The Chinese Exclusion Act lasted from 1882 to 1943, which greatly hindered Chinese immigration. As a result, many Chinese took on fraudulent last names and made false statements concerning their birth in order to gain entry into the U.S. These kinds of immigrants were named “paper sons,” and an example can be found in the case of Henry Pean and his paper son Chiu Jan Wick.

Files from the U.S. Department of Labor in 1929 show that Chiu Jan Wick was deported on the grounds that he was not Henry Pean’s son and therefore not part of the Pean Family.  Since Henry Pean was born in Alexandria, Virginia, and as such was an American citizen.

The 1916, 1917 and 1920 interviews of both Henry Pean and his wife Jung She points to the possible confusion over Chiu Jan Wick’s legitimacy. First was the inconsistency of Chiu Jan Wick’s name. Chiu 1915 interview included a mention of his son,  Chiu Jew Jon, who was born in China and was three years old.  In Henry Pean’s interview in 1916 Chiu Jan Wick is first referred to as Chiu Jon Woot but in 1917 during Jung She’s interview he is referred to as Chiu Jun Woot. In 1920, during both Henry Pean’s interview and his wife’s, the boy was referred to as Chiu Jan Vitt. A few inconsistent names could be attributed to language differences, but these many alterations seem odd, especially within the same file.

Perhaps the most significant reason Chiu Jan Wick was deported was the lack of paperwork. During Henry Pean’s interview in 1920 he presented birth certificates for his children C. Quen Woo and Leaf Gold, both of whom were born in the US, and they were still able to go to Canada and return. Pean himself did not posses his birth certificate, but was able to travel to Canada and back with a certificate of identity.  There is no official documentation–other than correspondence about Chiu Jan Wick’s arrival in Seattle–in this case file.

The case of Henry Pean and Chiu Jan Wick was one example of the experiences that Chinese immigrants faced during the exclusion period.

In 1882, the United States enacted the Chinese Exclusion Act, in which all immigration of Chinese laborers to America was banned. Record Group 85, a series of case files maintained by the Immigration Bureau and later the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) mostly on Chinese immigrants, reveal the fears that US citizens held during this period. Whites feared that Chinese Americans were manipulating the system in order to claim false citizenship or permanent residency. This is evident through an analysis of the case on Hong Tow Moy, a nine year old Chinese native. Moy Tow Hong gained citizenship to the United States in 1937 by claiming that his deceased father, Moy Sing, was already a citizen of the country. As Estelle Lau discussed in Paper Families: Identity, Immigration Administration, and Chinese Exclusion, Chinese attempted to gain entry into the country by creating paper families after the US created the legal precedent which granted children of US citizens, regardless of their birthplace, citizenship.¹

Moy’s file included interviews conducted by the local immigration inspector of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. These interviews portray the distrust the government had toward Chinese immigrants. For example, the interviewer refers to those listed as Hong Tow Moy’s brothers as “alleged brothers.” To find discrepancies, the questions the inspectors also asked were difficult and detailed, particularly for a child of Moy’s age. For example, the interviewer asked the child questions such as where the school he attended, Yung Jen Academy, was located. However, they asked it in a more difficult manner by phrasing it as “do you claim that the school you attended is only 4 or 5 jungs away from your village?” Furthermore, Moy previously responded to a question about his school by answering that his school was 40 or 50 feet from his village. This shows the attempts made by the interviewers to find discrepancies in his answers to prove that he was falsely claiming citizenship. By asking questions such as these, it makes it difficult for them to answer let alone for the families to have the same answers. Despite this rigorous process, Moy Tow Hong was ultimately admitted as a citizen to the United States as the son of a native in 1938.

¹ Estelle Lau, Paper Families: Identity, Immigration Administration, and Chinese Exclusion (Durham: Duke University Press, 2006), 5.

