. Pierce Sargent shows a widespread belief was that these immigrants stole jobs from laborers, hence, why the laborers didn’t like unrestricted immigrants. Newspaper articles showcased the reasonings for this by showing the Chinese in particular being okay with accepting lower wages, and being fine with only being fed rice instead of the American worker who demands more in terms of food and wage.

However, Freedom of Speech can at times cause certain unwanted events. An example of such events could include Vincent Chin’s murder by the hands of two white American men . These men claimed it was the Chinese fault and Chin’s that there was a U.S. recession and because of their bad misfortune they could possibly lose their jobs. These men were not punished for their actions even when they killed Chin. Rather, they were put in probation for two years and fined $3,700 each because they had no previous charges and they were White. This court sentence caused feelings of distrust amongst the safety of other Asiatic immigrants leading them to think that if a White male were to kill them; then, they’d be free with no consequences if that White male had a job and had no previous charges. This then leads to the question of what causes the people with no previous charges to commit a crime: is it freedom of speech on the individual’s own thoughts or is it the thoughts of the group which influenced their actions. There is also a possibility that these individuals were influenced by the actions and laws which had been created in their recent years causing discrimination towards those coming from Chinese backgrounds. Such laws could largely include the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Geary Act, and the Scott Act.

However, in terms of Freedom of Speech having an impact on this hate crime, it should be believed that the cause for this action was influenced by Labor Unions as a large to hold feelings of contempt and bitterness against the Chinese man because as stated by the LA Times paper from December 9th, 1909: anti- Chinese sentiment grew when business in California got closer to wage conditions of other older U.S. states and unemployment grew in the 1870s leading to business owners preferring cheap labor, and railway subsidies began to occur. Labor Unions later grew to hold political power; therefore, their ideas began to take hold by way of newspapers, and political debates growing momentum against Chinese immigrants. The targeting of Chinese immigrants by these particular Labor Unions as stated by the LA Times was purely unjust because Chinese immigrants were not able to testify in courts or vote in the American Law system. Henceforth, the Freedom of Speech which is guaranteed by the First Amendment was not readily available to Chinese Immigrants whose voices were not heard or whose complaints were largely ignored in a political sense against Labor Unions expressing their negative opinions about the Chinese with the Chinese being unable to state their case. Although, San Francisco records did show that Chinese immigrants were more likely to do work that Americans were unwilling to do; which further shows that they were not necessarily stealing jobs that Americans hadn’t previously turned down before the Chinese immigrant took the job.

Similarly, there was a recent case of violence towards Anastasio Hernandez who was shocked to death by Border Patrol Officials in 2010 using a stun gun. Anastasio had been found trying to sneak into the U.S. when officials caught him and demanded he not resist while they deported him back to Mexico. In this case there was a “motive” for the officers tossing the individual which was “acting in a violent manner.” Homicide officials then investigated the case finding the officers not guilty. However, new found footage showed videos of the event in which Anastasio did not look violent and rather five police officers were surrounding and beating him. He was then tasered, but police officials stand by the case saying he was resisting against police officials. As can be seen in the video, which shows a new sort of form for freedom of speech in the new technology world, he did nothing wrong, but apparently his actions had been “resistant” and “violent.” In this video all viewers are able to see is Anastasio pleading for police officials to stop, and they ignore him while at least five of them kept shocking him. The department of Justice and Homeland Security kept their decision of not punishing the officers and did not investigate the incident further than what the officers reported even though it was clear the brutality was uncalled for.

For the sake of showing the difference in time periods: this case would have been forgotten after less than one year if it had occurred in the early 20th century. Lack of evidence would have proved this case invalid against such a claim towards a government official. Even if technology had existed in the early 20th century and showed that Anastasio had indeed been innocent and was killed unjustly. The Court would not have heard the case on the basis that journalists would not have been able to even write about the incident because the government at the time often tried to block many cases by way of pressure when journalists wrote claims which were true, but affected the government rule(Lewis, 56). For instance, the case with the Vietnam War not going well, and written by a journalist's which would have been unsuccessful had he not received social support from his newspaper company, and had he not gone against those of higher power. In contrast, because these findings have been seen in previous history they give new meaning to the guiding principles of what freedom of speech and press is. The government is constantly criticized for certain actions it does today by newspaper articles, and even social media sites because of past cases which helped formalize the extent of freedom of speech . With the case of Anastasio: freedom of speech and press allowed his case to be known by millions due to coverage of the incident by the New York Times, KPBS, Telemundo, Univision, and other news outlets. The case of Anastasio might’ve been seen as okay in previous generations and a death at the hands of border patrol wouldn’t have been taken into such a huge account(or acknowledged for that matter), but the age of technology and social media has helped the increasing growth of finding a broader extent of news. Additionally, the events of Anastastio’s death might have been due to the ongoing restrictions and tightening of Border Patrol security with the increased amounts of immigration policies passed through recent years. Freedom of speech and news which government cannot restrict has largely become a huge source to gain support and sympathy for many immigrants coming to America and the hardships they are running from when coming to the U.S.

