How an Immigrant Farmer Challenged California’s Alien Land Law, Leading to a Landmark Constitutional Rights Decision
This article was originally published in the November/December 2021 issue of San Diego Lawyer Magazine.
By Devinder S. Hans
Most 6-year-olds don’t own anything more expensive than a bicycle. When Fred Oyama was 6, he owned a farm in Chula Vista. He might have been a precocious child; but most importantly, he was a U.S. citizen. In the early 1900s California of Fred’s childhood, his immigrant parents were not allowed to own farmland and had to use Fred’s citizenship status to try and grow their American Dream. Later, Fred and his parents challenged the law that forced them to use this scheme and established a landmark precedent.
California’s Alien Land Law of 1913
Laws intended to deter Asian immigration to the U.S. began to appear shortly after the first Chinese immigrants arrived to work in California gold mines in the mid-1800s, including a tax on foreign miners.
As with those earlier statutes, California’s Alien Land Law of 1913 was intended, in the words of the Attorney General, to limit Asian immigrants “by curtailing their privileges which they may enjoy here; for they will not come in large numbers and long abide with us if they may not acquire land.” Under this statute, agricultural land could not be owned by “aliens ineligible for citizenship.” At the time, naturalization was limited to “aliens, being free white persons, and to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent.” Eligibility expanded in the 1940s to add Native Americans (1940), Chinese Americans (1943), Filipinos (1946), and South Asians (1946), but racial classifications were not eliminated until 1952.
One method commonly used to evade the Alien Land Law was purchasing property in the name of a child who had U.S. citizenship. Immigrant parents could then petition to be named guardians of the child’s estate. However, a 1920 amendment prohibited this tactic by making anyone ineligible for naturalization also ineligible to serve as the guardian of a property owner. Additionally, any property purchased under another person’s name was presumed to be an attempt to evade the law and was therefore subject to forfeiture.
The Oyamas Move to Chula Vista, But Are Forced to Leave
In 1914, a teenaged Kajiro Oyama emigrated from Japan to the U.S. with his parents. He grew up working on California farms, and eventually purchased 23 acres in Chula Vista (recording the deed in the name of a white acquaintance). Oyama also married Kohide Kushino, and their son Fred was born in 1928. As the farm succeeded, Oyama bought additional land, recording each purchase in Fred’s name.
Unfortunately, world events reversed the family’s good fortune. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 on Feb. 19, 1942. Although it did not single out any ethnic group, the order authorized the secretary of war and his commanders to exclude anyone from any area that they deemed necessary. Proclamations issued under the order declared the Western states as military areas, imposing curfews on Japanese Americans and encouraging their “voluntary” evacuation. About 7% of Japanese Americans left the Western states before Proclamation No. 4 was issued March 29, 1942. With a 48-hour notice, Proclamation No. 4 began the forced evacuation and internment of all Japanese Americans within certain distances from the Pacific coast.
The Oyamas avoided internment by moving to Utah before Proclamation No. 4 was issued, aided by a Mormon seed salesman.
Challenging the Alien Land Law
As anti-Japanese sentiment intensified, the Alien Land Law was amended to ease prosecution, and funding for enforcement was increased. The result was a dramatic expansion of escheat proceedings. From 1942 to 1947, 59 escheat actions were brought against Japanese Americans; only 14 had been initiated in the previous 30 years.
In 1944, while they were in Utah, the Oyamas lost their farm in escheat proceedings in San Diego. The court held the title vested with the state at the time of purchase, as purchasing the property under Fred’s name had created a “presumption of intent to violate and evade the Alien Land Law.”
Fred and Kajiro appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the decision violated their equal protection rights. The court held that Fred’s equal protection rights were clearly violated, as the decision treated “minor citizens like Fred Oyama, whose parents cannot be naturalized” differently from all other children. However, the court declined to decide on Kajiro’s equal protection rights or the validity of the Alien Land Law. In concurring opinions, four justices wanted to go further and strike down the entire statute as “nothing more than an outright racial discrimination.”
The Oyamas Return to California, But Not to Chula Vista Farming
The Oyamas returned to California in 1945, eventually buying a 60-acre farm in Palm City. Fred left farming and became a math teacher after studying at San Diego State University.
The Alien Land Law was finally declared unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court in 1953 and repealedin 1956.
Devinder S. Hans is an attorney at law.