text:
Chinese Exclusion Act

The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years. The law made exceptions for merchants, teachers, students, travelers, and diplomats. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first major U.S. law ever implemented to prevent all members of a specific national group from immigrating to the United States, and therefore helped shape twentieth-century race-based immigration policy.

Passage of the law was preceded by growing anti-Chinese sentiment and anti-Chinese violence, as well as various policies targeting Chinese migrants. The act followed the Angell Treaty of 1880, a set of revisions to the U.S.–China Burlingame Treaty of 1868 that allowed the U.S. to suspend Chinese immigration. The act was initially intended to last for 10 years, but was renewed and strengthened in 1892 with the Geary Act and made permanent in 1902. These laws attempted to stop all Chinese immigration into the United States for ten years, with exceptions for diplomats, teachers, students, merchants, and travelers. They were widely evaded.

In 1898 the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the law did not prevent the children of Chinese immigrants born in the United States from acquiring birthright citizenship.

The law remained in force until the passage of the Magnuson Act in 1943, which repealed the exclusion and allowed 105 Chinese immigrants to enter the United States each year. Chinese immigration later increased with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which abolished direct racial barriers, and later by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished the National Origins Formula.

Background
Two opium wars with the British lasting from (1839 to 1860) left many Chinese people in immense debt; this and drought and floods sent many unemployed farmers to start new lives in the Americas.

The first significant Chinese immigration to America began with the California Gold Rush of 1848–1855 and it continued with subsequent large labor projects, such as the building of the first transcontinental railroad. During the early stages of the gold rush, when surface gold was plentiful, the Chinese were tolerated by white people, if not well received. However, as gold became harder to find and competition increased, animosity toward the Chinese and other foreigners increased. After being forcibly driven from mining by a mixture of state legislators and other miners (the Foreign Miner's Tax), the immigrant Chinese began to settle in enclaves in cities, mainly San Francisco, and took up low-wage labor, such as restaurant and laundry work. With the post-Civil War economy in decline by the 1870s, anti-Chinese animosity became politicized by labor leader Denis Kearney and his Workingman's Party as well as by California governor John Bigler, both of whom blamed "coolie labor" for depressed wage levels. In addition to economic pressures, U.S. cultural products had long promoted racist views of Chinese people. Public opinion and law in California began to demonize Chinese workers and immigrants in any role, with the latter half of the 1800s seeing a series of ever more restrictive laws being placed on Chinese labor, behavior and even living conditions. While many of these legislative efforts were quickly overturned by the State Supreme Court, many more anti-Chinese laws continued to be passed in both California and nationally.

In the early 1850s, there was resistance to the idea of excluding Chinese migrant workers, since they provided essential tax revenue. The Xianfeng Emperor, who ruled China at the time, supported the exclusion because he was concerned that Chinese immigration to America would lead to a loss of labor for China. But toward the end of the decade, the financial situation improved and state level exclusion laws were passed. In 1858, the California Legislature passed a law that made it illegal for any person "of the Chinese or Mongolian races" to enter the state; however, this law was struck down by the State Supreme Court in 1862.

The Chinese immigrant workers provided cheap labor and did not use government schools, hospitals, and such because the Chinese migrant population was predominantly healthy male adults. January 1868, the Senate ratified the Burlingame Treaty with China, allowing an unrestricted flow of Chinese into the country. As time passed and more and more Chinese migrants arrived in the United States and California in particular, violence often broke out in cities such as Los Angeles. The North Adams strike of 1870, broken by the replacement of all workers by 75 Chinese men was the trigger that sparked widespread working-class protest across the country, shaped legislative debate in Congress, and helped make Chinese immigration a sustained national issue.

A very important part of the Chinese immigration was the back breaking labor being done on railroads across the United States. The Chinese immigrants took on the jobs, so brutal no white Americans were willing to do. Leland Stanford founder of the Central Pacific Railroad and Stanford University told Congress that majority of railroad workers were Chinese, and it would be impossible to complete westward expansion without them.

The Page Act of 1875 banned Chinese women from entering the United States to prevent the settlement of families, but continued to allow Chinese men and their labor.

Key to the transformation of Chinese immigration from a Californian to a national question was the political climate in 1876. This year was an election year and was exceedingly close with both parties looking to the West Coast for aid in the coming election, it was through this that Californian politicians were able to project their concerns with Chinese immigration eastward into discourse in the capital. Before 1876, Californian legislators had made various attempts to restrict Chinese immigration by targeting Chinese businesses, living spaces and the ships immigrants arrived on by way of ordinances and resultant fines, but such legislation was deemed unconstitutional through its violation of either the Burlingame Treaty, the Fourteenth Amendment, or the Civil Rights Act of 1866. In light of such failures, It became clear that the issue had to be solved by the federal government. For Californian politicians advocating against Chinese immigration, therefore, the close political competition in 1876 provided a good opportunity to propel their cause from a state issue to a national issue. The idea was that the desire for West Coast votes would compel the political parties to adopt policies to appeal to Californian voters, by making known the heavy anti-Chinese sentiment in California, Californian anti-Chinese legislators could influence political parties into adopting an anti-Chinese immigration rhetoric. This influence was conducted in a manner of ways; Firstly, throughout the spring many well-publicized anti-Chinese demonstrations were held, such as in San Francisco on April 5 which saw 20,000 people attend. Secondly, on April 3, the California State Senate authorized an investigation on the effects of Chinese immigration on the state's culture and economy, with the findings to be sent to 'leading newspapers of the United States' and 5 copies for each member of Congress. Furthering these measures was the sending of a delegation by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to cities in the east to express anti-Chinese sentiment to crowds (and later newspapers). Members of this delegation Philip Roach and Frank Pixley talked about the economic threat Chinese 'coolie' labour posed, but also on the perceived racial incompatibility and inferiority of Chinese immigrants, driving up fears and anxieties in other states. These remarks also found their way to senate hearings, such an example can be seen on May 1: Republican Aaron A. Sargent, the senior senator for California, addressed the senate with a vicious attack on Chinese immigration before they voted on treaty negotiations with China. The result of these efforts, among others, culminated in the overwhelming support of anti-Chinese policies by both political parties observed in their respective conventions in June. It is for these reasons then that the election year of 1876 was instrumental in changing the question of Chinese immigration from a state to a national question; The competitive political atmosphere allowed a calculated political attempt to nationalize California's Immigration grievances, as such leaders across the country (whose concerns with the benefits or ill of Chinese-labour were second to winning votes) were compelled to advocacy for anti-Chinese sentiment.

Numerous strikes followed the Adams strike, notably Beaver Falls Cutlery Company in Pennsylvania and others After the economy soured in the Panic of 1873, Chinese immigrants were blamed for depressing workmen's wages. At one point, Chinese men represented nearly a quarter of all wage-earning workers in California, and by 1878 Congress felt compelled to try to ban immigration from China in legislation that was later vetoed by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The title of the August 27, 1873, San Francisco Chronicle article, "The Chinese Invasion! They Are Coming, 900,000 Strong", was traced by The Atlantic as one of the roots of the 2019 anti-immigration "invasion" rhetoric. Furthermore, in 1876, San Francisco Lawyer H.N. Clement stood before a California State Committee and said: "The Chinese are upon us. How can we get rid of them? The Chinese are coming. How can we stop them?". This perfectly reflected the overall feeling of many Americans at the time, and how public officials were partly responsible in making this situation seem even more serious than it actually was.

In 1879, however, California adopted a new Constitution which explicitly authorized the state government to determine which individuals were allowed to reside in the state, and banned the Chinese from employment by corporations and state, county or municipal governments.

Three years later, after China had agreed to treaty revisions, Congress tried again to exclude working-class Chinese laborers; Senator John F. Miller of California introduced another Chinese Exclusion Act that blocked entry of Chinese laborers for a twenty-year period. The bill passed the Senate and House by overwhelming margins, but this as well was vetoed by President Chester A. Arthur, who concluded the 20-year ban to be a breach of the renegotiated treaty of 1880. That treaty allowed only a "reasonable" suspension of immigration. Eastern newspapers praised the veto, while it was condemned in the Western states. Congress was unable to override the veto, but passed a new bill reducing the immigration ban to ten years. The House of Representatives voted 201–37, with 51 abstentions, to pass the act. Although he still objected to this denial of entry to Chinese laborers, President Arthur acceded to the compromise measure, signing the Chinese Exclusion Act into law on May 6, 1882.

After the act was passed, most Chinese workers were faced with a dilemma: stay in the United States alone or return to China to reunite with their families. Although widespread dislike for the Chinese persisted well after the law itself was passed, of note is that some capitalists and entrepreneurs resisted their exclusion because they accepted lower wages.

When the exclusion act expired in 1892, congress extended it 10 more years in the form of the Geary Act. This extension was then made permanent in 1902 which led to every Chinese American ordered to gain a certificate of residence from the US government or face deportation. This act regulated Chinese immigration into the 20th century.

Content
The Act was the first U.S. immigration law to target a specific ethnicity or nationality. The earlier Page Act of 1875 had prohibited immigration of Asian forced laborers and sex workers, and the Naturalization Act of 1790 prohibited naturalization of non-white subjects. The Chinese Exclusion Act excluded Chinese laborers, meaning "skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining", from entering the country for ten years under penalty of imprisonment and deportation.