In these instances with the deaths of innocents at the hands of brutality; security shown by the U.S. is controversial at times. This is seen when non-citizens of the U.S. and even those who don’t look like the wanted blonde stereotype are discriminated even though they’re supposed to rely on America’s security system to keep them safe by giving up certain rights to law officials in order to obtain protection, but how can they feel safe when the ones in power ignore their rights. The same events which occurred to other immigrants like the Chinese around fifty or so years ago are now occurring to Mexican immigrants.

However, there’s also cases where immigrants are protected by the law. The Constitution itself guarantees the legal rights, civil rights, and fundamental liberties to every person in the United States. People of illegal immigrant status also have rights like the right to not open one's home to officials, and hence not be deported unless they obtain a legal document explaining the reason to protect their homes from a raid. There have been cards called, “Red Cards” which explain a person’s rights on one side and on the other side an english written basis saying why the person will not open the door; hence giving them freedom to answer any or no questions(hence enhancing First Amendment rights), and opening or closing their homes door.

Even though this sense of security through the law, controversially, in recent years there’s been debate regarding if illegal immigrants have the right to the First Amendment given in the United States. This case was widely shown in 2015 with the case of Pineda Cruz v. Thompson where 300 mothers with their children in Korens, Texas were detained in prisons (eighty of which began to protest their conditions and under the First Amendment led a protest where they didn’t eat for five days). In response to their rebellion the detention facility punished them for the hunger strike and threatened to separate the mothers from their children, and deport them. According to Michael Kagan, Professor of Law and Director of the Immigration Clinic in the University of Nevada, the Department of Justice claimed infringement of first amendment rights by claiming interest of security and penological interest. The Department of Justice’s second defence, as stated by Kagan, was that immigrants “who have not lawfully admitted into the U.S. hold no first amendment constitutional rights.” Therefore, the Department of Justice’s main claim was the protestors held no constitutional relevant connection to the U.S. which meant the prisoners could not sue under First Amendment rights. However, Kagan argues that the case would’ve been valid had the woman been U.S. residents or Citizens. Therefore, the Department of Justice proposed a huge claim in regards to its statement regarding illegal immigrants not claiming right to the First Amendment. Kagan, in his analysis of the case, goes on to explain how the Case of Citizens United v. FEC shows doctrinal support against this claim denying First Amendment rights based on identity rather than content of speech. This claim could further affect supporting groups aimed to support immigration movements such as the California Dream Act and other various immigration reforms which have been largely passed due to their continuing use of freedom of speech by marching, using social media, and publicizing newspaper articles. Sometimes these individuals are themselves immigrants and by limiting the use of their voice the community will only be able to hear third person accounts of the individuals stories, and not have a factual basis on criticizing these immigrants as freedom of speech is intended to show in the idea of Freedom for the Thought That We Hate. The DOJ’s stance in this statement states illegal immigrants have no right to free speech because they are not part of the “people” which the United States intended to protect when it was originally created. However, Kegan argues that the First Amendment is not limited to “the people” contrasting to the Bill of Rights. He argues that the First Amendment is phrased in such a way that it's a limit to government power rather than a limitation of “the people.” In a separate court case of Chew v. Colding(1953) the court decided that the First and Fifth Amendment did not in any way distinguish between citizens and resident aliens; therefore, if no distinction between both groups has been seen then who's to say there’s a distinction between immigrants residing in this country. This statement made by the Department of Justice could be seen to signal the increase discomfort towards the topic, and opponents towards illegal immigrants in this country could see this as a way to possibly take advantage of this court ruling by exploiting immigrants since they have no voice or freedom of speech in the United States. Around this time the Department of Justice’s political views may have been compromised by the possibility of the president elect Donald Trump actually being up in polls signaling a social approval towards banning or limiting access towards immigrants.

