Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:08:36.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marriage and Mestizaje, Chinese and Mexican: Constitutional Interpretation and Resistance in Sonora, 1921–1935

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2011

Kif Augustine-Adams
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On a hopeful September day in 1912, Gim Pon, a twenty-five year old Chinese man from Canton, boarded the steamship Siberia in Hong Kong harbor to sail west across the Pacific. The Siberia docked briefly in San Francisco, but Gim Pon's destination, and that of seven fellow Chinese travelers, was not California but the northern Mexican state of Sonora. In the early twentieth century, thousands of men like Gim Pon immigrated to Mexico, boosting the Chinese population there from slightly over 1,000 in 1895 to more than 24,000 in the mid-1920s. Sonora, which hugs Arizona at the United States/Mexico border, was a popular destination, and hosted the largest Chinese population of any Mexican state through the 1920s. Once in Sonora, Gim Pon adapted to life in Mexico: he changed his name to Francisco Gim, learned Spanish, and became naturalized as a Mexican citizen on February 27, 1920. Most importantly, he formed a family with Julia Delgado.

Type
Articles
Information
Law and History Review , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , May 2011 , pp. 419 - 463
Copyright
Copyright © the American Society for Legal History, Inc. 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Entry for Gim Pon, Manifest of Alien Passengers for the United States for the S.S. Siberia sailing from Hong Kong on September 17, 1912, California Passenger and Crew Lists, 1893–1957, available at Ancestry.com.

2. Ibid.

3. Hu-DeHart, Evelyn, “La comunidad china en el desarrollo de Sonora,” in Historia General de Sonora, tomo IV: Sonora Moderno 1880–1929, ed. Valenzuela, Alejandro Figueroa (Hermosillo: Gobierno del estado de Sonora, 1997), 195–211, 198Google Scholar. See also, Robert Chao Romero, The Dragon in Big Lusong: Chinese Immigration and Settlement in Mexico, 1882–1940 71, 74, 79 (Ph.D. diss., University of California–Los Angeles, 2003; on file with author). In the past decade, scholarly attention to Chinese in Mexico has grown. See, for example, Romero, Robert Chao, The Chinese in Mexico, 1882–1940 (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2010)Google Scholar; Liam, Julian, “Chinos and Paisanos: Chinese Mexican Relations in the Borderlands,” Pacific Historical Review 79 (2010): 50–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Camacho, Julia Maria Schiavone, “Crossing Boundaries, Claiming a Homeland: The Mexican Chinese Transpacific Journey to Becoming Mexican, 1930s–1960s,” Pacific Historical Review 78 (2009): 545–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Augustine-Adams, Kif, “Making Mexico: Legal Nationality, Chinese Race, and the 1930 Population Census,” Law and History Review 27 (2009): 113–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Other recent English-language scholarship includes Romero, Robert Chao, “‘El destierro de los Chinos’: Popular Perspectives on Chinese-Mexican Intermarriage in the Early Twentieth Century,” Aztlán: A Journal of Chicano Studies 32 (2007): 113–44Google Scholar; Hu-DeHart, Evelyn, “Voluntary Associations in a Predominantly Male Immigrant Community: The Chinese of the Mexican Northern Frontier, 1880–1930,” in Voluntary Associations in the Chinese Diaspora, eds. Kuah-Pearce, Khun Eng and Hu-DeHart, Evelyn, (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Réñique, Gerardo, “Race, Region, and Nation: Sonora's Anti-Chinese Racism and Mexico's Postrevolutionary Nationalism,” in Race and Nation in Modern Latin America, eds. Applebaum, Nancy, Macpherson, Anne S. and Rosemblatt, Karin Alejandra (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2003) 211–36Google Scholar; and Réñique, Gerardo, “Anti-Chinese Racism, Nationalism and State Formation in Post-Revolutionary Mexico,” Political Power and Social Theory, 14 (2001): 89–137Google Scholar.

4. Hu-Dehart, “La comunidad china,” 198. Other sources suggest that, at least by 1926, the Chinese population in the Pacific territory of Baja California (today divided into the states of Baja California and Baja California Sur) had surpassed that of Sonora. See, for example, Romero, The Dragon in Big Lusong, 69.

5. The last name Gim was sometimes written Gin or Hing. I have used Gim throughout the text of this article because that is the spelling the family used, but followed the original spelling in source materials, whether Gim, Gin or Hing. Petición de amparo 12, Francisco Gin y Julia Delgado, 12 de febrero de 1926 aplicación de la Ley número 31 [hereinafter Gin y Delgado amparo, 1926]. All of the amparo petitions referenced in this article are located in the Civil Amparo 1900–1943 collection, Archives of the Fifth Judicial District/Juzgado Quinto de Distrito, Casa de la Cultura Jurídica de la Suprema Corte de la Nación, Hermosillo, Sonora, México.

