text:
"The intention was to confer the privilege of citizenship upon that class of persons whom the fathers knew as white, and to deny it to all who could not be so classified."
T akao Ozawa was born in Japan, moved to the territory of Hawaii, and later lived in California. Altogether he had lived in the United States continuously for twenty years when he applied in 1914 for naturalization, the process of becoming a U.S. citizen. At the time, he had graduated from high school in Berkeley, California, and had been a student at the University of California for three years. He had children, all born in the United States. The family spoke English at home and attended American churches. Nevertheless, the U.S. government opposed his application to become a citizen, on grounds that he was not "white." Eight years after his application was filed, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the government: Ozawa was not eligible to become a citizen.
1894, as Japan was emerging as a strong military and industrial power in Asia, a treaty with the United States had guaranteed free immigration to the United States for Japanese. But six years later, in the midst of strong opposition to Japanese immigrants among European Americans in California, Japan agreed not to issue passports for laborers seeking to enter the United States. (A passport is the formal travel document issued by a country's government that allows a citizen of that country exit and reentry.) For the Japanese government, it was a way to cut off emigration and solve the problem without agreeing to treatment that would be regarded as discriminatory against Japanese. The cutoff of passports did not, however, include passports for laborers seeking to enter Hawaii, Canada, or Mexico, from any one of which it was easy for Japanese to enter the United States.
In 1907, the San Francisco Board of Education decided to segregate its Asian students. All Asian students, including Japanese students, were to be placed in a single "Asian school" that kept the students apart from "white" European American students. Seeing Japanese the objects of discrimination upset the government of Japan just at the moment when the administration of President Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919; served 1901–9) wanted to maintain smooth diplomatic relations with Japan. Roosevelt, who was eager to increase U.S. influence in east Asia, was counting on Japan to counter the influence of Russia in the region.
To cool the diplomatic tensions with Japan created by the school board in San Francisco, Roosevelt persuaded the school board to drop its segregation plan in exchange for promises that the federal government would try to solve the issue of Japanese immigration. The result was the "Gentleman's Agreement" (an agreement that falls short of a formal treaty) of 1907 under which Japan agreed to cooperate in stemming the flow of Japanese workers to the United States. The Japanese government said it would continue to refuse to issue passports for all Japanese workers planning to go to the United States. In addition, it would not object to the removal of Japanese from the United States who held passports issued for travel elsewhere, such as Canada or Mexico. In return, San Francisco authorities discontinued segregating Japanese students in a special school for Asians. Officially, Japanese still had the right to immigrate, on an equal basis with citizens of other countries.
The San Francisco school board incident demonstrated how U.S. immigration laws and attitudes affected American diplomatic policies unrelated to immigration. The incident also served as a reminder of the long-standing controversy in California over the admission of people from Asia, whether Japanese or Chinese, and the importance of race in determining U.S. policy. As early as 1790, the Congress had passed a law limiting citizenship to immigrants who were "free white persons." At the time it was adopted, the law was intended to deny citizenship to slaves from Africa. Seventy-five years later, after slavery was abolished, the immigration law was amended to include Africans and people of African descent—but nothing was said about Asians.
With many Americans displeased with immigration from Asia (and also from southern and eastern Europe), the U.S. district attorney (prosecutor) had objected when Ozawa applied for citizenship. The government, in its arguments to the Supreme Court, admitted that Ozawa would make a good citizen: He was well educated; his family spoke English at home and attended church; and he had lived in the United States for most of his life. There was nothing in his conduct that might suggest he would make a poor citizen. Nevertheless, the government argued in court that U.S. law had been clear, since 1790: "Any alien being a free white person … may be admitted to become a citizen." The only exception was made in the Naturalization Act of 1870, which also made Africans or people of African descent eligible to become naturalized citizens. Ozawa did not fit any of these categories, in the government's opinion.
Ozawa's lawyers cited inconsistencies in the way that U.S. immigration laws had been written. They argued that when Congress passed a new naturalization law in 1906, it intended to overhaul the immigration law completely. Since the 1906 law had not specifically barred citizenship for Japanese people (as other laws specifically barred Chinese people), Ozawa's lawyers argued that he deserved to become a naturalized citizen. But the Supreme Court said no, ruling that if Congress had intended to remove the racial limitations on naturalized citizenship, it would have done so explicitly and decisively, rather than simply ignoring the issue. The Supreme Court noted that limiting citizenship to free white persons had been the law since 1790 and that the law had only been amended to include people born in Africa or of African descent. No such exception was ever made for Japanese, which both sides on the argument described as being a separate "race."
The Supreme Court also ruled on two other questions raised in the case: first, whether someone from Japan could be considered "white" under the law; and second, whether Ozawa could be barred from becoming a citizen because of race.