A similar case dealing with constitutional rights in the past includes the case of Dred Scott. It is similar to the case case findings in Pineda Cruz v. Thompson in that the government ruled the case of Dred Scott dismissed because Sanford, the owner of Dred Scott, claimed he could not make a lawsuit against him because he was not a citizen of the Constitution, and therefore had no free speech rights due to his African American race even though Dred Scott had lived in multiple free states for many years with his owner. The Supreme Court stated that Americans of African ancestry were not considered citizens of the United States because under the originalist viewpoint when the Constitution was created African Americans were not acknowledged as being part of, “the people.” This case would then connect to the previous case stated with the Department of Justice saying illegal immigrants have no rights under the first amendment because they are not part of, “the people” which the United States intended to protect when it wrote the Constitution. Therefore, the viewpoint in regards to immigrants having no right under the first amendment, Chinese not being able to testify in courts(in the early nineteenth hundreds) or make lawsuits in the U.S., and African Americans not being part of, “the people,” makes one question how do we as a participating U.S. community address who, “the people,” are, and why laws are targeted to limit a minority group's input of opinion or their ability to benefit from government common rights.

In order to address this question we first have to address who, “the people,” are in a government based context, and to do so it is important to take into account a journal article written by Boston College Law in the case of, “Undocumented Immigrants Caught in the Crossfire..” which takes into account the evolution of the government's decision on who’s entitled to First, Second, and Fourth Amendment Rights under the constitution with a clear focus on cases in regards to the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms seeing as all three Amendments include the phrase, “the people.” The journal article explicitly concludes that “the people” are meant to be anyone, including undocumented immigrants who have formed “substantial, and voluntary connections in the U.S.” according to the case of Mariano Meza(2015) in regards to the Second Amendment, and with reference to the First and Fourth Amendment decided upon by the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals due to language similarity between the Amendments. However, the Supreme Court has not yet given a say in its acknowledgement or judgement of the case, although historically this point of view has been seen previously by United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez where the Supreme court ruled that the term, “the people,” shares meaning between the First, Second, and Fourth Amendment, and this signifies that a group of people with sufficient connections in the United States can hold the name of, “the people.” Therefore, “the people,” in large would be categorized even by immigrants who have created connections, resided here, and built families in the U.S; however an important contrasting point would be Justice Scalia’s view of, “the people,” which he believes means the people from the U.S. political party.

Going off of this view point then it is important to note why laws have continually been made to target Chinese, and Mexican immigrants with references to African American segregation, and slavery. Chinese and Mexican immigrants in the past have provided a lot of cheap labor, as stated at the beginning of this paper, and often times this is done in order for them to earn more money than they could’ve earned back at home. Regardless, it is morally wrong to create a contract with someone and knowingly underpay them, otherwise known as exploitation, but because some of these workers don’t know they’re being paid severely less than the American workers, and are even willing to do work which American’s wouldn’t be willing to do then this gives some American individuals a sense of outrage. It used to be called racism, but in today’s society individuals have learned to not understand the context of race, but rather ignore past wrongs towards minority races and believe everyone is equal with a false sense that we are all born with the same opportunities; therefore, today this is largely referenced as unfairness to give these jobs to the new minorities which concisely once slavery was beginning to end, the group which began to be in a sense exploited in the work force were the Chinese, and years after the Chinese, Mexican exploitation began in its wake. Because these groups were willing to work for severely less money laws were passed to limit their rights in the hopes of driving them out of jobs that were “deserving of Americans,” but instead they made immigrants have little voice to argue against their employers for equality because they were not deserving of the title of citizen.

Additionally, the laws reflected outrage and fear from the citizens who advocated for these social changes on claims at times that these groups of immigrants were being corrupted(although true) they also served to limit the opportunities of these exploited groups by limiting the usage of their voice and their complaints. Such examples could include African American’s inability to vote or even hold the rights of a citizen  because they were not defined as, “the people,” even though we now see that African American’s were unjustly treated for much of America’s history, and if the court ruling from 1990 or even 2015 regarding who constitutes, “the people,” then African American’s would have been rightly so considered part of, “the people,” in argument to historical Constitutional value in Amendment rights. However, if African American’s would have been able to claim rights under, “the people,” the U.S. would have lost much profit in spending it in human labor instead of using slaves to do the same work for drastically less.

Another example could include Chinese immigrants who weren’t able to give their stance in a court, or make a lawsuit because they were not part of, “the people,” therefore, when they were discriminated, or treated unfairly they had no way to claim justice. With the case of Vincent Chin’s murder, his trial may have gone different had Chinese immigrants been able to testify in court, and perhaps his aggressors may have actually stayed longer than a year in prison. Had Chinese immigrants been part of, “the people,” they would have been able to demand change towards the Chinese Exclusion Act which only targeted their racial group while allowing free immigration passage towards all other groups.