The Chinese Exclusion Act required the few non-laborers who sought entry to obtain certification from the Chinese government that they were qualified to emigrate. However, this group found it increasingly difficult to prove that they were not laborers because the 1882 Act defined excludables as "skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining". Thus very few Chinese could enter the country under the 1882 law. Diplomatic officials and other officers on business, along with their house servants, for the Chinese government were also allowed entry as long as they had the proper certification verifying their credentials.

The Chinese Exclusion Act also affected the Chinese who had already settled in the United States. Any Chinese who left the United States had to obtain certifications for reentry, and the act made Chinese immigrants permanent aliens by excluding them from U.S. citizenship. After the act's passage, Chinese men in the U.S. had little chance of ever reuniting with their wives, or of starting families in their new abodes.

Amendments made in 1884 tightened the provisions that allowed previous immigrants to leave and return and clarified that the law applied to ethnic Chinese regardless of their country of origin. The 1888 Scott Act expanded upon the Chinese Exclusion Act, prohibiting reentry into the U.S. after leaving. Only teachers, students, government officials, tourists, and merchants were exempt.

Constitutionality of the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Scott Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889); the Supreme Court declared that "the power of exclusion of foreigners [is] an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution". The act was renewed for ten years by the 1892 Geary Act, and again with no terminal date in 1902. When the act was extended in 1902, it required "each Chinese resident to register and obtain a certificate of residence. Without a certificate, he or she faced deportation."

Between 1882 and 1905, about 10,000 Chinese appealed against negative immigration decisions to federal court, usually via a petition for habeas corpus. In most of these cases, the courts ruled in favor of the petitioner. Except in cases of bias or negligence, these petitions were barred by an act that passed Congress in 1894 and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. vs Lem Moon Sing (1895). In United States v. Ju Toy (1905), the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the port inspectors and the Secretary of Commerce had final authority on who could be admitted. Ju Toy's petition was thus barred despite the fact that the district court found that he was an American citizen. The Supreme Court determined that refusing entry at a port does not require due process and is legally equivalent to refusing entry at a land crossing. All these developments, along with the extension of the act in 1902, triggered a boycott of U.S. goods in China between 1904 and 1906. There was one 1885 case in San Francisco, however, in which Treasury Department officials in Washington overturned a decision to deny entry to two Chinese students.

One of the critics of the Chinese Exclusion Act was the anti-slavery/anti-imperialist Republican senator George Frisbie Hoar of Massachusetts who described the act as "nothing less than the legalization of racial discrimination".

The laws were driven largely by racial concerns; immigration of persons of other races was not yet limited. On the other hand, most people and unions strongly supported the Chinese Exclusion Act, including the American Federation of Labor and Knights of Labor, a labor union, who supported it because it believed that industrialists were using Chinese workers as a wedge to keep wages low. Among labor and leftist organizations, the Industrial Workers of the World were the sole exception to this pattern. The IWW openly opposed the Chinese Exclusion Act from its inception in 1905.

The racial concerns the Exclusion Act drew justification from were along the lines of a perceived 'moral deficiency' of Chinese immigrants, this charge stipulated the inherent unreliability and dishonesty of the immigrants on behalf of their race. These assumptions of character were frequently assigned on behalf of the poor communities these immigrants lived in with higher density, higher crime, saloons and opium dens. This is however not an exhaustive list of charges brought against Chinese immigrants, many more assumptions were made such as them bringing leprosy to US shores. Some of the main proponents of this racialism were Irish immigrants in the West, the reason for this was that although granted entry under the Naturalization Act of 1790 as a free 'white' people, the large numbers of immigrants from Europe starting in the 1840's created a situation where different white ethnicities were being made out to be more or less desirable compared to Anglo-Saxons. In such a way the Celtic Irish in the east faced similar racialism at the hands of nativists, being categorized as 'dirty', 'drunken', and 'animalistic papists'. In this way, under Denis Kearney and the Workingman's Party, many Irish immigrants who had migrated westward sought to shore up their 'whiteness' and redirect stereotypes about themselves by stressing the undesirability of the Chinese, non-white immigrants.

For all practical purposes, the Chinese Exclusion Act, along with the restrictions that followed it, froze the Chinese community in place in 1882. Limited immigration from China continued until the repeal of the act in 1943. From 1910 to 1940, the Angel Island Immigration Station on what is now Angel Island State Park in San Francisco Bay served as the processing center for most of the 56,113 Chinese immigrants who are recorded as immigrating or returning from China; upwards of 30% more who arrived there were returned to China. The Chinese population in the U.S. declined from approximately 105,000 in 1880, to 89,000 in 1900, and to 61,000 in 1920.

Certain federal agencies were active in the 19th century to enforce the Exclusion Act. The Customs Service took the lead on this because of the maritime nature. In the 1900s the Office of the Superintendent of Immigration was established by the Department of the Treasury and given responsibility for implementing federal regulations mandated by the Chinese exclusion laws. This organization is now known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

The act exempted merchants, and restaurant owners could apply for merchant visas beginning in 1915 after a federal court ruling. This led to the rapid growth of Chinese restaurants in the 1910s and 1920s as restaurant owners could leave and reenter along with family members from China.

Later, the Immigration Act of 1924 restricted immigration even further, excluding all classes of Chinese immigrants and extending restrictions to other Asian immigrant groups. Until these restrictions were relaxed in the middle of the twentieth century, Chinese immigrants were forced to live a life separated from their families, and to build ethnic enclaves in which they could survive on their own (Chinatown). The Chinese Exclusion Act did not address the problems that whites were facing; in fact, the Chinese were quickly and eagerly replaced by the Japanese, who assumed the role of the Chinese in society. Unlike the Chinese, some Japanese were even able to climb the rungs of society by setting up businesses or becoming truck farmers. However, the Japanese were later targeted in the Immigration Act of 1924, which banned immigration from East Asia entirely. The Chinese Exclusion Act was a tool with an aim to, maintain cheap accessible labor while stopping the excess population of Chinese immigrants from taking jobs from white Americans.

In 1891, the Chinese government refused to accept U.S. senator Henry W. Blair as U.S. minister to China due to his abusive remarks regarding China during negotiations of the Chinese Exclusion Act. The American Christian George F. Pentecost spoke out against Western imperialism in China, saying:

"I personally feel convinced that it would be a good thing for America if the embargo on Chinese immigration were removed. I think that the annual admission of 100,000 into this country would be a good thing for the country. And if the same thing were done in the Philippines those islands would be a veritable Garden of Eden in twenty-five years. The presence of Chinese workmen in this country would, in my opinion, do a very great deal toward solving our labor problems. There is no comparison between the Chinaman, even of the lowest coolie class, and the man who comes here from Southeastern Europe, from Russia, or from Southern Italy. The Chinese are thoroughly good workers. That is why the laborers here hate them. I think, too, that the emigration to America would help the Chinese. At least he would come into contact with some real Christian people in America. The Chinaman lives in squalor because he is poor. If he had some prosperity his squalor would cease."

The "Driving Out" period
Following the passing of the Chinese Exclusion Act, a period known as the "Driving Out" era was born. In this period, anti-Chinese Americans physically forced Chinese communities to flee to other areas. Large scale violence in Western states included the Rock Springs massacre (1885) and the Hells Canyon massacre (1887).

Rock Springs massacre of 1885
The massacre was named for the town where it took place, Rock Springs, Wyoming, in Sweetwater County, where white miners were jealous of the Chinese for their employment. White miners expressed their jealous frustration by robbing, bullying, shooting, and stabbing the Chinese in Chinatown. The Chinese tried to flee but many were burned alive in their homes, starved to death in hidden refuge, or exposed to carnivorous animal predators in the mountains. Some were rescued by a passing train, but by the end of the event at least twenty-eight lives had been taken. In an attempt to appease the situation, the government intervened by sending federal troops to protect the Chinese. However, only compensations for destroyed property were paid. No one was arrested nor held accountable for the atrocities committed during the riot.

Hells Canyon massacre of 1887
The massacre was named for the location where it took place, along the Snake River in Hells Canyon near the mouth of Deep Creek. The area contained many rocky cliffs and white rapids that together posed significant danger to human safety. 34 Chinese miners were killed at the site. The miners were employed by the Sam Yup company, one of the six largest Chinese companies at the time, which worked in this area since October 1886. The actual events are still unclear due to unreliable law enforcement at the time, biased news reporting, and lack of serious official investigations. However, it is speculated that the dead Chinese miners were not victims of natural causes, but rather victims of gun shot wounds during a robbery committed by a gang of seven armed horse thieves. Gold worth $4,000–$5,000 was thought to have been stolen from the miners. The gold was never recovered nor further investigated.

The aftermath
Shortly following the incident, the Sam Yup company of San Francisco hired Lee Loi who later hired Joseph K. Vincent, then U.S. Commissioner, to lead an investigation. Vincent submitted his investigative report to the Chinese consulate who tried unsuccessfully to obtain justice for the Chinese miners. At around the same time, other compensation reports were also unsuccessfully filed for earlier crimes inflicted on the Chinese. In the end, on October 19, 1888, Congress agreed to greatly under-compensate for the massacre and ignore the claims for the earlier crimes. Even though the amount was greatly underpaid, it was still a small victory to the Chinese who had low expectations for relief or acknowledgement.

Issues of the act
The Chinese Exclusion Act created fear and violence within Chinese communities as a result of immigration raids made legal through the Chinese Exclusion Act. During these raids they were at risk of being questioned, detained, or physically or verbally assaulted. Targeting the Chinese was a day-to-day risk due to the anti-Chinese sentiment generated through the Chinese Exclusion Act their community was in danger.