6. Julia Delgado de Gim, Border Entry Card for arrival on December 5, 1946 at Naco, Arizona; Julia Delgado de Gin, Border Entry Card for arrival on June 25, 1933 at Douglas, Arizona [hereinafter Julia Delgado de Gin, 1933 US entry]. All of the border-crossing documents referenced in this study are available at Ancestry.com.

7. Gin y Delgado amparo, 1926.

8. Ibid.; see also Julia Delgado de Gin, 1933 US entry; Francisco Gin, Border Entry Card for arrival on June 22, 1933 at Douglas, Arizona; Guillermo Gin, Border Entry Card for arrival on June 22, 1933 at Douglas, Arizona; and Jesús Régulo Gin, Border Entry Card for arrival on June 22, 1933 at Douglas, Arizona.

9. Censo de población del municipio de Cananea, Pueblo de Naco, Sonora, 1930, 77, lines 93–96 microfilmed as Film 1520330, items 1–3 [hereinafter “Municipio de Cananea, Pueblo de Naco”], 1930 Mexican Population Census Ballots, State of Sonora, Genealogical Society of Utah; Available through Family History Centers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, http://www.familysearch.org/ [hereinafter “FHC”].

10. Municipio de Cananea, Pueblo de Naco, 177, lines 93–96.

11. Jesús Gim-Delgado, Border Entry Card for arrival on December 6, 1946 at Naco, Arizona [hereinafter Jesús Gim-Delgado, 1946 US entry].

12. Municipio de Cananea, Pueblo de Naco, 177, lines 93–96.

13. See, for example, Gin y Delgado amparo, 1926; Petición de amparo 46, Francisco Gin, 6 de septiembre de 1929, contra aplicación de la Ley 31 [hereinafter Gin amparo, 1929].

14. Sonora, Ley número 31, 13 de diciembre de 1923.

15. Ibid.

16. Petición de amparo 10, Carlos Wong Sun, 1 de febrero de 1929 contra negativa a tomar nota de su presentación para contraer matrimonio con una mexicana [hereinafter Wong Sun amparo, 1929].

17. Ibid.

18. Petición de amparo 354A, Carlos Wong Sun, 3 de marzo de 1924, aplicación de la Ley no. 27 de 8 de diciembre 1923 que crea los barrios Chinos en el estado.

19. Censo de población del municipio de Cucurpé, Sonora, 1930, 1, lines 8–10, microfilmed as Film 1520330, item l7, FHC.

20. See Juana Ramírez de Urrea, Border Entry Card for arrival on October 21, 1947 at San Ysidro, California.

21. Petición de amparo 391A, Manuel Yee, 15 de enero de 1924, contra prisión y multa de $100 bajo Ley 31; Petición de amparo 321A, Antonio Bonio y Maria Jesús Méndez, 26 de enero de 1924, contra prisión y multas de $100 y $15; Petición de amparo 326A, José Sujo y Rafael Yuen, 1924, contra prisión y multa bajo Ley 31; Petición de amparo 331, Alberto Ley, 1924, contra prisión y multa bajo Ley 31; Petición de amparo 340, Carlos Cinco, 1924, contra prisión y multa bajo Ley 31; Petición de amparo 348A Luís Suyo y Pacifica Morales, 29 de febrero 1924, contra aplicación de la Ley 31; Petición de amparo 349, Juan Hong y Adela Barrios de Hong, 29 de febrero de 1924, contra aplicación de la Ley 31; Petición de amparo 350A, Ramón Gan y Lucía Jaime de Gan, 29 de febrero de 1924, contra aplicación de la Ley 31; Petición de amparo 352A, Francisco León y Francisco García, 1924, contra prisión bajo Ley 31; Petición de amparo 359 Maria López y Maria Martínez, 5 de marzo de 1924, contra aplicación de la Ley 31; Petición de amparo 363B, Carlos Fong, 1924, contra multa de $100 con apoyo en la Ley Número 31 del estado; Petición de amparo 364A, Pablo Wong y Filomena Valdéz, contra apliación de la Ley 31; Petición de amparo 365A, Manuel So Ap y Rosa Quintero, 29 de febrero de 1924, contra aplicación de la Ley 31; Petición de amparo 366A, Esperanza A. Parra, 6 de marzo de 1924, contra aplicación de la Ley 31; Petición de amparo 368A Ramón Cinco, 8 de marzo de 1924, contra aplicación de la Ley 31; Petición de amparo 369A, Juan Tong, 8 de marzo de 1924, contra aplicación de la Ley 31; Petición de amparo 409A, Luís G. Flores, 1924, contra aplicación de la Ley 31; Petición de amparo 440, Manuel Chan, 15 de Julio de 1924, contra negarse a que haga el quejoso presentación matrimonial con Carmen Islas; Petición de amparo 446 Wong Guio o Luís Long, 9 de agosto de 1924, contra negarse a que contraiga matrimonio con la mexicana Mercedes Salcido; Petición de amparo 504, José Wong, 6 de noviembre de 1924, contra negarse a sancionar el matrimonio con una mexicana; Petición de amparo 561, Roberto H. Chan, 12 de mayo de 1925, contra negarse a efectuar el matrimonio con la señorita Carmen Figueroa; Petición de amparo 586, Ramón Chan, 24 de julio de 1925, contra negarse a efectuar la presentación matrimonial con la señorita Anita Duran; Petición de amparo 602, Manuel H. Fu, 8 de septiembre de 1925, contra negarse a efectuar la presentación matrimonial con Amelia Domínguez; Petición de amparo 12, Francisco Gin y Julia Delgado, 12 de febrero de 1926, aplicación de la Ley Número 31; Petición de amparo 23, Miguel Wong, 6 de marzo de 1926, contra aplicación de la Ley 31; Petición de amparo 59, Fom Lim, 1926; Petición de amparo 71, Jesús Sujo, 10 de agosto 1926, contra impedírsele contraer matrimonio; Petición de amparo 10, Carlos Wong Sun, 10 de febrero de 1929, contra aplicación de la Ley 31; Petición de amparo 46, Francisco Gin, 6 de septiembre de 1929, contra aplicación de la Ley 31; Petición de amparo 21, Tomás Wong, 2 de marzo de 1932, contra aplicación de la Ley 31 y la Ley 89.