Additionally, the laws reflected outrage and fear from the citizens who advocated for these social changes on claims at times that these groups of immigrants were being corrupted(although true) they also served to limit the opportunities of these exploited groups by limiting the usage of their voice and their complaints. Such examples could include African American’s inability to vote or even hold the rights of a citizen  because they were not defined as, “the people,” even though we now see that African American’s were unjustly treated for much of America’s history, and if the court ruling from 1990 or even 2015 regarding who constitutes, “the people,” then African American’s would have been rightly so considered part of, “the people,” in argument to historical Constitutional value in Amendment rights. However, if African American’s would have been able to claim rights under, “the people,” the U.S. would have lost much profit in spending it in human labor instead of using slaves to do the same work for drastically less.

Another example could include Chinese immigrants who weren’t able to give their stance in a court, or make a lawsuit because they were not part of, “the people,” therefore, when they were discriminated, or treated unfairly they had no way to claim justice. With the case of Vincent Chin’s murder, his trial may have gone different had Chinese immigrants been able to testify in court, and perhaps his aggressors may have actually stayed longer than a year in prison. Had Chinese immigrants been part of, “the people,” they would have been able to demand change towards the Chinese Exclusion Act which only targeted their racial group while allowing free immigration passage towards all other groups.

Therefore, to conclude this paper, the role of free speech and the First Amendment in terms of the context of both minority groups, the Chinese and the Mexican immigrants, has impacted laws which have been created to limit the immigrant groups influx into the States, and to limit their opportunities to obtain jobs because of the belief that American’s are more entitled to these jobs. These laws are at times created by society’s fear which leads them to make irrational decisions such as taking away a minority group's rights because they don’t, themselves, want to be the new lower class once the new immigrant group take the jobs unwanted by Americans. By creating laws to limit these immigrant groups freedom of Speech those who are politically considered, “the people,” then fail to give a fair treatment to those who are, “the people” in a sense of establishing connections in the U.S.To argue that society is not responsible for passing this laws, but rather it is the government's fault is a false idea because governments only obtain so much power by the fear the citizens have of a certain situation, and thus relinquishing certain basic rights which means although they might later not agree with the government decision they at one moment did agree the change was necessary.

As has been seen in America’s history there has always been a minority group which has been discriminated, and exploited in order to create profit for the use of the larger population. This exploitation of minority groups has to be addressed in order for individuals to see the rise of discrimination, and lack of inequality once there is laws targeted against other minority groups which then creates a cycle of inequality in terms of race with laws targeted against the next new group beginning with societal anger and corruption, then racism and discrimination towards the group, and limitation of rights towards the new minority in order for American’s to benefit from this group's suffering.

The First Amendment’s use of language and its interpretation by society, policy, and individuals largely influences the role government will take in treating a minority group a certain way as can be seen with the cases of Mexican immigrants, Chinese immigrants, and even African Americans with the use of slavery. For example the difference between, “the people” meaning the political group in regards to the United States rather than people who have created “substantial and voluntary connections in the U.S.” Therefore, First Amendment rights must be addressed, and guaranteed to those of minority groups, and even immigrants groups in order to protect from exploitation, and in order to more strongly believe one's ideals which comes from the idea of, “freedom for the thought[s] that we hate.

 

Works Cited

Andrea, Alfred J., and Carolyn Neel. World History Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2011. Print.

"A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants." NPR. NPR. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

"Background." USDA ERS - Background. Web. 12 Jan. 2017.

Baldoz, Rick. The Third Asiatic Invasion: Empire and Migration in Filipino America, 1898-1946. New York: New York UP, 2011. Print.

"Chinese Exclusion Act (1882)." Our Documents - Chinese Exclusion Act (1882). Web. 25 Jan. 2017.

"Community Resources." Community Resources for Immigrants | ILRC. Web. 25 Jan. 2017.

"Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)." USCIS. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

"DAPA and Expanded DACA Programs." National Immigration Law Center. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

"Death on the Border: Shocking Video Shows Mexican Immigrant Beaten and Tased by Border Patrol Agents." Democracy Now! Web. 25 Jan. 2017.

"Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1856)." Justia Law. Web. 08 Feb. 2017.

"Ethnic Competition Leads to Violence." Anti-Asian Racism & Violence : Asian-Nation :: Asian American History, Demographics, & Issues. Web. 25 Jan. 2017.

"Fresh Literature:--Reviews of Newest Books." Los Angeles Times (1886-1922) Dec 19 1909: 1. ProQuest. 06 Feb. 2017 .