An issue with the Chinese Exclusion act is that it established 'gatekeeping ideologies' within the US. Demonstrated through the act's mythological approach to restrict, exclude, and deport those believed to be 'undesirable'. The qualities associated with being 'undesirable' were categorized through individuals' race, gender, and class. Purposely excluding those who worked to build America, contribute to their economy, and build a home. This was the first American law 'gatekeeping' the country based on those who were not seen as worthy enough to enter based on race.

Another issue was there were many workarounds that people quickly created to bypass the Chinese Exclusion Act. Chinese women would travel to Canada to get a marriage license in order to reunite with their families. Men and women would walk across the American border intending to be arrested, to demand to go to court and claim they were born in America through providing a witness a witness of their birth. While the American and Canadian government did discover these workarounds and new laws were created, these methods still were accessible for several years after the exclusion act.

Impact of international developments
In the American effort to change many aspects of the Burlingame Treaty, the U.S. took advantage of China's weakened position on the international stage. China was dealing with various challenging situations, such as the French government establishing a protectorate over Vietnam, which was a tributary country to China for a long time. More importantly, it faced the Senkaku Islands dispute with Japan. Ex-President Ulysses S. Grant visited China in 1879, Viceroy Li Hongzhang, an important diplomat, told Grant that if the U.S. helped China pressure the Japanese out of Senkaku Islands, he would make a concession on the Chinese immigration issue. This paved the way for the Angell Treaty of 1880, which greatly diminished Chinese immigrants' rights and interests. The Angell Treaty opened the door for the complete prohibition of Chinese immigrants, as politicians realised that the immigrant question was not a priority for the Chinese Government, and that China was weak, meaning that even if they had violate the treaties, China would not invade or create major problems. Overall, this shows how the U.S. used its foreign relations with China to achieve its own domestic objectives.

Impact on U.S.-China relations
Prior to the approval of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, relations between China and the United States were generally positive. This was mainly because of the Burlingame Treaty, a treaty which included the right of Chinese people to free immigration and travel within the U.S., and protection of Chinese citizens residing in the United States. Moreover, the treaty gave the two countries reciprocal access to education and schooling when living in the other country. Although the U.S. viewed China as an inferior partner, nevertheless the relationship was positive. American politicians and presidents continued to maintain and uphold the treaty, for example, President Rutherford B. Hayes vetoed bills that contrasted the Burlingame Treaty. As tensions grew domestically in the U.S. however, Hayes began a revision of the Treaty and China agreed to limit immigration to the U.S. However, once discussions began to enforce the Chinese Exclusion Act, and the law was then passed, "the Chinese Government considered this a direct insult". Furthermore, when the USA extended the law to Hawaii and the Philippines, this was greatly objected by the Chinese Government and people, who viewed America as a bullish and imperial power who undermined China.

Impact on women
The Chinese Exclusion Act had many impacts on Chinese women. As such, unique categories were created in the act to prevent their entry, so that the main way they immigrated was through marrying Chinese or native men. The interrogation was similar to male workers, except they had specific questions regarding bound feet in the early period: women with feet that had been bound tended to be from wealthy families, unbound feet were a sign of being from a low class and so were seen as less desirable by US border officers.

Many women were forced to find alternative immigration methods to be able to reunify with loved ones after the Chinese Exclusion Act. Women would marry or even re-marry their partners in Canada so that they were approved for immigration to join their merchant husbands in America. These women navigated and successfully overcame the US government in their many workarounds of the Chinese Exclusion Act. The Chinese Exclusion Act significantly impacted single women. Married women had better chances of immigration due to their merchant husbands. However, for single women it was nearly impossible to immigrate. Often the presumption was if they were single Chinese women they were prostitutes or were to be sold into prostitution.

Impact on education in the U.S.
Recruitment of foreign students to U.S. colleges and universities was an important component in the expansion of American influence. International education programs allowed students to learn from the examples provided at elite universities and to bring their newfound skill sets back to their home countries. As such, international education has historically been seen as a vehicle for improving diplomatic relations and promoting trade. The US Exclusion Act, however, forced Chinese students attempting to enter the country to provide proof that they were not trying to bypass regulations. Laws and regulations that stemmed from the act made for less than ideal situations for Chinese students, leading to criticisms of American society. Policies and attitudes toward Chinese Americans in the US worked against foreign policy interests by limiting the ability of the U.S. to participate in international education initiatives.

Impact on the U.S. economy
The Chinese Exclusion Act affected the US economy substantially. The departure of many skilled and unskilled Chinese workers led to an across-the-board decline. Mines and manufacturers in California, where the majority of Chinese immigrants resided, closed and wages did not climb as anticipated. Furthering this, the value of agricultural produce declined due to falling demand reflective of the diminished population. Joaquin Miller remarked in 1901 that since the Chinese departure, property value in Californian cities had remained at a standstill and capital investment had been hesitant.

Impact on further U.S. legislation
The Act was the first legislature which prohibited entry to an immigrant based on race and class, in this way it facilitated further restriction by both being the model by which future groups could be radicalized as unassimilable aliens, and by also marking a moment where such discrimination could be justifiable. The act's method of 'Radicalizing' the Chinese as a threat to Americas' values and working class, 'containing' the danger by limiting their social and geographic mobility, and 'defending' America through expulsion became the foundation of Americas 'Gate keeping' ideology. The 1924 Immigration act placed quotas on all nationalities apart from northwest Europe, this could be seen as building off the gate-keeping ideology established with the Chinese exclusion act; Public perceptions of many immigrant groups such as southern and eastern Europeans in the late 19th and early 20th century had become one of 'undesirability' when compared to those with Anglo-Saxon heritage, this was due largely to popular nativity attitudes and accepted racialism. In this way, the restriction of these groups by 1924 compared to their north western 'desirable' counterparts could be seen to be carrying on the discrimination by perceived racial inferiority of immigrants that started with the Chinese exclusion act.

Repeal and status
The Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed by the 1943 Magnuson Act when China had become an ally of the U.S. against Japan in World War II, as the U.S. needed to embody an image of fairness and justice. The Magnuson Act permitted Chinese nationals already residing in the country to become naturalized citizens and stop hiding from the threat of deportation. The act also allowed Chinese people to send remittances to people of Chinese descent living in mainland China, Macao, Hong Kong, and Taiwan and other countries or territories, especially if the funding is not tied to criminal activity. However, the Magnuson Act only allowed a national quota of 105 Chinese immigrants per year and did not repeal the restrictions on immigration from the other Asian countries. The crackdown on Chinese immigrants reached a new level in its last decade, from 1956 to 1965, with the Chinese Confession Program launched by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, that encouraged Chinese who had committed immigration fraud to confess, so as to be eligible for some leniency in treatment. Large-scale Chinese immigration did not occur until the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

The first Chinese immigrants who entered the United States under the Magnuson Act were college students who sought to escape the warfare in China during World War II and study in the U.S. The establishment of the People's Republic of China and its entry into the Korean War against the U.S., however, created a new threat in the minds of some American politicians: American-educated Chinese students bringing American knowledge back to "Red China". Many Chinese college students were almost forcibly naturalized, even though they continued to face significant prejudice, discrimination, and bullying. One of the most prolific of these students was Tsou Tang, who would go on to become the leading expert on China and Sino-American relations during the Cold War.

Although the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed in 1943, the law in California prohibiting non-whites from marrying whites was not struck down until 1948, in which the California Supreme Court ruled the ban of interracial marriage within the state unconstitutional in Perez v. Sharp. Some other states had such laws until 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws across the nation are unconstitutional.

Even today, although all its constituent sections have long been repealed, Chapter 7 of Title 8 of the United States Code is headed "Exclusion of Chinese". It is the only chapter of the 15 chapters in Title 8 (Aliens and Nationality) that is completely focused on a specific nationality or ethnic group. Like the following Chapter 8, "The Cooly Trade", it consists entirely of statutes that are noted as "Repealed" or "Omitted".

On June 18, 2012, the U.S. House of Representatives passed, a resolution introduced by Congresswoman Judy Chu which formally expresses the regret of the House of Representatives for the Chinese Exclusion Act. , a similar resolution, had been approved by the U.S. Senate in October 2011.

In 2014, the California Legislature took formal action to pass measures that formally recognize the accomplishments of Chinese Americans in California and to call upon Congress to formally apologize for the 1882 adoption of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Senate Republican leader Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar) and incoming Senate president pro-Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) served as joint authors for Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 23 and Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 122, respectively.

Both SJR 23 and SCR 122 acknowledge and celebrate the history and contributions of Chinese Americans in California. The resolutions also formally call on Congress to apologize for laws that resulted in the persecution of Chinese Americans, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Perhaps most important are the sociological implications for understanding ethnic/race relations in the context of American history; minorities tend to be punished in times of economic, political, and/or geopolitical crises. Times of social and systemic stability, however, tend to mute any underlying tensions between different groups. In times of societal crisis—whether perceived or real—patterns of retractability of American identities have erupted to the forefront of America's political landscape, often generating institutional and civil society backlash against workers from other nations, a pattern documented by Fong's research into how crises drastically alter social relationships.

title: Chinese Exclusion Act


text:
Warsaw Convention

The Convention for the Unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air, commonly known as the Warsaw Convention, is an international convention which regulates liability for international carriage of persons, luggage, or goods performed by aircraft for reward.