On the first question, Ozawa's lawyers had argued that the original immigration laws referred to "free white persons" in order to distinguish them from enslaved Africans, or "black," people. The lawyers tried to persuade the court that "white" meant "not black," and that the phrase was not intended to exclude Asians. The court's opinion rejected the argument, holding that people from Japan were not considered to be "Caucasian," which was what the law meant by "white," and were therefore not eligible to become citizens.
On the second question, the court ruled that Congress did have the power under the Constitution to determine the basis on which immigrants could become citizens, even if the basis was a concept as vague as race.
The Ozawa decision was significant in the history of immigration to the United States because it reconfirmed the importance of race when deciding whether immigrants should be allowed to become citizens—a standard for eligibility that had existed since the very beginnings of the United States as an independent country. The ruling came at a period of history when prejudice against racial and religious minorities was very strong among European American citizens, a fact that was not lost on the justices of the Supreme Court.
The Ozawa case came before the court at a time when the United States had already begun to restrict immigrants, especially those from southern and eastern Europe. For the forty years preceding the case, a higher number of Europeans than ever before had come to the United States, including many from poor areas of southern and eastern Europe. The case was decided in an era when the idea of "race" seemed highly important to many Americans, who were disturbed by the large number of darker-skinned individuals from countries around the Mediterranean. Although the Supreme Court is intended to interpret what Congress might have meant in passing laws, and making sure those laws do not conflict with the U.S. Constitution (the basic law of the land), in reality justices of the court usually have a political background and are often sensitive to the public sentiments of the time.
The concept of race has always been vague, as the court's opinion admits. What race is the child of a black mother and a white father, for example? The court's opinion brushes aside this fundamental issue by saying that such questions fall into a "zone of more or less debatable ground." But since Ozawa had been born in Japan, the issue of his race was not subject to question: He was not white, and therefore not eligible to become a citizen.
The court's opinion carefully examined minute details of previous immigration laws in an effort to understand what Congress intended to do. On the subject of what constitutes a "white" person, the opinion in essence says the court did not have time to study the issue from a scientific basis. The court ruled that anyone who was not a "free white person" (or who was not born in Africa or of African descent) did not fall into the category of people eligible to become citizens, and that included people from Asia. On the question of whether the authors of the 1790 law intended to exclude Asians, the court simply said that it has no power to read the minds of the authors of the original law. Since no subsequent Congress changed the wording, the court had no power to rule otherwise.
The act of June 29, 1906, entitled "An act to establish a Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization, and to provide for a uniform rule for the naturalization of aliens throughout the United States," consists of 31 sections and deals primarily with the subject of procedure. There is nothing in the circumstances leading up to or accompanying the passage of the act which suggests that any modification of section 2169, or of its application, was contemplated.
"It is the opinion of your committee that the frauds and crimes which have been committed in regard to naturalization have resulted more from a lack of any uniform system of procedure in such matters than from any radical defect in the fundamental principles of existing law governing in such matters. The two changes which the committee has recommended in the principles controlling in naturalization matters and which are embodied in the bill submittedherewith are as follows: First, the requirement that before an alien can be naturalized he must be able to read, either in his own language or in the English language and to speak or understand the English language; and, second, that the alien must intend to reside permanently in the United States before he shall be entitled to naturalization."
This seems to make it quite clear that no change of the fundamental character here involved was in mind….
"Any alien being a free white person … may be admitted to become a citizen…." 1 Stat. 103, c. 3.
This was subsequently enlarged to include aliens of African nativity and persons of African descent….
In all of the naturalization acts from 1790 to 1906 the privilege of naturalization was confined to white persons (with the addition in 1870 of those of African nativity and descent), although the exact wording of the various statutes was not always the same. If Congress in 1906 desired to alter a rule so well and so long established it may be assumed that its purpose would have been definitely disclosed and its legislation to that end put in unmistakable terms….
It is the duty of this Court to give effect to the intent of Congress. Primarily this intent is ascertained by giving the words their natural significance, but if this leads to an unreasonable result plainly at variance with the policy of the legislation as a whole, we must examine the matter further. We may then look to the reason of the enactment and inquire into its antecedent history and give it effect in accordance with its design and purpose, sacrificing, if necessary, the literal meaning in order that the purpose may not fail…. We are asked [by Ozawa's lawyers] to conclude that Congress, without the consideration or recommendation of any committee, without a suggestion as to the effect, or a word of debate as to the desirability, of so fundamental a change, nevertheless, by failing to alter the identifying words of section 2169 , which section we may assume was continued for some serious purpose, has radically modified a statute always theretofore maintained and considered as of great importance. It is inconceivable that a rule in force from the beginning of the government, a part of our history as well as our law, welded into the structure of our national polity by a century of legislative and administrative acts and judicial decisions, would have been deprived of its force in such dubious and casual fashion. Weare, therefore, constrained to hold that the act of 1906 is limited by the provisions of section 2169 of the Revised Statutes.