Until the mid-1960s, Chinese immigrants to the United States were mostly barred from entering the country.  The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was originally passed to ban Chinese immigrant laborers from admittance for ten years, but was extended another ten years in 1892 and then made permanent in 1902.  From that point until the middle of the twentieth century, Chinese immigrants were almost completely prevented from entering the country.  There was, however, one way in which an immigrant laborer could enter the country; if an immigrant could prove that s/he had a parent who was a U.S. citizen, then s/he would be granted entry.  As a result, many Chinese would exploit this loophole to enter the country fraudulently.  Those Chinese who entered the country in this manner became known as “paper sons” and “paper daughters” due to their gaining entry by purchasing the documents of Chinese who were already citizens and then falsifying them.  In the 1960s, one family was investigated on suspicion of being a “paper family” in Alexandria, Virginia.

The problem began when an immigrant, Soo Hoo Mee,  applied for a passport and citizenship.  During the process, someone told the Hong Kong consulate that the family’s surname was Chin and not Soo.  Soo’s father, allegedly Soo Hoo Sooy, attempted to explain that the family knew the Chin family through a business relationship, but they were not related.  The Soos also lived in a village that consisted of only Chins except for themselves. Investigators found this situation suspect.  There was also debate regarding the father of Soo Hoo Sooy.  In an interview dated April 20, 1964, Soo states that his father’s name is Soo Hoo Quong Tooy and that Chuck Chin was the son of Chin Loon; however, investigators had reason to believe that Chin Loon was in fact Soo’s father.  In his interview, Chuck Chin upheld the claim that his father and Soo Hoo Sooy’s father were friends, but were not related.  The real problem came during Soo Hoo Mee’s interview with the U.S. consulate in Hong Kong in which she or someone close to her claimed that she was really a Chin, and that her real name was Chin Yee Mee.  Although they could never prove the family’s true identity, immigration officials believed that the family was brought to the U.S. based upon bought documents and a created identity.

Piecing together the puzzle of the Chin/Soo family is incredibly difficult and only gives evidence to the difficulty the federal government faced in trying to catch paper families.  All across the United States, investigations were opened in an attempt to catch these families.  However, this process proved to be ineffective in stopping Chinese immigrants from entering the country illegally; in fact, it is estimated that as many as 97 percent of Chinese who entered the U.S. illegally were never caught.  The Soo/Chin family was just a small part of the large numbers of Chinese immigrants who did what they could to bypass the Chinese Exclusion Act to gain access to the United States.

The majority of Scandinavians who worked at the Virginia Shipbuilding Corporation in the late 1910s and early 1920s were single men, probably with experience in shipyards elsewhere in the U.S. These immigrants were typically in their twenties, and did not live with their families but with other workers and/or immigrants. The 1920 US Census shows that most of them were skilled or semi-skilled workers; the shipyard needed carpenters, regulators, or riggers. Others were bolters, mechanists, riveters, and boil makers.  As seen in the 1920 US Census, Scandinavians might have been foreigners, but when it came to ships, they were natives. They brought their talents to the United States.