22. Réñique, Gerardo, “Región, raza y nación en el antichinismo sonorense: Cultura regional y mestizaje en el México posrevolucionario,” in Seis expulsiones y un adiós: Despojos y exclusiones en Sonora, ed. Bustamante, A. Grageda (México: Plaza y Valdés, 2003) 231–89Google Scholar. In litigation in federal court in Hermosillo, the state capital, a number of Chinese men describe how they were taken to the border between Arizona and Sonora by police or other government officials and forced across under threat of violence. See, for example, Francisco Ley, Samuel Young, Juan Wong y otros, amparo no. 82, 11 agosto 1932 and Agustín Chang, amparo no. 77, 16 agosto 1932.

The forcible expulsion of Chinese from Mexico into the United States caused significant consternation along the border and diplomatic tensions between the two countries. Editorial, Arizona Daily Star, March 19, 1932; Letter dated March 16, 1932 from W. Doak, U.S. Secretary of Labor, to Henry L. Stimson, U. S. Secretary of State, United States, National Archives, RG59, M1370, 812.504/1281; Letter dated March 21, 1932 from Bartley F. Yost, Consul, to Henry L. Stimson, U.S. Secretary of State, United States, National Archives, RG59, M1370, 812.504/1282.

The allegations regarding Governor Rodolfo Calles's orders are set forth in various letters from U.S. Officials. See, for example, Letter dated February 25, 1932 from Lewis V. Boyle, American Consul, to the Secretary of State, Washington, D.C., United States, National Archives, RG 59, M1370, 812.504/1273.

23. Luís Cabrera de Acevedo, La Suprema Corte de Justicia durante el gobierno del Presidente Obregón (1920–1924) (Poder Judicial de la Nación; México, D.F., 1996) 24; Plan de Agua Prieta, 29 de abril de 1920 available at http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Plan_de_Agua_Prieta (visited June 29, 2010); Martínez-Assad, Carlos, “Alternativas de poder regional en México,” Revista Mexicana de Sociología 40 (Oct.–Dec., 1978): 1411–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24. Ibid.

25. Murrieta, Cynthia Radding de and Murrieta, Rosa María Ruiz, “La reconstrucción del modelo de progreso 1919–1929, in Historia General de Sonora, tomo IV, (Hermosillo: Gobierno del Estado de Sonora, 1985) 315–54, 319–21Google Scholar.

26. See, for example, Raby, David L. and Donis, Martha, “Ideología y construcción del Estado: la función política de la educación rural en México: 1921–1935,” Revista Mexicana de Sociología 51 (1989): 305–20Google Scholar; Knight, Alan, The Mexican Revolution, vol. 2 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990), 12Google Scholar.

27. For a detailed discussion, see Spain, August O., “Mexican Federalism Revisited,” The Western Political Quarterly, 9 (1956): 620–32, 627–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28. See Gin amparo, 1929. For information on the cancellation of the Treaty of 1899, see Cumberland, Charles C., “The Sonora Chinese and the Mexican Revolution,” The Hispanic American Historical Review 40 (1960): 191CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29. Escandón, Carmen Ramos, “Gender Construction in a Progressive Society: Mexico, 1870–1917,” Texas Papers on Mexico (Austin: University of Texas, 1990), Paper No. 90–07Google Scholar; Escandón, Carmen Ramos, “Señoritas Porfirianas: mujer e ideología en el México progresista, 1880–1910,” in Presencia y transparencia: la mujer en la historia de México, ed. Escandón, Carmen Ramos (México: Programa Interdisciplinario de Estudios de la Mujer/Colegio de México, 1987), 145Google Scholar; Navarro, Moisés González, “El porfiriato: la vida social,” in Historia moderna de México, vol. 4, ed. Villegas, Daniel Cosío, (México: Editorial Hermes, 1957), 12–17, 41–42Google Scholar.

