This week in civil rights history
Weaponizing race: Reflecting on Executive Order 9066 and United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind
On February 19, two pivotal moments in U.S. civil rights history remind us of the enduring struggles against racial exclusion and injustice—Executive Order 9066 (1942) and United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923). Separated by nearly two decades, these events underscore how the U.S. government has historically (and continues to) weaponized race to define citizenship and belonging. Both events reflect the legal codification of racial discrimination, shaping immigration policies and civil rights struggles for generations. In the midst of institutionalized anti-immigration attacks, I hope this email provides you with a moment to look back at history and reflect on how we challenge systems designed for exclusion.
United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind
On February 19, 1923 the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion that redefined whiteness. United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind exemplifies the racialized nature of U.S. immigration and naturalization policies.
Thind, a Punjabi Sikh immigrant and World War I veteran (and the first turban-wearing soldier in the US military) argued for U.S. citizenship under the Naturalization Act of 1906, which limited eligibility to “free white persons” and persons of African descent. Claiming whiteness by identifying as “Aryan” and of Caucasian descent, the Court denied his claim, ruling that he was not “white” as understood by the “common man.”
Curious why he identified as “Aryan”? To understand this, we have to understand how India’s caste system was further reinforced by English colonizers to reinforce a social hierarchy on the basis of skin color. While India’s caste system is not determined on the basis of race, colonizers believed and reinforced the notion that upper castes consisted of light-skinned individuals who were the descendants of superior civilizations (this opens up a whole other conversation around the ripple effects of this harmful narrative). Just to make sure there isn’t any vagueness around what this means, let me be clear: superior civilizations = aryan race. Therefore, Bhagat Singh Thind, a member of a high caste born in Punjab, argued that his status based on colonial racial constructs meant that he was classified by scientists as Caucasian or Aryan.
The Court's decision underscored the notion that racial categories, including "whiteness," are determined not solely by biological or anthropological data, but rather subjective, socially constructed notions based on "common knowledge" and popular perception. Simply put, the court's decision was based on a subjective definition of whiteness that favored immigration from certain European countries and religions. This decision reinforced the racial barriers to naturalization and highlighted how subjective and exclusionary the definitions of race are in U.S. law.
The official court record referred to Bhagat Singh Thind as a “high caste Hindu.” Sikhi (coined as Sikhism by European colonizers) is a distinctly different religion from Hinduism, but being lumped into one of the same remains a reality even under India’s current legal system with Hinduism being the dominant religion in India. This is also a whole other discussion for another time. However, I mention this, to offer some nuance to this excerpt from the court’s opinion:
“…‘free white persons’ are words of common speech, to be interpreted in accordance with the understanding of the common man, synonymous with the word ‘Caucasian’ only as that word is popularly understood. As so understood and used, whatever may be the speculations of the ethnologist, it does not include the body of people to whom the appellee belongs. It is a matter of familiar observation and knowledge that the physical group characteristics of the Hindus render them readily distinguishable from the various groups of persons in this country commonly recognized as white. The children of English, French, German, Italian, Scandinavian, and other European parentage, quickly merge into the mass of our population and lose the distinctive hallmarks of their European origin. On the other hand, it cannot be doubted that the children born in this country of Hindu parents would retain indefinitely the clear evidence of their ancestry.”
🎙️ In Episode 19 of Art of Citizenry Podcast on the Criminalization of Immigration, we touch briefly on the case of Bhagat Singh Thind while contextualizing the ways in which laws and policies have shaped U.S. immigration policy. If you haven’t listened to Episode 19, I highly recommend giving it a listen!
Executive Order 9066
19 years later, Executive Order 9066, signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942, authorized the forced removal and internment of over 125,000 Japanese Americans during World War II under the pretext of national security. The order allowed the military to designate "military areas" from which individuals could be excluded — this led to the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans in internment camps.
The order played a significant role in shaping U.S. attitudes toward immigrants, reinforcing racial discrimination and exclusionary policies that had long defined American immigration law. The internment of Japanese Americans exemplified how national security concerns could be used to justify the suspension of civil liberties for racialized groups.
The legacy of Executive Order 9066 influenced later immigration policies, particularly in shaping debates over surveillance of immigrant communities. Its impact can be seen in the treatment of other immigrant groups during times of national crisis, such as post-9/11 policies targeting Muslim and Middle Eastern immigrants under the guise of counterterrorism efforts. Executive Order 9066 remains a stark reminder of the fragility of civil liberties.
In episode 20 of Art of Citizenry Podcast, I was joined by Maru Mora-Villalpando of La Resistencia, a close collaborator alongside Tsuru for Solidarity — a non-violent, direct action project of Japanese American WWII camp survivors, descendants, and allies fighting to end detention sites and support directly impacted immigrant and refugee communities targeted by racism, state violence, injustice and oppression in the United States.
[Excerpts] Day of Remembrance Solidarity Statement
by Tsuru for Solidarity and Building Movement Project
This year marks the 83rd anniversary of Executive Order 9066. In the midst of relentless anti-immigration attacks that rely upon similar narratives and policies, we must recommit to community care and solidarity.
I’ve included sections of the statement below, you can read the full statement here and access resources to stay engaged + learn more.
A long history of scapegoating and dehumanizing Asian immigrants laid the groundwork for Executive Order 9066. Prior to World War II, the United States government had already implemented migration bans, alien land laws, and citizenship restrictions that targeted and excluded Asian immigrants, while relying on them for cheap labor. This paved the way for the government to weaponize the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and issue Executive Order 9066 in order to forcibly remove, separate, and indefinitely detain Japanese Americans in incarceration camps without any due process.
We are facing another such precipice today. The Trump Administration is swiftly implementing harmful and divisive immigration and national security measures, from mass detentions and deportations to the end of birthright citizenship to the closure of asylum and refugee pathways.
The Trump Administration is relying on many of the same dangerous policies and narratives from previous shameful periods in our country’s history: characterizing immigrants as invaders and job stealers to divide people against each other; conducting neighborhood and workplace raids; requesting bids from private prisons to open more family detention facilities; and invoking the Alien Enemies Act to justify the deportations of immigrants without due process.
The throughline between the incarceration of Japanese Americans, the Muslim ban, and mass deportations is clear: these are all attempts to demarcate who belongs in America and who doesn’t, on the basis of race, faith, nationality, class, and immigration status.
Tune into our latest podcast episodes
I want to hear your reflections — share your thoughts in the comments section. If you found this newsletter insightful, please like and share it forward! Thanks for reading.