Frist, William H. Illegal Immigration: Border-crossing Deaths Have Doubled since 1995 ; Border Patrol's Efforts to Prevent Deaths Have Not Been Fully Evaluated: Report to the Honorable Bill Frist, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Accountability Office, 2006. Print.

"HB 2281: Arizona’s Law to Ban Ethnic Studies." Abagond. 23 Oct. 2014. Web. 25 Jan. 2017.

Harrup, Anthony. "Mexico Raises Minimum Wage for 2015 by 4.2%, In Line With Inflation." The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 19 Dec. 2014. Web. 25 Jan. 2017.

"Hate Crimes." FBI. FBI, 15 Nov. 2016. Web. 06 Feb. 2017.

Hernandez, Jose Manuel. “Open Doors: The Ineffectiveness of Proposition 187.” Harvard International Review, vol. 19, no. 4, 1997, pp. 48–68. www.jstor.org/stable/42762340.

"Historical Development." Focus-Migration: Mexico. Web. 25 Jan. 2017.

"Hispanic Crime and Illegal Immigration in the United States." Open Borders: The Case. 30 Nov. 2014. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

"History of the Federal Judiciary." History of the Federal Judiciary. Web. 25 Jan. 2017.

"History of U.S. Immigration Laws | Federation for American Immigration Reform." History of U.S. Immigration Laws | Federation for American Immigration Reform. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

"Immigrants' Employment Rights Under Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws." Facts About Employment Rights of Immigrants Under Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws. Web. 25 Jan. 2017.

J, CARROLL M. "Chinese Labor Immigration Problem." Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File) Feb 03 1928: 1. ProQuest. 10 Feb. 2017 .

KAGAN, MICHAEL. "When Immigrants Speak: The Precarious Status Of Non-Citizen Speech Under The First Amendment." Boston College Law Review 57.4 (2016): 1237-1285. Academic Search Complete. Web. 06 Feb. 2017.

Lewis, Anthony. Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment. New York: Basic, 2007. Print.

"Manufacturing in China." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Web. 25 Jan. 2017.

Martin, Philip. "Proposition 187 in California." International Migration Review 29.1 (1995): 255. Print.

Massey, Douglas S., and Kristin E. Espinosa. "What's Driving Mexico-U.S. Migration? A Theoretical, Empirical, and Policy Analysis." American Journal of Sociology 102.4 (1997): 939-99. Print.

"Mexican Immigrants in the United States." Migrationpolicy.org. 31 Mar. 2016. Web. 25 Jan. 2017.

"Mexican Man Tased by Border Patrol Dies." Home - CBS News 8 - San Diego, CA News Station - KFMB Channel 8. Web. 25 Jan. 2017.

"Mexicans." The Racial Slur Database. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

"Milestones: 1866–1898 - Office of the Historian." U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. Web. 25 Jan. 2017.

Mundy, Jane. "What Rights Do Illegal Immigrants Have regarding Wage and Hour Issues?" What Rights Do Illegal Immigrants Have regarding Wage and Hour Issues? Web. 25 Jan. 2017.

Nazario, Sonia. Enrique's Journey. New York: Random House, 2006. Print.

Planas, Roque. "Arizona's Law Banning Mexican-American Studies Curriculum Is Constitutional, Judge Rules." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com. Web. 25 Jan. 2017.

Press, Amy Taxin The Associated. "Asians Slower to Seek Immigration Protection." Asians Slower to Seek Immigration Protection. LA Daily News, 01 Feb. 2015. Web. 25 Jan. 2017.

"Problems of Immigration." American Decades Primary Sources, edited by Cynthia Rose, vol. 1: 1900-1909, Gale, 2004, pp. 287-291. Gale Virtual Reference Library, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GPS&sw=w&u=univca20&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CCX3490200089&asid=ef9c58ddd05cdbb8b27c36944add6549. Accessed 06 Feb. 2017.

 

Siegel, Lee. "Rise of the Tiger Nation." The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 27 Oct. 2012. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

"State Demographics Data - CA." Migrationpolicy.org. Web. 15 Jan. 2017.

STRACQUALURSI, MARIA. "Undocumented Immigrants Caught In The Crossfire: Resolving The Circuit Split On "The People" And The Applicable Level Of Scrutiny For Second Amendment Challenges." Boston College Law Review 57.4 (2016): 1447-1482. Academic Search Complete. Web. 08 Feb. 2017.

Takaki, Ronald T. Strangers from a Different Shore: A History of Asian Americans. Boston: Little, Brown, 1989. Print.

"U.S. Immigration Legislation: 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act (Hart-Cellar Act)." U.S. Immigration Legislation: 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act (Hart-Cellar Act). Web. 30 Jan. 2017.