Name	Age	Country	Trade
Anderson, Frank J.	46	Sweden	Superintendant
Anderson, Fred H.	45	Denmark	Assistant Superintendant
Niemi, Charles	34	Finland	Regulator
Maki, John	31	Finland	Regulator
Kalliola, Miles	37	Finland	Regulator
Maki, Frank	39	Finland	Regulator
Hill, Arvia	29	Finland	Regulator
Hickkilla, Elmer	21	Finland	Regulator
Jussilla, Jack	25	Finland	Regulator
Maki, Frank	32	Finland	Regulator
Elkland, Alfred	23	Sweden	Carpenter
Johnson, Edward	23	Sweden	Carpenter
Wallis, Charles	22	Finland	Carpenter
Salo, Charles	24	Finland	Carpenter
Savo, Henry	24	Finland	Carpenter
Jalemon, John	28	Finland	Carpenter
Halener, Harry	28	Finland	Carpenter
Nisula, William	24	Finland	Riveter
Allonen, Martin	25	Finland	Riveter
Collins, Charles A.	39	Sweden	Riveter
Mattonen, John	45	Finland	Riveter
Perkakka, Victor	35	Finland	Bolter
Lukkonen, Oscar	48	Finland	Bolter
Pallander, Allen	33	Finland	Bolter
Christensen, Peter B.	28	Denmark	Bolter
Larsen, John	39	Finland	Bolter Up
Hermanson, Herman	41	Finland	Bolter Up
Salo, Charles	28	Finland	Ship Corker
Salo, William	24	Finland	Rigger
Waris, Charles	24	Finland	Rigger
Anderson, Sigurd	34	Norway	Rigger
Finnberg, Vaina	32	Sweden	Rigger
Jamson, Hialmer	42	Finland	Rigger
Randa, Bennie	30	Finland	Rigger
Williamson, Sam	43	Finland	Rigger
Peterson, Neils	27	Denmark	Rigger
Eizer, Andlin	31	Finland	Rigger
Suominen, Carl	32	Finland	Rigger
Knutsen, William	24	Sweden	Rigger
Knutson, Knut	36	Norway	Boilmaker
Knutson, Olie	26	Norway	Boilmaker
Anderson, Andrew	28	Sweden	Boilmaker
Suntrom, Rudolph	26	Sweden	Boilmaker
Newman, John D.	48	Sweden	Machinist
Lagergren, Gustave M.	46	Sweden	Civil Engineer
Mottennen, Carl	23	Finland	Laborer
Forsty, William	22	Finland	Caulker
Sarri, Frank	36	Finland	Heater
Salo, Elmer	24	Finland	Ship Fitter

 

Many Chinese immigrants had great difficulty entering the United States during the twentieth century because of strict Chinese exclusion policies from 1882 to 1943.  Despite strict immigration laws, some Chinese immigrants were able to gain entry as “paper sons.” According to Estelle Lau in her dissertation “Paper Families: Identity, Immigration Administration, and Chinese Exclusion,” paper sons was a

“technique stemmed from the loophole in the law that granted children of U.S. citizens regardless of place of birth, eligibility for U.S. citizenship, and thus, immigration to the U.S. Taking advantage of this loophole U.S. citizens of Chinese descent created fictive or “paper” children whose kinship status could be used by individuals who would be otherwise denied entry.”¹

The practice of “paper sons” provided many Chinese immigrants with the ability to evade immigration laws and claim that certain family members were U.S. citizens.  One family who might have included “paper sons” was the Chus.

According to a case file maintained by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, four sons claimed to be children of Chu Thaun Yuen (deceased 1921), who was allegedly born in the U.S.  The Chu brothers each came to the U.S. starting with Chu Yuu Ngun.  In 1933, immigration officials interviewed Chu Yuu Ngun as part of a hearing on the admittance of Chu Yuu Jee (another supposed brother). One interesting pieces of information from this interview was that the four Chu brothers had the same godfather who was living in the U.S. and supporting them. His name was Mui Sung Chung.²  Although the Chu brothers had an alleged godfather, Mui did not show up for Chu Yuu Jee’s hearing.  According to Chu Yuu Ngun, Mui Sung Chui’s absence was “because the representative said it wouldn’t be necessary.”³ It can be suspected that Mui was not the Chus’ godfather, but actually their biological father. Immigration inspectors, despite detailed interrogation of the Chu boys and minor inconsistencies with their testimonies, were not able to prove that the Chus were not sons of native born Chu Thaun Yuen.

In 1943, Chu Yuu Jee’s citizenship status was investigated again when he filed for a petition for naturalization while he was in the U.S. Army.  He claimed that “he became confused as to whether or not he was a citizen.” Chu’s immigration file and testimonies from 1933 and 1934 were reexamined, and it was determined that he was granted admittance into the country as the son of native born Chu Thaun Yuen and was already a citizen.

¹ Estelle T. Lau, “Paper Families: Identity, Immigration Administration, and Chinese Exclusion” (PhD dissertation, University of Chicago: 2000), 4.

² Chu Yuu Jee, Record Group 85, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Department of Labor, New York, NY.

³ Ibid.