Originally signed in 1929 in Warsaw (hence the name), it was amended in 1955 at The Hague, Netherlands, and in 1971 in Guatemala City, Guatemala. United States courts have held that, at least for some purposes, the Warsaw Convention is a different instrument from the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol.

The Montreal Convention, signed in 1999, replaced the Warsaw Convention system in countries ratifying it.

History
On 17 August 1923, the French government proposed the convening of a diplomatic conference In November 1923 for the purpose of concluding a convention relating to liability in international carriage by air. The conference was formally deferred on two occasions due to reluctant behavior of the governments of various nations to act on such a short notice without the knowledge of the proposed convention. Finally, between 27 October and 6 November, the first conference met in Paris to study the draft convention. Since most of the participants were diplomats accredited to the French government and not professionals, it was agreed unanimously that a body of technical, legal experts be set up to study the draft convention prior to its submission to the diplomatic conference for approval. Accordingly, the International Technical Committee of Legal Experts on Air Questions (Comité International Technique d’Experts Juridiques Aériens, CITEJA) was formed in 1925. In 1927–28 CITEJA studied and developed the proposed draft convention and developed it into the present package of unification of law and presented it at the Warsaw Conference, where it was approved between 4 and 12 October 1929. It unified an important sector of private air law.

The convention was written originally in French and the original documents were deposited in the archives of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Poland. After coming into force on 13 February 1933, it resolved some conflicts of law and jurisdiction.

Between 1948 and 1951 it was further studied by a legal committee set up by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and in 1952 a new draft was prepared to replace the convention. However it was rejected and it was decided that the convention be amended rather than replaced in 1953. The work done by the legal committee at the Ninth Session was presented to the International Conference on Air Law which was convened by the council of the ICAO and met at The Hague from 6 to 28 September 1955. The Hague Conference adopted a Protocol (the Hague Protocol) for the amendment of the Warsaw Convention. Between the parties of the Protocol, it was agreed that the 1929 Warsaw Convention and the 1955 Hague Protocol were to be read and interpreted together as one single instrument to be known as the Warsaw Convention as amended at the Hague in 1955. This was not an amendment to the convention but rather a creation of a new and separate legal instrument that is only binding between the parties. If one nation is a party to the Warsaw Convention and another to the Hague Protocol, neither state has an instrument in common and therefore there is no mutual international ground for litigation.

Finally, the Montreal Convention, signed in 1999, replaced the Warsaw Convention system.

Content
There are five chapters:
 * Chapter I – Definitions
 * Chapter II – Documents of Carriage; Luggage and Passenger Ticket
 * Chapter III – Liability of the Carrier
 * Chapter IV – Provisions Relating to Combined Carriage
 * Chapter V – General and Final Provisions

In the convention there is a provision of successive carriage and a combined carriage partly by air and partly by other modes of transport as well.

In particular, the Warsaw Convention:
 * Defines "international carriage" and the convention's scope of applicability
 * Sets rules for documents of carriage
 * Sets rules for the air carrier's liability and limitations thereof
 * Sets rules for legal jurisdiction
 * Mandates carriers to issue passenger tickets;
 * Requires carriers to issue baggage checks for checked luggage;
 * Creates a limitation period of two years within which a claim must be brought (Article 29); and
 * Limits a carrier's liability to at most:
 * 250,000 Francs or 16,600 special drawing rights (SDR) for personal injury;
 * 250 Francs or 19 SDR per kilogram for checked luggage and cargo, or US$20 per kilogram for non-signatories of the amended Montreal Convention;
 * 5,000 Francs or 332 SDR for the hand luggage of a traveller.

The sums limiting liability were originally given in gold francs (defined in terms of a particular quantity of gold by article 22 paragraph 5 of the convention). These sums were amended by the Montreal Additional Protocol No. 2 to substitute an expression given in terms of SDRs. These sums are valid in the absence of a differing agreement (on a higher sum) with the carrier. Agreements on lower sums are null and void.

A court may also award a claiming party's costs, unless the carrier made an offer within 6 months of the loss (or at least 6 months before the beginning of any legal proceedings) which the claiming party has failed to beat.

The Warsaw Convention provides that a plaintiff can file a lawsuit at his or her discretion in one of the following forums:
 * 1) The carrier's principal place of business
 * 2) The domicile of the carrier
 * 3) The carrier's place of business through which the contract was made
 * 4) The place of the destination

According to Clauses 17 and 18 of the Warsaw Convention, airline companies are liable for any damage that occurs to passengers or their belongings during in-flight. However, airline companies will not be held responsible if the damage results from the passenger's own fault or one of their temporary servants such as doctors assisting ill passengers on their own initiative (Clause 20). To be covered by air carriers, doctors should respond to the captain's call when it comes to assisting ill passengers. In such cases, doctors are considered an airline's temporary servants who acted on the airline's instructions. Major airlines are all covered by insurance to meet such contingencies and to cover doctors who act as their temporary agents.

Ratifications
As of 2015, the Warsaw Convention had been ratified by 152 states. The protocol to the convention had been ratified by 137 states.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Warsaw Convention


text:
Connotation

A connotation is a commonly understood cultural or emotional association that any given word or phrase carries, in addition to its explicit or literal meaning, which is its denotation.

A connotation is frequently described as either positive or negative, with regard to its pleasing or displeasing emotional connection. For example, a stubborn person may be described as being either strong-willed or pig-headed; although these have the same literal meaning (stubborn), strong-willed connotes admiration for the level of someone's will (a positive connotation), while pig-headed connotes frustration in dealing with someone (a negative connotation).

Usage
"Connotation" branches into a mixture of different meanings. These could include the contrast of a word or phrase with its primary, literal meaning (known as a denotation), with what that word or phrase specifically denotes. The connotation essentially relates to how anything may be associated with a word or phrase; for example, an implied value, judgement or feelings.

Logic
In logic and semantics, connotation is roughly synonymous with intension. Connotation is often contrasted with denotation, which is more or less synonymous with extension. Alternatively, the connotation of the word may be thought of as the set of all its possible referents (as opposed to merely the actual ones). A word's denotation is the collection of things it refers to; its connotation is what it implies about the things it is used to refer to (a second level of meanings is termed connotative). The connotation of dog is (something like) four-legged canine carnivore. So, saying, "You are a dog" would connote that you were ugly or aggressive rather than literally denoting you as a canine.

Related terms
It is often useful to avoid words with strong connotations (especially pejorative or disparaging ones) when striving to achieve a neutral point of view. A desire for more positive connotations, or fewer negative ones, is one of the main reasons for using euphemisms.

Semiotic closure, as defined by Terry Eagleton, concerns "a sealed world of ideological stability, which repels the disruptive, decentered forces of language in the name of an imaginary unity. Signs are ranked by a certain covert violence into rigidly hierarchical order. . . . The process of forging ‘representations’ always involves this arbitrary closing of the signifying chain, constricting the free play of the signifier to a spuriously determinate meaning which can then be received by the subject as natural and inevitable".

title: Connotation


text:
Talk:Chinese Americans

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2020 and 19 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chris3348.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Chinese Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141224151538/http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/twps0056.html to http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/twps0056.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928000643/http://www.tcg.org/publications/at/2002/drum.cfm to http://www.tcg.org/publications/at/2002/drum.cfm
 * Added tag to http://www.ocanatl.org/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Chinese Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219012241/http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn31.html to http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn31.html
 * Added tag to http://www.community.ups.com/Community/Community+Internship+Program/San+Francisco
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120711131410/http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/01/report-half-of-chinas-rich-want-to-leave/ to http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/01/report-half-of-chinas-rich-want-to-leave/
 * Added tag to http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/diversity/documents/diversity-accountability-report-and-appendix-0910.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120507035916/http://behindthewall.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/11/9679479-chinese-applications-to-us-schools-skyrocket?lite to http://behindthewall.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/11/9679479-chinese-applications-to-us-schools-skyrocket?lite
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130906192222/http://www.usatodayeducate.com/staging/index.php/ccp/chinas-growing-middle-class-means-influx-of-students-for-u-s-colleges to http://www.usatodayeducate.com/staging/index.php/ccp/chinas-growing-middle-class-means-influx-of-students-for-u-s-colleges
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120528234930/http://www.kauffman.org/entrepreneurship/foreign-born-entrepreneurs.aspx to http://www.kauffman.org/entrepreneurship/foreign-born-entrepreneurs.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527000933/http://www.ppic.org/main/commentary.asp?i=206 to http://www.ppic.org/main/commentary.asp?i=206
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120107231339/http://www.census.gov/econ/sbo/get07sof.html?16 to http://www.census.gov/econ/sbo/get07sof.html?16
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120801003336/http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/15/296250/romney-rejects-buffetts-call-to-tax-the-rich-falsely-claims-it-would-hurt-small-businesses/?mobile=nc to http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/15/296250/romney-rejects-buffetts-call-to-tax-the-rich-falsely-claims-it-would-hurt-small-businesses/?mobile=nc
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5nAn0V3om?url=http://www.census.gov/apsd/wepeople/we-3.pdf to http://www.census.gov/apsd/wepeople/we-3.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.voanews.com/content/long_term_unemployment_hits_asian_americans_hardest/11005574.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20001206202500/http://www.nwchp.org/ to http://www.nwchp.org/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 15 June 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved – speedy closing to prevent WP:SNOW. Ethnic group articles are expressly specified to have plural titles by WP:PLURAL. where guidance in WP:SINGULAR points to. No such user (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Chinese Americans → Chinese American – Conform to WP:SINGULAR Caorongjin (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Moved from technical request (permalink). I learnt that articles about nations/ethnic groups/tribes don't usually obey WP:SINGULAR. Cf. Americans, Germans and African Americans. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Oppose per WP:NCET. – Uanfala (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Chinese Americans in Atlanta" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chinese Americans in Atlanta. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 23:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Fabrickator revert of 8 May 2020
I've reverted this article back to the 20:21, 27 April 2020 edit by Cyfal, with some additional edits.