30. See Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática, Estadísticas Históricas de México, t. 1, Estado Civil de la Población, 1895–1990, Cuadro 1.19, 93 (Aguascalientes: Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática, 1994).

31. Ibid.

32. See González Navarro, “El porfiriato,” 42–43.

33. Departamento de la Estadística Nacional, Memoria de los censos generales de población, agrícola ganadero e industrial de 1930, (México: Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 1932) 52–53 [hereinafter Memoria de los censos]Google Scholar. See also Esteva-Fabregat, Claudi, Mestizaje in Ibero-America (Tucson: University of Arizona, 1987)Google Scholar; Knight, Alan, “Racism, Revolution, and Indigenismo in Mexico, 1910–1940” in The Idea of Race in Latin America, 1870–1940, ed, Graham, R. (Austin: University of Texas, 1990),71–113Google Scholar; Borah, Woodrow, “Race and Class in Mexico” in Race and Ethnicity in Latin America, ed. Dominguez, J. (New York: Garland Publishing, 1994), 1–12Google Scholar; Charles Wagley, “On the Concept of Social Race in the Americas” in Race and Ethnicity in Latin America, 13–27; and Cabrera, Luís, “El balance de la revolución” in La revolución es la revolución, comp. Luís Cabrera (México: PRI, 1985), 249–66Google Scholar.

34. Stepan, Nancy Leys, The Hour of Eugenics: Race, Gender and Nation in Latin America (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1991), 147Google Scholar. See also Réñique, “Race, Region, and Nation,” 257; Benítez, Agustín Basave, México mestizo: Análisis del nacionalismo mexicano en torno a la mestizofilia de Andrés Molina Enríquez (Mexico: FCE, 1992), 121Google Scholar; and Knight, Alan, “Racism, Revolution, and Indigenismo in Mexico, 1910–1940” in The Idea of Race in Latin America, 1870–1940, 71–113Google Scholar.

35. See, for example, Seed, Patricia, To Love, Honor and Obey in Colonial Mexico: Conflicts over Marriage Choice in Colonial Mexico (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; and Love, Edgar F., “Marriage Patterns of Persons of African Descent in a Colonial Mexico City Parish,” Hispanic American Historical Review 51 (1971): 79–91 (noting intermarriage among racial groups)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36. See Augustine-Adams, “Making Mexico,” 125.

37. Vinson, Ben, “Estudiando las razas desde la periferia: las castas olvidadas del sistema colonial mexicano (lobos, moriscos, coyotes, moros y chinos),” in Pautas de convivencia étnica en la America Latina colonial (Indios, negros, mulattos, pardos y esclavos), Herrera, Juan Manuel de la Serna, ed. (Mexico City: UNAM, 2005), 247–307Google Scholar. (arguing that thousands of Asians entered Mexico between 1600 and 1650 and noting records for at least one formal marriage between a Chinese man and a Spanish woman); and Dubs, Homer H. and Smith, Robert S., “The Chinese in Mexico City in 1635,” Far Eastern Quarterly 1 (1941–1942): 387–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38. Secretaria de la Economía Nacional, Dirección General de Estadística, Quinto censo de población, 15 de mayo de 1930, Estado de Sonora (México: Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 1934), 109. Of the twelve percent of the Chinese population that the 1930 census identified as female, only a very small number were adult women born in China. Adult women's identification as Chinese largely derived from Mexico's dependent nationality laws which expatriated native-born women who married foreigners. See Augustine-Adams, “Making Mexico,” 123.

39. Mancilla, Manuel Lee and Félix, Maricela González, Viaje al Corazón de la Península: Testimonio de Manuel Lee (Mexicali; Instituto de Cultura de Baja California; 2000), 21–22, 41Google Scholar.

40. “Matrimonio feliz,” El Intruso, 13 de febrero de 1922, 2.

41. Chinos y antichinos en México: Documentos para su estudio, ed. Lara, José Luís Trueba (Guadalajara: Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco, 1988)Google Scholar, 85.

42. For a well-developed discussion of popular culture, see Romero, “‘El destierro de los Chinos,’” 113–144.

43. Espinoza, José Ángel, El ejemplo de Sonora (México, D.F.; n.p. 1932) 33, 36, 56, 77Google Scholar.

44. Ibid., 36.

45. Ibid., 56.

46. Ibid., 33.

47. Réñique, “Race, Region, Nation,” 213, 230.

48. Espinoza, El ejemplo de Sonora, 32; see also, Spain, “Mexican Federalism Revisited.”

49. Ibid.; see also Wasserman, Mark, Persistent Oligarchs: Elites and Politics in Chihuahua, Mexico 1910–1940 (Durham: Duke University Press, 1993) 156Google Scholar; Spain, “Mexican Federalism Revisited,” 628, fn 25.

