|
|
|
 |  |
 |
 |
WSBA Info | |
|
For Lawyers | |
|
For the Public |  |
 |
For the Media |  |
|
CLE |  |
| | Bench Bar Guidelines | News Releases | Publications | |
|
|
March 2007Diversity and the LawSouth Asians in 2007 — Take Another Lookby Monica Kaup Cary and Venkat Balasubramani The South-Asian Experience — the Early 1900s: Is a high-caste Hindu, of full Indian blood, born at Amritsar, Punjab, India, a white person within the meaning of section 2169, Revised Statutes? Does the Act of February 5, 1917 (39 Stat. 875, 3), disqualify from naturalization as citizens those Hindus now barred by that act, who had lawfully entered the United States prior to the passage of said act? It may come as somewhat of a shock, but these were the two “questions presented” in the case of U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1923.1 Ruling against Bhagat Singh Thind, the Court cited a 1917 statute that “excluded from admission into this country all natives of Asia within designated limits of latitude and longitude, including the whole of India.” The decision reflected a climate of anti-Asian/South Asian hysteria that gripped the country. Indeed, Bhagat Singh followed an anti-Hindu riot in Bellingham, Washington, where on September 4, 1907, “a mob of about 500 men assaulted boarding houses and mills, forcefully expelling Hindus from Bellingham.” Just a few years earlier, labor leaders in California formed the “Asiatic Exclusion League,” which aimed to spread anti-Asian propaganda and influence legislation restricting Asian immigration. 1960s to Today Although Congress passed legislation repealing anti-South Asian immigration provisions in the 1940s, the next wave of South Asians did not arrive in the United States until the 1960s, after the repeal of sharply restrictionist immigration policies that excluded most non-European immigrants. This wave comprised doctors, nurses, scientists, and engineers selectively permitted to enter the United States because of their educational status. It was not until the 1980s that United States borders reopened to working-class South Asians. The South Asian population in the United States grew 231.6 percent between 1980 and 2000. In 2000, the Census Bureau reported approximately 1.9 million South-Asian Americans. South Asians fill many leadership roles in the American community today, whether in the business community or at large. Examples include Vinod Khosla, founder of Sun Microsystems and prominent venture capitalist; Bobby Jindal, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives; and Indra Nooyi, CEO of PepsiCo. South Asians are also making significant gains in the legal field. In 2006, Georgetown Law Professor Neal Katyal successfully argued Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,2 and was named one of the leading “40 lawyers under 40” by the National Law Journal. Notwithstanding these gains, South Asians continue to face instances of state-sanctioned discrimination. Examples include post 9-11 racial profiling, and operation “Meth Merchant” (the practice of disproportionately targeting South Asian-owned convenience stores for selling methamphetamine-related products).3 South Asians as Colleagues and Clients The South-Asian-American community in the United States is a diverse group encompassing many national origins, political viewpoints, and economic and cultural backgrounds. Individuals identifying as South-Asian American may have origins in Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, or Sri Lanka. Broader definitions include those from Afghanistan, Burma/Myanmar, and Tibet. Often, immigrants from the Caribbean, East Africa, and Fiji also identify as South-Asian American. South-Asian Americans may also have varying religious affiliations and speak a diverse group of languages. Like other immigrant communities, South-Asian Americans tend to maintain their own cultural and religious values while assimilating into the mainstream. Awareness of the diversity of South Asians and awareness of relevant cultural mores among legal professionals will better ensure that South Asians have access to legal services. This awareness is also important to the success of South-Asian lawyers in the profession. In 2001, South-Asian attorneys in Washington formed the South Asian Bar Association of Washington (SABA). SABA is committed to identifying and advancing areas where economic, social, and political interests intersect with South-Asian legal issues. SABA can serve as a resource for your South Asia-related questions. For more information, visit www.sabaw.org. Monica Kaup Cary practices family law at DuBois Law (www.duboislaw.net). Venkat Balasubramani practices commercial and intellectual property litigation at Balasubramani Law (www.balasubramani.com). Both are members of the board of directors of the South Asian Bar Association of Washington. Column co-editors are Beth Barrett Bloom and Maureen A. Mannix. For feedback, e-mail laborlaw@frankfreed.com. Please note: Henry Cruz and the board of the LBAW were the sole authors of the Diversity and the Law article, “What Are They So Afraid of? Facts and Myths About Immigration,” which appeared in the December 2006 Bar News. NOTES
Asian Bar Association of Washington The Cardozo Society Filipino American Legal Society Korean American Bar Association Latina/Latino Bar Association of Washington Loren Miller Bar Association Northwest Indian Bar Association Pierce County Minority Bar Association QLaw: The GLBT Bar Association of Washington South Asian Bar Association Vietnamese American Bar Association Washington Attorneys with Disabilities Association Washington Women Lawyers Other Upcoming Events of Interest:
|