Starting in the early twentieth century, many Chinese immigrants came to the US as “paper sons” and “paper daughters” who  purchased official papers and then falsified them in order to enter the country. One example of this was the case of Soo Hoo Mee.  Despite a thorough investigation, immigration officials were not able to find out who she really was.

In the early 1960s, Soo Hoo was questioned when authorities in Hong Kong received information that she was not a Soo Hoo but a member of the Chin family and that her name was actually Chin Yee Mee.  Family and friends were then interviewed by authorities. One of the first to be interviewed was Chuck Lam Chin. He was interviewed to see if the subject, Soo Hoo Mee, was truly the daughter of Soo Hoo Sooy and whether the Soo Hoo family were actually Chins. Chin stated that “his father and the father of Soo Hoo Sooy were good friends, but not related.”¹

¹ Chuck Lam Chin, Record Group 85, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, New York, NY.

 

After the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, it was almost impossible for Chinese immigrant laborers to gain legal access to the United States. However, with the destruction of the Immigration Bureau’s offices in 1906 after the San Francisco earthquake and subsequent fires, Chinese immigrants suddenly could create or buy false documents and claim native birth. The influx of Chinese immigrants with falsified documents is known as paper sons, because it was usually young Chinese males entering the US pretending to be the son of a citizen. After the introduction of paper sons, the Immigration Bureau began cracking down on incoming Chinese who claimed to be children of American citizens in an attempt to combat this form of illegal immigration.

Record Group 85 (RG85) contains information compiled by the Immigration Bureau (later known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service or INS) from 1891 to 2003. Though the contents extend beyond the exclusion of Chinese immigrants, a large portion focuses on them. Through examining the contents of these case files, we can find an extraordinary amount of immigration on the Chinese American community, including paper sons. One such file is that of Moy Hong Tow.  Moy, an eleven year old boy who immigrated to the US in 1937, was suspected of being a paper son, but was eventually cleared and presented a Certificate of Identification, signifying his legal admittance. Through analyzing Moy’s case file, we find that immigration officials suspected that he was a paper son.  The documents that their investigation produced also have become a treasure trove of information on Chinese immigration and particularly the Moy family.

At first glance, two major indicators of a paper son are apparent in the file: the first is that Moy Hong Tow was an 11 year old boy from China (see picture below) arriving in the United States alone and claiming admission under a native born father, Moy Sing, who was deceased. The claim of a deceased, but American, father was not uncommon in cases of paper sons. The second issue was that Moy already had three alleged brothers residing in the United States, all of whom had immigrated between 1933 and 1935. The quick succession of these brothers coming could be an indication that someone in China was selling Moy Sing’s papers, and the “brothers” were unrelated.

 

These initial red flags meant that the questioning portion of the case would be essential in detecting the legitimacy of Moy Hong Tow’s claim. Those questioned included Moy Hong Tow and two of his elder brothers Moy Hong Oong (Dong) age 18 and Moy Hong Ham age 14 of Alexandria, Virginia.¹ According to Moy Hong Dong’s testimony, his younger brother was arriving from Hong Kong to take up residence with him and Moy Hong Ham at the Bok Hop restaurant in Alexandria, Virginia. As demonstrated from the Moy Hong Tow file, the questions asked were extremely specific, demonstrating the immigration officials’ determination to uncover a possible paper son. For instance, each Moy received a common set of questions that had to do with the village that they had lived in prior to immigrating to the United States. While these questions did involve simple questions related to the names of residents and certain buildings in their village, they also included very specific questions, such as exact details of those who lived nearby.² It is easy to see how these questions could result in more red flags and the discovery of a paper son trail; however, as the images below demonstrate, the Moys were able to answer these questions with limited discrepancies.

 

What is extremely impressive about the Moys’ answers, besides the conflicting information on families who occupied Mee Wong Village, they were almost completely in synch. Throughout the interview, Moy Hong Tow was able to answer all questions asked of him, despite the fact that he was 11 years old. While it can be argued that in a paper son’s case he could have been provided the information in advance to prepare for the interview, the amount of information that he recalled and that matched his brothers’ testimonies affirmed in the eyes of inspectors that Moy Hong Tow was Moy Sing’s son. On December 11, 1937, documentation was submitted for the approval of Moy Hong Tow’s admittance at Ellis Island as a United States citizen.