50. Réñique, “Race, Region, and Nation,” 228 (citing El Intruso, December 13, 1923; December 29, 1923; January 4, 1924; and January 24, 1924). Concurrent with the anti-miscegenation bill, Villaseñor sponsored a bill that would create Chinese ghettos. That bill also passed in December 1923 and became Law 27.

51. 388 U.S. 1 (1967). For a comprehensive treatment of anti-miscegenation laws in the United States, see Pascoe, Peggy, What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009)Google Scholar. See also Sohoni, Deenesh, “Unsuitable Suitors: Anti-Miscegenation Laws, Naturalization Laws, and the Construction of Asian Identities,” Law & Society Review 41 (2007): 587CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Comment: Statutory Prohibitions against Interracial Marriage,” California Law Review 32 (1944): 269–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar (noting no ban on interracial marriage at common law but citing thirty states that prohibited interracial marriages including fourteen specifically prohibiting marriage between Caucasians and “Mongolians”).

52. Pascoe, What Comes Naturally, 81; and Sohoni, “Unsuitable Suitors,” 597.

53. Pascoe, What Comes Naturally, 84–85.

54. Petición de amparo 391A, Manuel Yee, 15 de enero de 1924, contra prisión y multa de $100 bajo Ley 31.

55. Ibid.

56. Ibid.

57. Ibid.

58. Petición de amparo 364A, Pablo Wong y Filomena Valdez, 6 de marzo de 1924, contra aplicación de la Ley 31.

59. See, for example, Petición de amparo 446, Wong Guio ó Luís Long, 9 de agosto de 1924, contra negarse a que contraiga matrimonio con la mexicana Mercedes Salcido; Petición de amparo 440, Manuel Chan, 15 de julio de 1924, contra negarse a que haga el quejoso presentación matrimonial con Carmen Islas.

60. Gin y Delgado amparo, 1926.

61. Wong Sun amparo, 1929.

62. See, for example, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) (holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applied to persons in the United States, whether citizens or not) and The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 (1889) (holding that Congress has the authority to exclude Chinese from entry into the United States). For an exhaustive analysis of legal strategies employed by Chinese against discrimination in the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, see Salyer, Lucy, Laws Harsh as Tigers: Chinese Immigrants and the Shaping of Modern Immigration Law (USA: University of North Carolina, 1995)Google Scholar.

63. Petición de amparo 326A, José Sujo y Rafael Yuen, 1924, contra prision y multa bajo Ley 31.

64. Roberto H. Chan, 12 de mayo de 1925 contra negarse a efectuar el matrimonio con la señorita Carmen Figueroa (granting amparo); Petición de amparo 586, Ramón Chan, 24 de Julio de 1925, contra negarse a efectuar la presentación matrimonial con la señorita Anita Duran (granting amparo); Petición de amparo 602, Manuel H. Fu, 8 de septiembre de 1925, contra negarse a efectuar la presentación matrimonial con Amelia Domínguez (granting amparo). Luís Bazdresh became a justice on the Mexican Supreme Court in 1934. See Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, Ministros 1917–1994: Semblanzas, Dirección General de Estudios Históricos, t. I (México: Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, 2002), 63–66Google Scholar.

65. Gin y Delgado amparo, 1926; Petición de amparo 23, Miguel Wong, 6 de marzo de 1926, contra aplicación de la Ley 31 (denying amparo); Petición de amparo 71, Jesús Sujo, 10 de agosto 1926, contra impedirsele contraer matrimonio (dismissing complaint on procedural grounds).

66. Petición de amparo 59, Fom Lim, 1926.

67. See, for example, Petición de amparo 329A, Felipe Chon, José Wontui, Gregorio Chan, Samuel Cinco, Wong Lee, Alberto Chan Po, Adolfo Chan y Sam Wo, 12 de febrero de 1924, contra Ley 27 (granting amparo); Petición de amparo 336A, Antonio Bonio, Alejandro Yee y coagraviados, 25 de febrero de 1924 contra Ley 27 (granting amparo); Petición de amparo 344A, Manuel L. Chew, Mariano M. Wo y coagraviados, 25 de febrero de 1924, contra aplicación de la Ley no. 27 (granting amparo); and Petición de amparo 579, Luis Madero, Gustavo Chan, Antonio Chao, Lorenzo Fuguay y coagraviados, 1925, contra imposición de una multa de $10.00 por infracción al Reglamento de Sanidad (granting amparo).

