In that statement that you give, Conness talks about the children of "Chinese" parents. What you have to realise, is that within that context, "Chinese" parents or children of "Chinese" parentage does not necessarily mean children of
immigrants.
Conness talked a lot about the Chinese community in the West, and just how utterly difficult it was to assimilate them into American society. Conness conceded that they (the Chinese) were far more difficult to assimilate or naturalize and adopt "Western" customs and practices than even Native American indians. Their loyalties to their families and the Chinese community overrode everything else. They maintained their eastern customs, language and practices. He talked about how few of them ever bothered to "naturalize". They were a incredibly tight knit community that was adamant about maintaining there traditions.
Conness even remarked how difficult it was to get them to swear an "oath", in a court of law, like everyone else. He said that it would usually involve the burning of parchment (papers) and incense or, even in some cases, -sacrificing a chicken.
The Chinese community was viewed in the same kind of manner as a Native American tribe.
In that statement that you give, Conness talks about the children of "Chinese" parents. What you have to realise, is that within that context, "Chinese" parents or children of "Chinese" parentage does not necessarily mean children of immigrants.
It does indeed mean the children of Chinese immigrants. That's because Conness' comments regarding the Chinese were made
in response to a question. A direct question, put forth by Senator Cowan of Pennsylvania. And that direct question was:
"Is the child of the CHINESE IMMIGRANT in California a citizen?"
The Chinese community was viewed in the same kind of manner as a Native American tribe.
No, they were not. Not even close. And you simply disclose here that you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
Yes, the Chinese didn't assimilate all that well. They clung together, kept their language and their culture, etc. but they were viewed no differently than other immigrants who did much the same thing. The Hispanics in the barrios. The Italians, Poles and Jews in the ethnic ghettos of New York, etc.
Indians on the other hand, were treated as SOVEREIGN NATIONS. When we dealt with the Indians, we didn't do so through legislation, we made TREATIES with them. They were excluded ENTIRELY from apportionment, where even slaves counted as three fifths.
To say that Chinese immigrants were viewed in the context of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the same kind of manner as an Indian tribe displays nothing but sheer ignorance.