 

In March 1938, Moy Hong Tow was presented his Certificate of Identity. Whether or not Moy Hong Tow was actually a paper son, we do not know. However, from reviewing his case file we learn quite a bit about the process for those deemed suspicious. From the first concerns regarding Moy’s claim to citizenship to the questions asked and answered in the testimony for entry, it is obvious that immigration officials were committed to finding paper sons. Due to the Moy’s detailed and accurate testimony during questioning, immigration officials were not able to reasonably deny Moy entry.  And given the files end after 1938, it can also be assumed that there were no further inquiries into Moy Hong Tow’s legitimacy following the issuance of his Certificate of Identity. Whether or not Moy Hong Tow was a paper son of not, he had made it to the United States to live with his elder brothers in Alexandria, Virginia.

---

 

¹ Another brother, Moy Hong Nguey, was mentioned as the person paying for Moy Hong Tow’s journey to the United States; however, he was not interviewed. His responsibility was only to pay for Moy’s trip, while Moy Hong Dong and Moy Hong Ham were to house him upon arrival in Alexandria, Virginia.

² Hong Tow Moy, Chinese Exclusion Act Files, Box 526, RG 85; Records of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, New York, NY.

 

Seen from a few case files from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Chinese immigrants were subjected to harsh and overly detailed questions concerning their families, backgrounds, living situations, and other basic information in order to determined whether or not they were able to enter the United States. Even children were required to undergo intense interrogations without a parent, guardian, or even an attorney present with them.

The case file concerning Moy Hong Tow serves as an example of such thorough examination. Only eleven years old when applying for admission as the United States citizen in 1937, Moy’s file includes multiple interviews to which he and family members were subjected in order to prove his familial connections.  Throughout the course of these interviews, the Moy children were expected to know the exact locations of where their family lived—both in the United States and in China–and other intimate details.  This file is also a wonderful window into the lives of the Moy family.

Moy Hong Tow was the fifth son of Moy Sing, a deceased Chinese-American native. Moy’s older brothers–Moy Hong Nguey, Moy Hong Dong, and Moy Hong Ham–immigrated separately to the United States several years prior to his arrival. Moy Hong Nguey lived and worked in New York, New York as a laundryman, which his other brothers verified. Moy Hong Dong and Moy Hong Ham testified that they attended Jefferson Public School in Alexandria, Virginia and lived with their cousin, Moy Ngook Len, above the Bok Hop Restaurant, located at 400 King Street. At one point, Moy Hong Tow was asked about the exact years, and in what order, that his siblings immigrated to the United States. His two brothers and witnesses, in addition to himself, were required to identify family members from photographs that were shown to them.

As seen in Moy’s case, the entry process’s detailed nature highlights the difficulties that Chinese faced in coming to the US in the 1930s.  The facts that his older brothers migrated at separate times, that Moy Hong Nguey paid for Moy’s passage to the United States, and that not all of his siblings and other living family members were in the United states also suggest immigration’s expense.

---

Bibliography:

Moy Hong Tow Case File, Record Group 85; Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, New York, NY.

 

With the introduction of Communism to China by the late 1940’s, Chinese came to the US in increasing numbers as refugees. Immigration to the US for the Chinese, however, was still a difficult process. Laws, like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, had previously made it difficult for Chinese to immigrate though it was repealed in 1943 with the passage of the Magnus Act. Nevertheless, very few Chinese could legally enter the country even after Chinese Exclusions’ appeal.  Chinese, however, found ways of working around these laws, using tactics like the creation of “paper sons” where immigrants purchased papers from U.S. born Chinese and falsified their relationship with that person.

The Chin/Soo Hoo family from Alexandria, Virginia stands out as a possible “paper son” situation. Immigration officials became suspicious of the Soo Hoo family after one daughter, who was trying to immigrate in 1952, supposedly claimed her name to be Chin Mee instead of Soo Hoo Mee. Another issue with Chin’s testimony is the family that she names. During her interview, she only identified her father, mother and one brother. Soo Hoo Sui, her “father,” claimed that he had six children. These inconsistencies in her story created doubts about the rest of the family and resulted in an in depth investigation.