68. See, for example, Petición de amparo 49, Félix Cinco y socios, 1931, contra Ley 89 de Estado y aplicación de la Ley de trabajo (dismissing amparo petition); Petición de amparo 71, Lorenzo Toy y socios, 1931, sobre aplicación de la Ley de Trabajo, Ley 89 del Estado (dismissing amparo petition); and Petición de amparo 93, FuPau Hermanos y compañía, 17 de agosto de 1931, contra imposición de multa de $500 y Leyes 89 y 106 del Estado (denying amparo).

69. Ibid.

70. See, for example, Petición de amparo 104, José Luy por Josefina Bustamante de Luy, 1932, contra expulsión (denying amparo to petitioner represented by his wife).

71. Many of the early Law 31 petitions list Marcos Gómez as the attorney of record. There is little information available about Gómez, except that in the early 1920s, he had his legal offices at “120 Arizpe Street” in Nogales, Sonora and crossed the border between Nogales, Sonora and Nogales, Arizona several times between 1921 and 1925. See Petición de amparo No. 363B, Carlos Fong, 6 marzo 1924, contra multa de $100 con apoyo en la Ley 31 del Estado; Marcos Gomez, Border Entry Card for arrival on July 22, 1921 at Nogales, Arizona; Marcos Gomez, Border Entry Card for arrival on December 4, 1923 at Nogales, Arizona; Marcos Gomez, Border Entry Card for arrival on September 3, 1924 at Nogales, Arizona; and Marcos Gomez, Border Entry Card for arrival on November 22, 1925 at Nogales, Arizona. He is not included in a list of Nogales, Sonora attorneys from the first half of the twentieth century. See Chapter 15 in Enrique Mascareñas, El Nogales de ayer, available at http://www.musicaehistoria.com/libro_nogales_ayer.htm (visited May 10, 2010).

72. See, for example, Burgoa, Ignacio, El juicio de amparo (Porrua: México, D.F., 1968)Google Scholar; Zamora, Stephen, Cossío, José Ramón, Pereznieto, Leonel, Roldán-Xopa, José, López, David, Mexican Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 261–63Google Scholar.

73. See, for example, Hale, Charles A., Emilio Rabasa and the Survival of Porfirian Liberalism (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008), 37–38, 40–42, 169–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74. Burgoa, El juicio de amparo, 280; Zamora et al., Mexican Law, 214.

75. 1917 Constitution, Article 107(1).

76. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, (1803).

77. See Mirow, M.C., “Marbury in Mexico: Judicial Review's Precocious Southern Migration,” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 35 (2007–2008): 41Google Scholar.

78. Ignacio Luís Vallarta, Cuestiones constitucionales: Votos que como presidente de la Suprema Corte de Justicia dio en los negocios mas notables resueltos por este tribunal de 1 de enero a 16 de noviembre de 1882, t. 3 (México, D.F.; n.p. 1881–1883), 383. See also, Mirow, “Marbury in Mexico”.

79. For examples, see Vallarta, Cuestiones constitucionales.

80. Hale, Charles A., “The Civil Law Tradition and Constitutionalism in Twentieth-Century Mexico: The Legacy of Emilio Rabasa”, Law and History Review 18 (2000): 257–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81. Zamora et al, Mexican Law, 214.

82. 1917 Constitution, Article 107(1) (“La sentencia será siempre tal, que sólo se ocupe de individuos particulares, limitándose a ampararlos y protegerlos en el caso especial sobre el que verse la queja, sin hacer una declaración general respecto de la ley o acto que la motivare.” “The judicial decision only applies to particular individuals and is limited to providing amparo and to protecting those individuals in the case about which they have complained, without making any general declaration regarding the law or legislation that motivated the complaint.).

83. Zamora et al, Mexican Law, 87–88.

84. Ibid.

85. Petición de amparo 391A, Manuel Yee, 15 de enero de 1924, contra prisión y multa de $100 bajo Ley 31. The discussion in the following paragraphs relies on information in the unpaginated archival file of Yee's case.

86. Ibid.

87. Gin y Delgado amparo, 1926. The discussion in the following paragraphs relies on information in the unpaginated archival file of Gin and Delgado's case.

Zeferino Quintero worked as both a lawyer and in Mexican Customs at the border in Nogales. See Zeferino Quintero, Border Entry Card for arrival on April 25, 1925 at Nogales, Arizona; Zeferino Quintero, Border Crossing Card for arrival on April 14, 1928 at San Ysidro, California; and Chapter 4 in Enrique Mascareñas, El Nogales de ayer.

88. Gin y Delgado amparo, 1926.

89. Ibid.

90. Ibid.

91. Ibid.

92. Ibid.

93. Ibid.

94. Ibid.

95. The discussion in the following paragraphs relies on the unpaginated documents in Gin amparo, 1929 and the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court.