Here's what's being reverted:

 * the drop of Malaysia from portal bar
 * 23% of Malaysian population is Chinese, when these Malaysians come to America, I presume they may be considered as Chinese-Americans, which would seem to justify including Malaysia on the portal bar.
 * the drop of reference to "Standard Chinese", based on a claim that "SC is not a language"
 * I'm going to call this bogus. There are different forms of the Chinese language, and one of those forms (evidently Mandarin) is considered the "standard" form.
 * the the drop of paragraph about Chinese who identify as Jewish
 * This topic seems to have quite a bit of coverage. I've added some relevant citations, providing some fair support for these claims.  Feel free to improve on my efforts. Fabrickator (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Expansion in "History" Section on Chinese Women Migrants
Hi Wikipedians,

I plan on making some changes to this Wiki page and wanted to inform you all before I make them. There's some information missing in the section titled "History" about the experiences of Chinese Women migrants. They're not mentioned at all, so I plan on adding information about the topic. I do not plan on removing any information or rearranging anything. I plan on adding information following the third paragraph in this section, as it will fit nicely following the information provided on the Gold Rush. I will talk about the experiences that Chinese women migrants had in America in the nineteenth century. For example, many went through stricter background checks than Chinese men, when they arrived to America. They were interrogated for days and asked intrusive questions about their family lives. Chinese women were also prevented in large numbers from legally immigrating to the United States, which lead to an imbalanced sex ratio among Chinese American populations. Once these women had been approved and let into the country, they experienced new hardships. Many Chinese women were coerced into prostitution, with over 60% of the adult Chinese women living in California in 1870 working in the trade. I gathered this information from a book chapter titled "Nineteenth Century Immigration: Chinese Women Came to the Gold Mountain” which is found in Huping Ling's book titled Surviving on the Gold Mountain : A History of Chinese American Women and Their Lives. This source is reliable as the book was published by State University of New York Press, a reliable publisher, in 1998. The author, Ling Huping, is a professor at Truman State University in Kirksville, Missouri. She also founded the Asian studies program at the university. Altogether I'll add between 200 and 300 words to the "History" section. If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page! Chris3348 (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Uncited text in intro
I've moved this uncited text from the intro. Feel free to move it back with citations: "About half or more of the Chinese ethnic people in the U.S. in the 1980s had roots in Taishan, Guangdong, a city in southern China near the major city of Guangzhou. In general, much of the Chinese population before the 1990s consisted of Cantonese or Taishanese-speaking people from southern China, predominately from Guangdong province. During the 1980s, more Mandarin-speaking immigrants from Northern China and Taiwan immigrated to the U.S. The Chinese population in much of the 1800s and 1990s was almost entirely contained to the Western U.S., especially California and Nevada, as well as New York City. Chinese immigrants and their descendants generally lived in Chinatowns (especially the ones in San Francisco and New York), or Chinese populated districts in downtowns of major cities." PRRfan (talk) PRRfan (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

 * I've added it back with some citations. The first half has a lot of evidence to it (and is a summary of the rest of the article's information), the latter half seems true but may be frustrated by vague terminology (how many is "generally"?) and should also probably mention non-city Chinatowns like San Marino. Calabax (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Reorganization
This article is a confusing mishmash of many different cultures and histories all mixed together. The primary problem is organization.

The "History" section is about 19th century Chinese-American West Coast history. This is undeniably relevant to the status of Chinese Americans today, but is described in greater detail than necessary for a page that is meant for "Chinese Americans" in general.

The "Demographics" section focuses on the demographics and statistics of East Coast Chinatowns, and could use some more history instead of just statistics.

The "Modern Immigration" section, previously named Immigration, is a relatively tiny section with information about immigration after the PRC opened China, which began in the 1980s. It's part of the reason there's a big cultural difference between the early wave and later waves of Chinese immigration, because there's literally hundreds of years of economic level, cultural difference, and degrees of assimilation between the them.

The "Socioeconomics" section is focused on 1980s+ Chinese American international students. It, unlike the previous sections, also cites many more individual news articles rather than research studies, and seems to be focused on students rather than the holistic Chinese population. How many students are immigrating? From where are they from? It makes many statements such as "With their above average educational attainment rates, Chinese Americans from all socioeconomic backgrounds have achieved significant advances in their educational levels, income, life expectancy, and other social indicators" which is obviously less applicable to Chinese Americans that came to America because their ancestors "mined for gold and performed menial labor" as stated earlier in the article.

Many of the studies are from 2000-2010 textbooks, and should be updated with research from 2010-recent.

The Chinese Americans page length right now is 145,592 bytes. The article on Irish diaspora is 142,657 bytes. However, Chinese Americans article is much more confusing than the lrish diaspora article. The Irish diaspora article links to relevant historical events driving immigration such as the Great Famine, and immigrant conflicts such as the Irish American slang, which I would like to see the Chinese American versions of. Calabax (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

 * I propose more categories so we can maintain the Chinese Americans page as a useful hub page for Chinese Americans, instead of this mishmash of different waves of immigration. Do not delete information, or remove uncited text, but move it onto pages where it fits better and create links between articles. We don't want the new Chinese to overwrite the old Chinese, and we don't want the old Chinese to overwrite the new Chinese. Calabax (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chinese Americans


text:
Interstate Commerce Commission

The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was a regulatory agency in the United States created by the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. The agency's original purpose was to regulate railroads (and later trucking) to ensure fair rates, to eliminate rate discrimination, and to regulate other aspects of common carriers, including interstate bus lines and telephone companies. Congress expanded ICC authority to regulate other modes of commerce beginning in 1906. Throughout the 20th century, several of ICC's authorities were transferred to other federal agencies. The ICC was abolished in 1995, and its remaining functions were transferred to the Surface Transportation Board.

The Commission's five members were appointed by the President with the consent of the United States Senate. This was the first independent agency (or so-called Fourth Branch).

Creation
The ICC was established by the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, which was signed into law by President Grover Cleveland. The creation of the commission was the result of widespread and longstanding anti-railroad agitation. Western farmers, specifically those of the Grange Movement, were the dominant force behind the unrest, but Westerners generally — especially those in rural areas — believed that the railroads possessed economic power that they systematically abused. A central issue was rate discrimination between similarly situated customers and communities. Other potent issues included alleged attempts by railroads to obtain influence over city and state governments and the widespread practice of granting free transportation in the form of yearly passes to opinion leaders (elected officials, newspaper editors, ministers, and so on) so as to dampen any opposition to railroad practices.

Various sections of the Interstate Commerce Act banned "personal discrimination" and required shipping rates to be "just and reasonable."

President Cleveland appointed Thomas M. Cooley as the first chairman of the ICC. Cooley had been Dean of the University of Michigan Law School and Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court.

Initial implementation and legal challenges
The Commission had a troubled start because the law that created it failed to give it adequate enforcement powers.

"The Commission is, or can be made, of great use to the railroads. It satisfies the popular clamor for a government supervision of the railroads, while at the same time that supervision is almost entirely nominal."

- Richard Olney, private attorney, in a letter to Charles Elliott Perkins, President of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad, December 28, 1892.

Following the passage of the 1887 act, the ICC proceeded to set maximum shipping rates for railroads. However, in the late 1890s, several railroads challenged the agency's ratemaking authority in litigation, and the courts severely limited the ICC's powers.

The ICC became the United States' investigation agency for railroad accidents.

Expansion of ICC authority

Congress expanded the commission's powers through subsequent legislation. The 1893 Railroad Safety Appliance Act gave the ICC jurisdiction over railroad safety, removing this authority from the states, and this was followed with amendments in 1903 and 1910. The Hepburn Act of 1906 authorized the ICC to set maximum railroad rates, and extended the agency's authority to cover bridges, terminals, ferries, sleeping cars, express companies and oil pipelines.

A long-standing controversy was how to interpret language in the Act that banned long haul-short haul fare discrimination. The Mann-Elkins Act of 1910 addressed this question by strengthening ICC authority over railroad rates. This amendment also expanded the ICC's jurisdiction to include regulation of telephone, telegraph and wireless companies.

The Valuation Act of 1913 required the ICC to organize a Bureau of Valuation that would assess the value of railroad property. This information would be used to set rates. The Esch-Cummins Act of 1920 expanded the ICC's rate-setting responsibilities, and the agency in turn required updated valuation data from the railroads. The enlarged process led to a major increase in ICC staff, and the valuations continued for almost 20 years. The valuation process turned out to be of limited use in helping the ICC set rates fairly.

In 1934, Congress transferred the telecommunications authority to the new Federal Communications Commission.

In 1935, Congress passed the Motor Carrier Act, which extended ICC authority to regulate interstate bus lines and trucking as common carriers.