The investigation into the Chin/Soo Hoo family brought to light further inconsistencies and suspicious circumstances. Soo Hoo Sui, or as his daughter identifies him, Chin Chung Wong, claimed citizenship through his own father, Soo Hoo Quong Twey. Quong Twey was supposedly born in San Francisco sometime before 1900; however, there were no records of his birth.  His papers were most likely destroyed in the fires that ravaged San Francisco after the 1906 Earthquake.¹

To add further confusion, the Chin family was questioned about their relationship with the Soo Hoos’. During an interview in 1964, Soo Hoo Sui claimed that he and Chuck Chin had been partners in business for twelve years and lived in the same home, but were not related. Immigration officials believed that Chin Lun, the patriarch of the Chin family and the father of Chuck Chin, was actually Soo Hoo Sui’s father, but Sui denied it.  At one point Chuck Lam Chin also made additional confusing claims. He stated that he didn’t know if his godmother, Lee Yok Sun was related to Soo Hoo Sui’s wife, Mak Shee. He apparently said this because his godmother’s, husband’s surname was also Mark or Mak.

At the conclusion of the investigation into the Soo Hoo family, Soo Hoo Mee was issued a U.S. passport. The final statement made by the Immigration and Naturalization service was, “inconsistencies were noted but no proof of alienage was obtained.”²

¹ “Chinese Immigration and the Chinese in the United States.” http://www.archives.gov/research/chinese-americans/guide.html#immigration (accessed October 30, 2014).

² Soo Hoo Mee Case File; Record Group 85; U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, New York, NY.

The case file of Henry Pean (also known as Chiu Hing Lee) maintained by the Immigration Bureau (later known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service or INS) is an interesting one. Pean was born in Alexandria, Virginia in May 1887 to Joseph Pean, a Chinese immigrant, and his German wife, Catherine Joseph. His father reportedly brought Pean back to China when he was around two-years-old, and then left him with his grandfather to receive a Chinese education.  Pean remained in China until he was twenty-one, and then travelled to New York City where he was readmitted to the US in 1908 as a US citizen.

Although seeming straightforward, Pean’s file did not end with his 1908 re-admittance and verification of his American citizenship. He returned to China two more times and was required to go through the same rigorous process each time he returned. In 1912, he went to China to marry, but returned without his wife.  In 1915, he returned to the US with his wife,  Jung She.  Jung She, who was initially denied entrance to the States because of trachoma (a very contagious eye infection), experienced the same series of interview questions as her husband. In this particular situation, the Immigration Bureau was trying to find any discrepancies in their statements.

These interviews were not limited to Pean’s travels to China. Pean and his wife asked the Immigration Bureau permission to visit his cousin in Toronto, Canada and experienced the same process. Between 1915 and 1920, the Peans also gave birth to two children, Leaf Gold and C. Quen Woo, and the parents were asked questions about them. The Pean family were allowed to visit their cousin in Toronto and returned to the United States in 1920.

At first, Pean’s file appears to be a straightforward series of documents, but upon close examination it shows that it was not. Over the years, Pean’s knowledge of his family seemed to grow. In 1908, when he first arrived in New York, Chiu seemed to know little to nothing about his family, which was understandable seeing as he left the US as a two-year-old. Over the years, Chiu became more adept at answering questions, indicating that his family had filled him in on his family history.

Even more interesting in the Pean file is the very last document. Dated August 31, 1929, the letter stated that Chin Jan Wick, also known as Chiu Jan Wick, the alleged son of Pean, was denied entrance into Seattle, Washington and was deported back to China.  Pean had claimed Chiu Jan Wick as his son, but the Immigration Bureau did not believe him. Like many “paper sons,” Chin might have been a family member, friend, or someone Pean had sold information to.  What ultimately happened to Chin and Pean is not known.