96. Zamora et al., Mexican Law, 265.

97. Gin amparo, 1929.

98. Ibid.

99. Ibid.

100. Ibid. Although the Mexican federal government cancelled the 1899 FCN Treaty with China in October 1927, it appears that some attorneys in Sonora, including Francisco Gim's attorney, were not aware of the cancellation. Francisco Gim's attorney referenced the Treaty as applicable law as late as 1929.

101. Ibid.

102. Sonora, Ley número 31, 13 de diciembre de 1923 (prohibiting marriage between Mexican women and Chinese men, “even if they present documents attesting to their naturalization as Mexicans”).

103. Sonora, Ley número 89 del 14 de mayo de 1931 (prohibiting employers from counting naturalized citizens as part of the eighty percent of employees required to be Mexican nationals under the 1919 law).

104. Gin amparo, 1929.

105. Ibid.

106. Ibid.

107. At the time, President Arturo Cisneros Canto and Justices Salvador Urbina, Jesús Guzmán Vaca, Daniel Valencia, and Luís M. Calderón sat in the Second Chamber. See Gim amparo, 1929.

108. “Ante la ley, lo mismo es un chino que un magistrado de la Suprema Corte; pero hay que salvar nuestra nacionalidad,” El Universal, México, D.F., 25 de septiembre de 1930, 1.

109. Ibid.

110. Ibid.

111. Ibid.

112. Ibid.

113. Ibid.

114. Ibid.

115. Ibid.

116. Ibid.

117. Ibid.

118. Ibid.

119. Ibid.

120. Ibid.

121. Ibid.

122. Ibid.

123. Ibid.

124. Diario de los debates de la Cámara de diputados del Congreso de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Sesión del colegio electoral de la Cámara de diputados efectuada el día 30 de septiembre de 1930, available at http://cronica.diputados.gob.mx/Debates/34/1er/Ord/19300930.html.

125. Ibid.

126. Ibid.

127. Ibid.

128. Ibid.

129. Ibid.

130. “Ante la ley, lo mismo es un chino que un magistrado de la Suprema Corte; pero hay que salvar nuestra nacionalidad,” El Universal, México, D.F., 25 de septiembre de 1930, 1.

131. Ibid.

132. Petición de amparo 10, Carlos Wong Sun, 10 de febrero de 1929, contra aplicación de la Ley 31 [hereinafter Wong Sun amparo, 1929]. The subsequent text of this article is based on the unpaginated archival files of the Wong Sun case and documents associated with its appeal to the Supreme Court of Mexico.

133. Ibid.

134. Ibid.

135. Ibid.

136. Ibid.

137. Ibid.

138. Ibid.

139. Ibid.

140. Ibid.

141. Ibid.

142. Ibid.

143. Ibid.

144. Ibid. The Second Chamber was composed of President Luís Calderón and Justices Arturo Cisneros Canto, José López Lira, Daniel V. Valencia and Jesús Guzmán Vaca. Justice Guzmán Vaca was absent the day that the Chamber decided the Wong Sun case.

145. Ibid.

146. Ibid.

147. Ibid.

148. Semanario Judicial de la Federación, t. XXXVI, número 11, “Amparo Administrativo en Revisión. Juzgado de Distrito en el Estado de Sonora, Quejosos: Wong Sun Carlos, 6 de diciembre de 1932” 2072– 75, 22 de mayo de 1935; Lucio Cabrera Acevedo, La Suprema Corte de Justicia durante los gobiernos de Portes Gil, Ortiz Rubio y Abelardo L. Rodríguez (1929–1934) (Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación: México, 1998) II 76–77 available at http://www2.scjn.gob.mx/ius2006.

149. See http://www2.scjn.gob.mx/ius2006.

150. See Cabrera Acevedo, La Suprema Corte de Justicia durante los gobiernos de Portes Gil, Ortiz Rubio y Abelardo L. Rodríguez (1929–1934) II.

151. Sonora, Secretario de Gobierno, Circular Número 278, 7 de octubre de 1930, available in Espinoza, El ejemplo de Sonora, 55.

152. Ibid.

153. Ibid.

154. Carlos Wong Ramírez, Border Entry Card for arrival on July 9, 1951 at San Ysidro, California.

155. Marriage Certificate for Carlos Wong Sun and Juana Ramirez dated July 8, 1929, Nogales, Santa Cruz County, Arizona, microfilmed as Marriage License and Certificates, 1899–1951 (Santa Cruz County, Arizona), Film 2373098, available through FHC.

156. Petición de amparo 133, Carlos Wong Sun, 13 de noviembre de 1931, Ley 31 del Estado y multa de 1000 pesos [hereinafter Wong Sun amparo, 1931]. The archival files of the Wong Sun case are unpaginated.

