Category Archives: son of citizen

Chin Hing Chung – Kennebec, Maine

Affidavit, interview questions, Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes, son of citizen, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chin Soy, a U.S. born citizen, wanted to bring his son in China, Chin Hing Chung, to the United States.

Chin Soy swore in an affidavit in March 1937 at Kennebec, Maine, that he was born in the United States about 1880 and was therefore a U.S. citizen. He was issued a Certificate of Identity in Seattle, Washington, in 1916 and was a resident of Waterville, Maine.

“Chin Soy Affidavit photos,” 1937, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, Record Group 85, National Archives at Seattle, Chin Hing Chung, Box 733, File 7030/10206.

Between 1905 and 1932, he had visited China five times. On his 1905 trip he married Dong Shee. They had six children. In 1937 Chin Soy was applying to have his son, Chin Hing Chung, come to the United States with the status as the son of a U.S. native. According to the amended section 1993 (48 Stat. 797) children born abroad to U.S. citizens prior to May 24, 1934 were citizens. The ruling stated that: 

Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child.  In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child’s twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization.

In 1937 Chin Hing Chung, marriage name Chin Kung Pon, was twenty years old (American reckoning). During Chin’s hearing he was reminded that it was his burden to prove he was not subject to exclusion. On 9 August 1931 he testified that he was born at Soo Oon village, Lock Toon, Sun Ning district, China on 25 January 1917. During Chin’s interrogation he was asked about his parents, their siblings, his siblings and nieces and nephews and his grandparents. He described his home as a five-room brick house with tile floors in all rooms and an open court paved with stone. It had two doors, with two windows in each bedroom. The windows all had iron bars and wooden shutters. The windows under the loft had glass. There was a shrine loft in the parlor. There were about 500 or 600 houses in the village. He was asked about the layout of the houses in the village, the width of the streets, and where the market and social hall were located. The interviewer asked specific questions, such as, who lives in the first house, fifth row, north of main street, his name and age, and number of their children and their names. Similar questions were asked about other people in the village. Did the village have an ancestral hall? A railway station? A school? Who were the teachers? Was there a fishpond? Did his father smoke? Were there any photographs or paintings in his house? Did his mother have a vegetable or flower garden? Did he attend his brother’s wedding feast? Was there anything in his house to represent his ancestors? Did his sister or sister-in-law have bobbed hair? Chin Hing Chung testified that there was a group picture taken of his mother, two brothers, sister and himself about 1922 or 1923. There were seven pages of interrogation.

Chin Hing Chung’s answers were compared to the interview answers of his father and his two previously landed brothers. It was decided that there were no significant differences. In spite of this, Chin Soy, the alleged father, and Chin Keong, the alleged brother, were interviewed again two weeks later. This time the Chinese Inspector, John A. Carney, noted these differences: direction in which the home village faces, the location of the head of the village, and the location of certain ancestral halls. The father and brother both said there was never a group photograph taken of the family. Their interviews were twenty-nine pages long. Their statements might include valuable anecdotal family information about their lives in China that may not be recorded in any other documents.

Chin Hing Chung was interviewed again about the difference between his testimony and his father and brother’s. His answers were satisfactory; the Chairman of the Board of Special Inquiry concluded that Chin Hing Chung was the son of a U.S. citizen, Chin Soy, who had been readmitted as a native-born citizen several times. And Chin Soy was in China at the time when Chin Hing Chung was conceived. Chin Hing Chung was admitted at the Port of Seattle on 3 September 1937 as a U.S. citizen, a little over six weeks after he arrived. He joined his father in Waterville, Maine.

The Reference Sheet in the file includes the names of Chin Hing Chung’s father and two brothers and their file numbers.

Loui See Fung joins father in Alamosa, Colorado in 1941

Certificate of Identity, Description of house, Photographs, San Francisco file, son of citizen, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Loui See Fung  雷樹宏 arrived at the Port of Seattle on the s.s.Princess Marguerite on 11 January 1941. He was classified as the son of citizen, Loui Guee (Louie Gwee) (married name: Woon Jing). He was admitted exactly one month later and received his Certificate of Identity on 14 February. His destination was El Paso, Texas. He was nineteen years old, born on 20 September 1921 at Ai Lat Village, Hoy San District, China. According to Dr. Seth, the Medical Examiner of Aliens, the applicant appeared to be younger than he claimed. X-rays might give a more accurate assessment, but the immigration board decides that it was not necessary. The father presented a photo of the applicant when he was about five years old. There was a strong resemblance between the alleged father and the applicant.

“Loui See Fung, photo,” ca. 1926, Chinese Exclusion Act case files, RG 85, National Archives-Seattle, Loui See Fung case file, Seattle Box 823, file 7030/13488.

Loui See Fung’s father, Loui Guee, originally arrived in the United States in October 1913 and was admitted as the son of a native, Loui Yim, who was subject to San Francisco file 10346/1433.

In Loui See Fung’s interrogation he testified that he spoke the See Yip Hoy San dialect and had never been in the United States before. His family moved to Ping On village when he was four or five years old. He last saw his father when he was about eight years old, but he readily identified him from a photograph because he remembered that his father had a scar on his forehead which showed in the photo. The interrogator asked many questions about his father’s extended family. Loui See Fung answered most of the questions correctly and was asked if he had been coached with the answers.
It was a long interrogation with over five pages of testimony. He described his mother as Yee Shee, natural feet, some pock marks on her face, able to read and write, mother of four sons and no daughters. He told the names and ages of his brothers and where they went to school. He described his village and the nearby villages, the streams, a fishpond, markets, and school. Loui See Fung lived in a brick house with two bedrooms, a living room, two kitchens with a room over each kitchen, cement floors in all the rooms, all closed by glass and iron bars, no shutters, and two outside doors. They had a black dog but no pig. He was asked about specific houses in his village—”who lives opposite your door in the 3rd house, 2nd row?” and the names of the occupants, their ages, occupations, children’s names and ages, and where they went to school.

There was a lengthy interview of Loui’s father, Loui Guee.  He stated that for the last ten years, he was a partner in a restaurant at Alamosa, Colorado. He was asked how he could identify his son if he had not seen him in about eleven years. He said, “I recognize him because he is my son. The photograph looks like him.” He chose the correct photo of his son out from more than ten photos. He testified that he had two brothers, Loui Fee in Oxnard, California, and Loui Wing in Ogden, Utah. He gave additional details about the family home. It had a stone court, a shrine on the second floor, and a balcony with a wood floor over each first-floor bedroom. They had three ancestral tablets.

“Louie Guee Affidavit, King County, Wash.,” 4 Sept 1940, CEA, RG 85, NARA-Seattle, Loui See Fung case file, file 7030/13488.

Most of the testimony of the father and son agreed completely. Although Loui See Fung said his destination was El Paso, Texas, and his father lived in Alamosa, Colorado; the interrogator ignored this inconsistency. The other differences were minor. The doctor testified that the applicant appears to be younger than his stated age, but it was not enough to reject the applicant. Loui See Fung was admitted and received his Certificate of Identity.