Ripley Plan to consolidate railroads into regional systems
The Transportation Act of 1920 directed the Interstate Commerce Commission to prepare and adopt a plan for the consolidation of the railway properties of the United States into a limited number of systems. Between 1920 and 1923, William Z. Ripley, a professor of political economy at Harvard University, wrote up ICC's plan for the regional consolidation of the U.S. railways. His plan became known as the Ripley Plan. In 1929 the ICC published Ripley's Plan under the title Complete Plan of Consolidation. Numerous hearings were held by ICC regarding the plan under the topic "In the Matter of Consolidation of the Railways of the United States into a Limited Number of Systems".

The proposed 21 regional railroads were as follows:

 * 1) Boston and Maine Railroad; Maine Central Railroad; Bangor and Aroostook Railroad; Delaware and Hudson Railway
 * 2) New Haven Railroad; New York, Ontario and Western Railway; Lehigh and Hudson River Railway; Lehigh and New England Railroad
 * 3) New York Central Railroad; Rutland Railroad; Virginian Railway; Chicago, Attica and Southern Railroad
 * 4) Pennsylvania Railroad; Long Island Rail Road
 * 5) Baltimore and Ohio Railroad; Central Railroad of New Jersey; Reading Railroad; Buffalo and Susquehanna Railroad; Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburgh Railway; 50% of Detroit, Toledo and Ironton Railroad; 50% of Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Railroad; 50% of Monon Railroad; Chicago and Alton Railroad (Alton Railroad)
 * 6) Chesapeake and Ohio-Nickel Plate Road; Hocking Valley Railway; Erie Railroad; Pere Marquette Railway; Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad; Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad; Chicago and Illinois Midland Railway; 50% of Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Railroad
 * 7) Wabash-Seaboard Air Line Railroad; Lehigh Valley Railroad; Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway; Pittsburgh and West Virginia Railway; Western Maryland Railway; Akron, Canton and Youngstown Railway; Norfolk and Western Railway; 50% of Detroit, Toledo and Ironton Railroad; Toledo, Peoria and Western Railroad; Ann Arbor Railroad; 50% of Winston-Salem Southbound Railway
 * 8) Atlantic Coast Line Railroad; Louisville and Nashville Railroad; Nashville, Chattanooga and St. Louis Railway; Clinchfield Railroad; Atlanta, Birmingham and Coast Railroad; Gulf, Mobile and Northern Railroad; New Orleans, Jackson and Great Northern; 25% of Chicago, Indianapolis and Louisville Railway (Monon Railroad); 50% of Winston-Salem Southbound Railway
 * 9) Southern Railway; Norfolk Southern Railway; Tennessee Central Railway (east of Nashville); Florida East Coast Railway; 25% of Chicago, Indianapolis and Louisville Railway (Monon Railway)
 * 10) Illinois Central Railroad; Central of Georgia Railway; Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway; Tennessee Central Railway (west of Nashville); St. Louis Southwestern Railway (Cotton Belt); Atlanta and St. Andrews Bay Railroad
 * 11) Chicago and North Western Railway; Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad; Litchfield and Madison Railway; Mobile and Ohio Railroad; Columbus and Greenville Railway; Lake Superior and Ishpeming Railroad
 * 12)  Great Northern-Northern Pacific Railway; Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway; 50% of Butte, Anaconda and Pacific Railway
 * 13) Milwaukee Road; Escanaba and Lake Superior Railroad; Duluth, Missabe and Northern Railway; Duluth and Iron Range Railroad; 50% of Butte, Anaconda and Pacific Railway; trackage rights on Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway to Portland, Oregon.
 * 14) Burlington Route; Colorado and Southern Railway; Fort Worth and Denver Railway; Green Bay and Western Railroad; Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad; 50% of Trinity and Brazos Valley Railroad; Oklahoma City-Ada-Atoka Railway
 * 15) Union Pacific Railroad; Kansas City Southern Railway
 * 16) Southern Pacific Railroad
 * 17) Santa Fe Railway; Chicago Great Western Railway; Kansas City, Mexico and Orient Railway; Missouri and North Arkansas Railroad; Midland Valley Railroad; Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern Railway
 * 18) Missouri Pacific Railroad; Texas and Pacific Railway; Kansas, Oklahoma and Gulf Railway; Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad; Denver and Salt Lake Railroad; Western Pacific Railroad; Fort Smith and Western Railway
 * 19) Rock Island-Frisco Railway; Alabama, Tennessee and Northern Railroad; 50% of Trinity and Brazos Valley Railroad; Louisiana and Arkansas Railway; Meridian and Bigbee Railroad
 * 20) Canadian National; Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee Railway; Grand Trunk Western Railroad
 * 21) Canadian Pacific; Soo Line; Duluth, South Shore and Atlantic Railway; Mineral Range Railroad

Terminal railroads proposed
There were 100 terminal railroads that were also proposed. Below is a sample:

 * 1) Toledo Terminal Railroad; Detroit Terminal Railroad; Kankakee & Seneca Railroad
 * 2) Indianapolis Union Railway; Boston Terminal; Ft. Wayne Union Railway; Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad
 * 3) Toledo, Angola & Western Railway
 * 4) Akron and Barberton Belt Railroad; Canton Railroad; Muskegon Railway & Navigation
 * 5) Philadelphia Belt Line Railroad; Fort Street Union Depot; Detroit Union Railroad Depot & Station; 15 other properties throughout the United States
 * 6) St. Louis & O'Fallon Railway; Detroit & Western Railway; Flint Belt Railroad; 63 other properties throughout the United States
 * 7) Youngstown & Northern Railroad; Delray Connecting Railroad; Wyandotte Southern Railroad; Wyandotte Terminal Railroad; South Brooklyn Railway

Plan rejected
Many small railroads failed during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Of those lines that survived, the stronger ones were not interested in supporting the weaker ones. Congress repudiated Ripley's Plan with the Transportation Act of 1940, and the consolidation idea was scrapped.

Racial integration of transport
Although racial discrimination was never a major focus of its efforts, the ICC had to address civil rights issues when passengers filed complaints.

History

 * April 28, 1941 - In Mitchell v. United States, the United States Supreme Court ruled that discrimination in which a colored man who had paid a first class fare for an interstate journey was compelled to leave that car and ride in a second class car was essentially unjust, and violated the Interstate Commerce Act. The court thus overturns an ICC order dismissing a complaint against an interstate carrier.
 * June 3, 1946 - In Morgan v. Virginia, the Supreme Court invalidates provisions of the Virginia Code which require the separation of white and colored passengers where applied to interstate bus transport. The state law is unconstitutional insofar as it is burdening interstate commerce, an area of federal jurisdiction.
 * June 5, 1950 - In Henderson v. United States, the Supreme Court rules to abolish segregation of reserved tables in railroad dining cars. The Southern Railway had reserved tables in such a way as to allocate one table conditionally for blacks and multiple tables for whites; a black passenger traveling first-class was not served in the dining car as the one reserved table was in use. The ICC ruled the discrimination to be an error in judgement on the part of an individual dining car steward; both the United States District Court for the District of Maryland and the Supreme Court disagreed, finding the published policies of the railroad itself to be in violation of the Interstate Commerce Act.
 * September 1, 1953 - In Sarah Keys v. Carolina Coach Company, Women's Army Corps private Sarah Keys, represented by civil rights lawyer Dovey Johnson Roundtree, becomes the first black person to challenge the "separate but equal" doctrine in bus segregation before the ICC. While the initial ICC reviewing commissioner declined to accept the case, claiming Brown v. Board of Education (1954) "did not preclude segregation in a private business such as a bus company," Roundtree ultimately prevailed in obtaining a review by the full eleven-person commission.
 * November 7, 1955 – ICC bans bus segregation in interstate travel in Sarah Keys v. Carolina Coach Company. This extends the logic of Brown v. Board of Education, a precedent ending the use of "separate but equal" as a defence against discrimination claims in education, to bus travel across state lines.
 * December 5, 1960 - In Boynton v. Virginia, the Supreme Court holds that racial segregation in bus terminals is illegal because such segregation violates the Interstate Commerce Act. This ruling, in combination with the ICC's 1955 decision in Keys v. Carolina Coach, effectively outlaws segregation on interstate buses and at the terminals servicing such buses.
 * September 23, 1961 - The ICC, at Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy's insistence, issues new rules ending discrimination in interstate travel. Effective November 1, 1961, six years after the commission's own ruling in Keys v. Carolina Coach Company, all interstate buses required to display a certificate that reads: "Seating aboard this vehicle is without regard to race, color, creed, or national origin, by order of the Interstate Commerce Commission."

Criticism

The limitation on railroad rates in 1906-07 depreciated the value of railroad securities, a factor in causing the panic of 1907.

Some economists and historians, such as Milton Friedman assert that existing railroad interests took advantage of ICC regulations to strengthen their control of the industry and prevent competition, constituting regulatory capture.

Economist David D. Friedman argues that the ICC always served the railroads as a cartelizing agent and used its authority over other forms of transportation to prevent them, where possible, from undercutting the railroads.

In March 1920, the ICC had Eben Moody Boynton, the inventor of the Boynton Bicycle Railroad, committed as a lunatic to an institution in Washington, D.C. Boynton's monorail electric light rail system, it was reported, had the potential to revolutionize transportation, superseding then-current train travel. ICC officials said that they had Boynton committed because he was "worrying them to death" in his promotion of the bicycle railroad. Based on his own testimony and that of a Massachusetts congressman, Boynton won release on May 28, 1920, overcoming testimony of the ICC's chief clerk that Boynton was virtually a daily visitor at ICC offices, seeking Commission adoption of his proposal to revolutionize the railroad industry.