157. Ibid. The irony of Wong Sun's representation regarding Arizona's laws is that since the 1860s Arizona had in fact prohibited marriage between Chinese and “whites.” See Pascoe, What Comes Naturally, 80–81 and Sohoni, “Unsuitable Suitors,” 597. In order for Wong Sun and Ramírez to marry in Arizona, she would have had to be classified racially as something other than white. Whether Mexicans and Mexican-Americans were white or not was a matter of significant debate in the United States. See Martinez, George A., “The Legal Construction of Race: Mexican-Americans and Whiteness,” Harvard Latino Law Review 2 (1997) 321–48Google Scholar; Sheridan, Clare, “‘Another White Race’: Mexican Americans and the Paradox of Whiteness in Jury Selection,” Law and History Review 21 (2003): 109–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wilson, Steven H., “Brown over ‘Other White’: Mexican Americans’ Legal Arguments and Litigation Strategy in School Desegregation Lawsuits,” Law and History Review 21 (2003): 145–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Orenstein, Dara, “Void for Vagueness: Mexicans and the Collapse of Miscegenation Law in California,” Pacific Historical Review 74 (2005): 367–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Gomez, Laura, Manifest Destinies: The Making of the Mexican-American Race (New York: New York University Press, 2007)Google Scholar.

158. Wong Sun amparo, 1931.

159. Ibid.

160. Ibid. The General Property Law defined as “ordinary income to the State” money that came from “fines and . . . the pecuniary sanctions which are imposed for violating a legal disposition.” Ibid. There is no direct evidence that the Sonoran Congress considered the Gim case when defining fines and pecuniary sanctions as ordinary income rather than punishments (penas), but the promulgation of the law less than three months after the Second Chamber's decision in Francisco Gim's favor suggests the possibility. Defining fines and pecuniary sanctions as ordinary income could have been an attempt to avoid the constitutional issues raised in the Gim case when unauthorized individuals imposed punishments.

161. Tarjeta de identificación, Carlos Wong Sun, Servicio de Migración, Registro de Extranjeros, Archivo General de la Nación, México, D.F.

162. Ibid.

163. Gim Pon, Border Entry Card for arrival on September 12, 1932 at Naco, Arizona [hereinafter Gim Pon, 1932 US entry].

164. Ibid.

165. Ibid.

166. Ibid.

167. Ibid.

168. Julia Delgado de Gin, June 25, 1933 U.S. entry.

169. Ibid.

170. Ibid.

171. Julia Delgado, Border Entry Card for arrival on December 13, 1933 at Naco, Arizona.

172. Ibid.

173. Ibid.

174. See Jesus Gim-Delgado, Border Entry Card for arrival on February 26, 1944 at Naco, Arizona (listing his father as Francisco Gim residing in Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, Mexico).

175. Julia Delgado de Gim, Border Entry Card for arrival on December 5, 1946 at Naco, Arizona.

176. Ibid.

177. Jesus Gim-Delgado, Border Entry Card for arrival on February 26, 1944 at Naco, Arizona; Guillermo Gim-Delgado, Border Entry Card for arrival on February 19, 1944 at Naco, Arizona; Francisco Gim-Delgado, Border Entry Card for arrival on June 19, 1944 at Naco, Arizona; Jesus Gim-Delgado, Border Entry Card for arrival on December 6, 1946 at Naco, Arizona; and Guillermo Gim-Delgado, Border Entry Card for arrival on November 26, 1946 at Naco, Arizona.

178. See, for example, Guillermo Gin, Border Entry Card for arrival on June 25, 1933 at Naco, Arizona; and Guillermo Gim-Delgado, Border Entry Card for arrival on February 19, 1944 at Naco, Arizona.

179. Email from José Guadalupe Esquivel Valenzuela to Kif Augustine-Adams dated October 27, 2004.

180. See Naco, Estado de Sonora, Enciclopedia de los Municipios de México, Cronología de los Presidentes Municipales, available at http://www.e-local.gob.mx/work/templates/enciclo/sonora/municipios/26039a.htm (visited June 14, 2010) and Daniel Núñez Santos, Anexo 1. Integrantes de las Legislaturas del Estado de Sonora, 1822–2000, XLV Legislatura del estado de Sonora 1967–1970 available at http://www.congresoson.gob.mx/solicitudes/2008/Folio-50.pdf (visited June 14, 2010).

181. See, Francisco Gim-Delgado, Border Entry Card for arrival on June 19, 1944 at Naco, Arizona; and Francisco Gim-Delgado, Border Entry Card for arrival on November 4, 1946 at El Paso, Texas.

182. Tarjeta de identificación, Carlos Wong Sun, Servicio de Migración, Registro de Extranjeros, Archivo General de la Nación, México, D.F.

183. See Juana Ramírez de Urrea, Border Entry Card for arrival on April 23, 1942 at Calexico, California; Juana Ramírez de Urrea, Border Entry Card for arrival on October 21, 1947 at San Ysidro, California; and Carlos Wong Ramírez, Border Entry Card for arrival on July 9, 1951 at San Ysidro, California.