Discussion Point: I would like the class to discuss how the ambiguity in laws were used to control the legal rights of Filipinos and Filipino identification through court rulings that were dependent on a judge’s subjective interpretation of the laws.
Supporting Paragraph: This is an important topic to talk about because judges are responsible for interpreting the law and applying the laws equally to everyone. Laws like Naturalization have ambiguity in them so that judges can exercise discretion based on the case. But in the case of Filipinos, the ambiguous wording of the laws gave state judges an unprecedented amount of power over the Filipino population. The ambiguity of the laws gave judges the authority to use selective readings of the law …show more content…
pg. 79-80: This example illustrates how judges were able to use selective reading and interpretations of ambiguous laws in order to withhold rights from Filipinos. Although an earlier case ruled that Filipinos were eligible for citizenship based on the wording of the law which gave citizenship of all persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States, the judge in the Penaro Rallos case rendered that interpretation inaccurate since the law would have allowed Chinese and Japanese citizens in the Philippines to be eligible for naturalization. As a result, the judge created his own subjective interpretation of the law to justify his ruling that Filipinos were ineligible for citizenship, while imposing a new racist standard for citizenship. This narrow interpretation of the law worked to withhold rights from Filipinos and worked to keep the racial hierarchies in the United States intact, by emphasizing the fact that Filipinos could be given less rights due to their …show more content…
93: This example illustrates how judges could disguise their subjective opinion of the Filipino population in their interpretation of laws. This passage comes directly from a court ruling on the case of Timothy Yako, who was on trial for murdering a man in jealousy. The prosecution’s case relied on prosecutors convincing the court that California’s miscegenation laws were meant to apply to Filipinos too, even though there was no evidence that lawmakers meant to include Filipinos under that law. Due to the lack of context and ambiguous wording of the law in question, the judge was able to insert his subjective opinion into the case, in order to make an accurate interpretation of the law. This interpretation of the law worked against Yako’s case and ultimately worked as a method of political control to oppress Filipinos by withholding their right to intermarry with white
Supporting Paragraph: This is an important topic to talk about because judges are responsible for interpreting the law and applying the laws equally to everyone. Laws like Naturalization have ambiguity in them so that judges can exercise discretion based on the case. But in the case of Filipinos, the ambiguous wording of the laws gave state judges an unprecedented amount of power over the Filipino population. The ambiguity of the laws gave judges the authority to use selective readings of the law …show more content…
pg. 79-80: This example illustrates how judges were able to use selective reading and interpretations of ambiguous laws in order to withhold rights from Filipinos. Although an earlier case ruled that Filipinos were eligible for citizenship based on the wording of the law which gave citizenship of all persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States, the judge in the Penaro Rallos case rendered that interpretation inaccurate since the law would have allowed Chinese and Japanese citizens in the Philippines to be eligible for naturalization. As a result, the judge created his own subjective interpretation of the law to justify his ruling that Filipinos were ineligible for citizenship, while imposing a new racist standard for citizenship. This narrow interpretation of the law worked to withhold rights from Filipinos and worked to keep the racial hierarchies in the United States intact, by emphasizing the fact that Filipinos could be given less rights due to their …show more content…
93: This example illustrates how judges could disguise their subjective opinion of the Filipino population in their interpretation of laws. This passage comes directly from a court ruling on the case of Timothy Yako, who was on trial for murdering a man in jealousy. The prosecution’s case relied on prosecutors convincing the court that California’s miscegenation laws were meant to apply to Filipinos too, even though there was no evidence that lawmakers meant to include Filipinos under that law. Due to the lack of context and ambiguous wording of the law in question, the judge was able to insert his subjective opinion into the case, in order to make an accurate interpretation of the law. This interpretation of the law worked against Yako’s case and ultimately worked as a method of political control to oppress Filipinos by withholding their right to intermarry with white