Abolition
Congress passed various deregulation measures in the 1970s and early 1980s which diminished ICC authority, including the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 ("4R Act"), the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 and the Staggers Rail Act of 1980. Senator Fred R. Harris of Oklahoma strongly advocated the abolition of the Commission. In December 1995, when most of the ICC's powers had been eliminated or repealed, Congress finally abolished the agency with the ICC Termination Act of 1995. Final Chair Gail McDonald oversaw transferring its remaining functions to a new agency, the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB), which reviews mergers and acquisitions, rail line abandonments and railroad corporate filings.

ICC jurisdiction on rail safety (hours of service rules, equipment and inspection standards) was transferred to the Federal Railroad Administration pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970.

Before the ICC was abolished motor carriers (bus lines, trucking companies) had safety regulations enforced by the Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) under the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The OMC inherited many of the "Economic" regulations enforced by the ICC in addition to the safety regulations imposed on motor carriers. In January 2000 the OMC became the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), within the U.S. Department of Transportation. Prior to its abolition, the ICC gave identification numbers to motor carriers for which it issued licenses. The identification numbers were generally in the form of "ICC MC-000000". When the ICC was dissolved, the function of licensing interstate motor carriers was transferred to FMCSA. All interstate motor carriers that transport freight moving across state lines have a USDOT number, such as "USDOT 000000." There are private carriers, e.g. Walmart that move their own freight requiring only a USDOT number, and carriers with authority that haul freight for hire that are still required to have a USDOT number and a Motor Carrier (MC) number that replaced the ICC numbers.

Legacy
The ICC served as a model for later regulatory efforts. Unlike, for example, state medical boards (historically administered by the doctors themselves), the seven Interstate Commerce Commissioners and their staffs were full-time regulators who could have no economic ties to the industries they regulated. Since 1887, some state and other federal agencies adopted this structure. And, like the ICC, later agencies tended to be organized as multi-headed independent commissions with staggered terms for the commissioners. At the federal level, agencies patterned after the ICC included the Federal Trade Commission (1914), the Federal Communications Commission (1934), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (1934), the National Labor Relations Board (1935), the Civil Aeronautics Board (1940), Postal Regulatory Commission (1970) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (1975).

In recent decades, this regulatory structure of independent federal agencies has gone out of fashion. The agencies created after the 1970s generally have single heads appointed by the President and are divisions inside executive Cabinet Departments (e.g., the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1970) or the Transportation Security Administration (2002)). The trend is the same at the state level, though it is probably less pronounced.

International influence
The Interstate Commerce Commission had a strong influence on the founders of Australia. The Constitution of Australia provides (§§ 101-104; also § 73) for the establishment of an Inter-State Commission, modeled after the United States' Interstate Commerce Commission. However, these provisions have largely not been put into practice; the Commission existed between 1913–1920, and 1975–1989, but never assumed the role which Australia's founders had intended for it.

title: Interstate Commerce Commission


text:
Peter the Aleut

Cungagnaq (Чукагнак; date of birth unknown - d. 1815) is venerated as a martyr and saint (as Peter the Aleut; Пётр Алеу́т) by the Eastern Orthodox Church. He was a native of Kodiak Island (Alutiiq or Sugpiaq), and received the Christian name of Peter when he was baptized into the Orthodox faith by the monks of St Herman's missionaries operating in the north. He was captured by Spanish soldiers near San Pedro and tortured and killed at the instigation of Roman Catholic priests either there or at a nearby location. At the time identified for his death, California was Spanish territory, and Spain was worried about Russian advances southwards from Alaska. Hubert Howe Bancroft, in his multi-volume History of California, only notes that, in connection with an incident wherein a Russian fur-hunting expedition was taken into custody after declining to leave San Pedro; one Russian source accused "the Spaniards of cruelty to the captives, stating that according to Kuskof’s report one Aleut who refused to become a Catholic died from ill-treatment received from the padre at San Francisco."

Martyrdom
According to the most fully developed version of the story, in 1815 a group of Russian employees of the Russian American Company and their Aleut seal and otter hunters, including Peter, was captured by Spanish soldiers, while hunting illicitly for seals near San Pedro, (which has variably been interpreted as either San Pedro, Los Angeles or as San Pedro y San Pablo Asistencia (in Pacifica, California). According to the original account, the soldiers took them to "the mission in Saint-Pedro" for interrogation. One Russian source states that after being taken prisoner near modern Los Angeles, the captives were taken to Mission Dolores—that is, modern San Francisco. With threats of torture, the Roman Catholic priests attempted to force the Aleuts to deny their Orthodox faith and to convert to Roman Catholicism.

When the Aleuts refused, the priest had a toe severed from each of Peter's feet. Peter still refused to renounce his faith and the Spanish priest ordered a group of Native Americans, indigenous to California, to cut off each finger of Peter's hands, one joint at a time, finally removing both his hands. They eventually disemboweled him, making him a martyr to the Eastern Orthodox faith. The Spanish captors were about to torture the next Aleut when orders were received to release the other Russian and Native Alaskan prisoners.

Historicity
An account of the martyrdom of Peter the Aleut is contained in a lengthy letter written on November 22, 1865, by Semyon Yanovsky to Damascene, abbot of the Valaam Monastery in Finland. Yanovsky (1789–1876), who is also one of the chief sources of information about St. Herman of Alaska, was chief manager of the Russian colonies from 1818 to 1820. In the letter he was reporting on an incident that he had heard from a supposed eyewitness, and that had taken place fifty years earlier in 1815. The letter contains the description of Peter being tortured by "Jesuits" but this would have been virtually impossible, as the Jesuit order had been expelled from all Spanish territories in 1767, suppressed generally in 1773, and had only been reconstituted in 1814 (one year before Peter's alleged death). In 1815 there were no Jesuits within several thousand miles of California, as the reconstitution of the Jesuits in New Spain (that is, Mexico) would not take place until 1816. There were only Franciscans in California at the time, and it would be highly unlikely that anyone could confuse members of the two well-known and very dissimilar orders. Yanovsky adds, "At the time I reported all this to the Head Office in St. Petersburg." And indeed, this earlier communication, his official dispatch to the company's main office—dated Feb. 15, 1820, five years after the event—also relates the story of St. Peter's martyrdom, albeit with different details.

Location of martyrdom and "San Pedro"
Peter the Aleut has been referred to as a "martyr of San Francisco". Additionally, many modern descriptions of the martyrdom of Peter the Aleut often describe the event as occurring "in San Francisco", and others describe the Native Alaskan traders as being brought "to San Francisco". Other sources can be found describing the event as occurring near Los Angeles or in Southern California. These varying descriptions of the location may be based on varying oral traditions, varying understandings of the relationship of the location of the martyrdom and Fort Ross, and also on varying interpretations of references to "San Pedro" in the original historical documents.

The earliest historical sources about the death of Peter the Aleut describe the event as taking place in or near "the mission of San Pedro". Some have taken this to refer to San Pedro y San Pablo Asistencia, a "sub-mission" of Mission San Francisco de Asís (also known as Mission Dolores). San Pedro y San Pablo Asistencia was located on the site of the modern-day Sánchez Adobe Park in modern-day Pacifica, California.

Others have interpreted the historical description to refer to the dock in San Pedro, Los Angeles (now located in modern-day Los Angeles), which was used at the time as a trading post by Spanish missionary friars from Mission San Gabriel Arcángel. Such an interpretation of "San Pedro" fits well with other references to geographical locations in the historical documents, including an island named Santa Rosa (interpreted to refer to Santa Rosa Island) an island named "Climant" (interpreted to refer to San Clemente Island) and an island named Ekaterina, (interpreted by some to refer to Catalina Island). These documents also describe the captured Native Alaskan traders as transferred to Fort Ross, by way of sequential stops in Santa Barbara and Monterey. This interpretation of a Southern Californian location for the martyrdom is further supported by a letter contemporaneous to the alleged martyrdom event from Franciscan Fr. José Francisco de Paula Señan dated June 19, 1816 (but which runs counter to allegations of forced conversion and violence against the Native hunters from Russian America), which describes the capture and transfer of "Russian Indians" to the Santa Barbara Presidio from Mission San Buenaventura (in modern-day Ventura, California).

Veneration
According to Yanovsky's 1865 letter, upon receiving the report of Peter's death, St. Herman on Kodiak Island was moved to cry out, "Holy new-martyr Peter, pray to God for us!" Peter the Aleut was glorified as a saint by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia and locally glorified by the Diocese of Alaska of the Orthodox Church in America as the "Martyr of San Francisco" in 1980. His feast day is celebrated on September 24 or December 12. A number of churches have been dedicated to him in North America, including churches at Lake Havasu City, Arizona, Minot, North Dakota, Calgary, and Abita Springs, Louisiana.

title: Peter the Aleut


text:
1310s BC

The 1310s BC is a decade which lasted from 1319 BC to 1310 BC.

Events

 * The Bhagavad Gita is written, according to Hindu traditions.
 * 1319 BC (or 1306 BC)—Horemheb assumes the throne of Ancient Egypt.
 * 1317 BC—Enlil-nirari succeeds his father as king of Assyria.
 * June 24 1312 BC (or April 13 1308 BC) – Mursili II launches a campaign against the Kingdom of Azzi-Hayasa.

Significant people

 * Ramesses I, pharaoh of Egypt, is born (approximate date).
 * Seti I, pharaoh of Egypt, is born (approximate date).

title: 1310s BC


text:
Time-out (parenting)

A time-out is a form of behavioral modification that involves temporarily separating a person from an environment where an unacceptable behavior has occurred. The goal is to remove that person from an enriched, enjoyable environment, and therefore lead to extinction of the offending behavior. It is an educational and parenting technique recommended by most pediatricians and developmental psychologists as an effective form of discipline. During time-outs, a corner or a similar space is designated, where the person is to sit or stand (hence the common term corner time). This form of discipline is especially popular in Western cultures.

In the UK, the punishment is often known as the naughty step or naughty chair. This term became popular in the US thanks to two reality TV series, Supernanny and Nanny 911.

History
The concept of time-out was invented, named, and used by Arthur W. Staats in his extended work with his daughter (and later son), and was part of a long-term program of behavioral analysis beginning in 1958 that treated various aspects of child development. He introduced various elements that later composed foundations for applied behavior analysis and behavior therapy. (The token reward system was another invention by him.) Montrose Wolf, a graduate student assistant of Staats on several studies dealing with reading learning in preschoolers, used that background when he went to the University of Washington where he began his creative program of research. Wolf began the widespread use of Staats' time-out procedure in extending training methods to an autistic child (see the 1964 published study dealing with the behavioral treatment of a child).

Staats described the discipline of his two-year-old daughter in 1962: "I would put her in her crib and indicate that she had to stay there until she stopped crying. If we were in a public place [where her behavior was inappropriate], I would pick her up and go outside."

Application
For Staats, the timeout period was ended when the child's misbehavior, such as crying inappropriately, ended. He considered removal from a positive emotional environment to one of lesser positivity as a very mild punishment. Various people have added their opinions regarding time-out as the following indicates.

Time out is a type two punishment procedure (negative punishment), and is used commonly in schools, colleges, offices, clinics and homes. To implement time out, a caregiver removes the child from a reinforcing activity for a short period of time, usually 5 to 15 minutes, in order to discourage inappropriate behavior and teach the child that engaging in problem behavior will result in decreased access to reinforcing items and events in the child's environment.

Time-outs may be on a chair, step, corner, bedroom, in front of or beside a door, or any other location where there are no distractions and reduced access to fun items, activities and people. This procedure is preferable to other punishments such as reprimanding, yelling at or spanking the child for their misbehavior, which are type one punishments (positive punishment). Time out time for children is usually a time for a child to think about the unacceptable behavior that he or she engaged in, instead of a time to read books, play with toys, listen to music, or watch TV. Engaging in other unacceptable behaviors during timeout, such as attempting to inflict serious injuries on a child's own body, destroying items in the child's own bedroom, or engaging in any other type of inappropriate behavior, including excessive crying, can result in additional disciplinary action such as a grounding being imposed on a child, or additional time being spent in time out. A child can also have books and toys and other privileges taken away as well for any of the above stated behaviors taking place during a timeout. Research has established that 15 minutes is the maximum time that a child should be kept in time out. However, shorter durations may be just as effective for behavior change.

For this disciplinary technique to be most effective and to produce the desired results, the child should be old enough to sit still and is required to remain there for a fixed period. Also, according to developmental psychologists, parents should evaluate each situation to determine what may be causing the misbehavior, such as a toy, frustration, hunger, or lack of sleep, and then address any underlying needs before a punishment contingency should be used. Any time they are trying to reduce a problem behavior, parents should be sure that they are also teaching and reinforcing the desired replacement behavior. Parents should also clearly explain why the child is being put in time out, and what the child needs to do to return to the reinforcing environment/be let out of time-out (but too much explanation can reinforce the unwanted behavior as a result of "misplaced adult attention" ). Furthermore, the renown developmental psychologist Kathleen Stassen Berger suggests that time-out should remain brief, proposing a general guideline: the length of time that the child should remain in time-out should correlate with the child's age – each year of the child's age constitutes one minute in time-out.

Time-out is one behavior control method based on removing positive reinforcement for a brief time. Less elaborate methods from the same class like tactical ignoring, or planned ignoring, also can be effective in cases where parental/caregiver attention is the positive reinforcement for negative behavior. This class of methods are more effective if the child gets a significant amount positive reinforcement (praise, attention) for good behavior. All punishment procedures can evoke other problem behaviors, damage rapport, or evoke escape or avoidant behaviors. For this, and other ethical reasons, behavior analysts exhaust all options for using differential reinforcement and/or extinction procedures to reduce problem behavior, before considering the use of punishment procedures.

Effectiveness
Several studies show that time-out is an especially effective disciplinary strategy, reducing aggressive and non-compliant behavior, when other positive parenting methods are also used. Meta-analytic evidence suggests time-out is highly effective at reducing problem behavior in young oppositional defiant children, and increasing child compliance. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology have issued statements supporting the use of time-outs as a disciplinary tool.

In order for time-out to be effective, the non-time-out or "time-in" environment must be sufficiently reinforcing in contrast to the time-out environment, making time-out an unwanted experience.

There are differences between strategies for ending time out. Some proponents of time-outs insist on silence and stillness from the child during the time-out, or the use of a "release-contingency," where the child is required to be sitting peacefully at the end of the time-out period. However, the majority of research does not consistently suggest that these type of contingencies improve the effectiveness of time-outs, though no research suggests that they are harmful.

Those who use time-out for children to get anger and frustration "out of their system" or for children to think about their behavior are using time-out in a way that is different than those basing it on operant conditioning principles (that time-out from positive reinforcement may reduce recurrences of the unwanted target behavior).

In a study by Donaldson and Vollmer, the efficacy of a fixed duration time-out and a release contingency time-out were compared. In the fixed duration condition, children were sent to time-out for a total of 4 minutes and were released from time-out whether or not they performed problem behavior during the time-out session. In the release contingency condition, children were not released from time-out if they were performing problem behavior during the last 30 seconds of their time-out. The time-out was extended until there were no occurrences of problem behavior for a total of 30 seconds or until the time-out reached the ten-minute mark. Results showed that both time-out procedures were successful in reducing the problem behavior for the subjects. The subjects in the release contingency did not benefit from staying in time-out for an extended period of time either. Moreover, the results show that only four minutes is necessary for a successful time-out procedure.

The effectiveness of time-out also varies with each individual child, dependent on the child's age, temperament and emotional wellness.

In September 2019, a study published by the University of Michigan concluded that using timeouts to discipline children was not harmful to them nor was it found to be harmful to children's relationships with their parents. The eight-year study found that children disciplined with timeouts did not display increased levels of anxiety or aggression.

Disadvantages
Critics of time-out include Thomas Gordon, Gabor Mate, Alfie Kohn and Aletha Solter, who claim that the approach may lead to short-term compliance but has the same disadvantages as other forms of punishment. According to these authors, the use of time-out does not enhance moral behavior or teach children useful conflict-resolution skills and it fails to address the underlying cause of the behavior. Furthermore, they claim that the parent/child bond can be damaged by forced isolation and withdrawal of love in an effort to control a child's behavior and this can lead to feelings of insecurity or anxiety in children, though there is no evidence that this occurs.

In addition to the potential psychological drawbacks resulting from the use of time-out, there also appears to be a risk to the child's developing brain, according to research in neuroscience by Daniel J. Siegel. "In a brain scan, relational pain (that caused by isolation during punishment) can look the same as physical abuse," and "Repeated experiences actually change the physical structure of the brain." The Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology issued a response to Siegel, arguing that his claims were "outrageous" and unsupported by research. Dr. Siegel later backed away from this statement and claimed that Time Magazine distorted his message. He clarified, "The 'appropriate' use of time-outs calls for brief, infrequent, previously explained breaks from an interaction used as part of a thought-out parenting strategy that is followed by positive feedback and connection with a parent. This seems not only reasonable, but it is an overall approach supported by the research as helpful for many children."

New "strong" positive parenting approaches suggest avoiding punishment in general, including time-outs. Advocates of strong positive parenting argue that children's misbehavior may be due to underlying issues rather than simple defiance, and punishing these behaviors will only lead to avoidance without fixing the underlying issue.

The Australian Association for Infant Mental Health has published a position statement in which the use of time-out is considered inappropriate for children under three years of age, and "needs to be carefully considered in relation to the individual child’s experience and needs" for children past this age. They suggest the use of "time-in" instead, where children are taken away from the situation but not excluded from parent interaction.

The use of time-out needs to be carefully considered in families dealing with special challenges. In a review of parenting intervention programs for drug-abusing mothers, researchers found that programs emphasizing behavioral approaches to discipline (such as the use of time-out and rewards) "were not successful in fostering measurable improvement in mother-child interactions or promoting child development." An attachment-based approach focusing on strengthening the parent/child relationship was found to be more successful than behavioral approaches in changing children's behavior in these families.

Other studies have found that the traditional behavioral approach to discipline (such as the use of time-out and rewards) can be challenging with children in foster care with attachment disorders resulting from early abuse or neglect. Foster parents benefit from training that addresses these children's attachment and emotional issues, as wells as traditional parenting techniques.

Time-out has been misused to the point of becoming abusive in some schools and so proper training for educational professionals is important. There are reported cases of children being locked in closets for extended periods of solitary confinement for behaviors such as crying or failing to finish an assignment. These are not examples of appropriate use of time-out.

title: Time-out (parenting)