Antecedent: Referring to a preceding event, condition, or cause.
Literal: Referring to accepting the exact meaning of the words of a statement or opinion and allowing no further interpretation.
Section 2169: A sentence in the naturalization law that said naturalization "shall apply to aliens, being free white persons and to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent." Ozama's lawyers argued that because this sentence did not explicitly ban Japanese from becoming naturalized citizens, Congress did not intend to bar Japanese from becoming citizens when it passed a naturalization law in 1906.
Second. This brings us to inquire whether, under section 2169, the appellant is eligible to naturalization. The language of the naturalization laws from 1790 to 1870 had been uniformly such as to deny the privilege of naturalization to an alien unless he came within the description "free white person. By section 7 of the act of July 14, 1870 …, the naturalization laws were "extended to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent." Section 2169 of the Revised Statutes, as already pointed out, restricts the privilege to the same classes of persons, viz. "to aliens being free white persons, and to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent." It is true that in the first edition of the Revised Statutes of 1873 the words in brackets, "being free white persons, and to aliens" were omitted, but this was clearly an error of the compilers and was corrected by the subsequent legislation of 1875…. Is appellant, therefore, a "free white person," within the meaning of that phrase as found in the statute?
Appellant: A person bringing a lawsuit from a lower court to a higher court for a new hearing.
On behalf of the appellant it is urged that we should give to this phrase the meaning which it had in the minds of its original framers in 1790 and that it was employed by them for the sole purpose of excluding the black or African race and the Indians then inhabiting this country. It may be true that those two races were alone thought of as being excluded, but to say that they were the only ones within the intent of the statute would be to ignore the affirmative form of the legislation. The provision is not that Negroes and Indians shall be excluded, but it is, in effect, that only free white persons shall be included. The intention was to confer the privilege of citizenship upon that class of persons whom the fathers knew as white, and to deny it to all who could not be so classified. It is not enough to say that the framers did not have in mind the brown or yellow races of Asia. It is necessary to go farther and be able to say that had these particular races been suggested the language of the act would have been so varied as to include them within its privileges….
Affirmative form: The structure of a phrase denoting assent or agreement.
Framers: Those who wrote the Constitution.
If it be assumed that the opinion of the framers was that the only persons who would fall outside the designation "white" were Negroes and Indians, this would go no farther than to demonstrate their lack of sufficient information to enable them to foresee precisely who would be excluded by that term in the subsequent administration of the statute. It is not important in construing their words to consider the extent of their ethnological knowledge or whether they thoughtthat under the statute the only persons who would be denied naturalization would be Negroes and Indians. It is sufficient to ascertain whom they intended to include and having ascertained that it follows, as a necessary corollary , that all others are to be excluded.
Corollary: Deduction that needs no proof.
The question then is: Who are comprehended within the phrase "free white persons"? Undoubtedly the word "free" was originally used in recognition of the fact that slavery then existed and that some white persons occupied that status. The word, however, has long since ceased to have any practical significance and may now be disregarded.
We have been furnished with elaborate briefs in which the meaning of the words "white person" is discussed with ability and at length, both from the standpoint of judicial decision and from that of the science of ethnology. It does not seem to us necessary, however, to follow counsel in their extensive researches in these fields. It is sufficient to note the fact that these decisions are, in substance, to the effect that the words import a racial and not an individual test, and with this conclusion, fortified as it is by reason and authority, we entirely agree. Manifestly the test afforded by the mere color of the skin of each individual is impracticable , as that differs greatly among persons of the same race, even among Anglo-Saxons , ranging by imperceptible gradations from the fair blond to the swarthy brunette, the latter being darker than many of the lighter hued persons of the brown or yellow races. Hence to adopt the color test alone would result in a confused overlapping of races and a gradual merging of one into the other, without any practical line of separation…. Moreover, that conclusion has become so well established by judicial and executive concurrence and legislative acquiescence that we should not at this late day feel at liberty to disturb it, in the absence of reasons far more cogent than any that have been suggested…. The determination that the words "white person" are synonymous with the words "a person of the Caucasian race" simplifies the problem, although it does not entirely dispose of it. Controversies have arisen and will no doubt arise again in respect of the proper classification of individuals in border line cases. The effect of the conclusion that the words "white person" means a Caucasian is not to establish a sharp line of demarcation between those who are entitled and those who are not entitled to naturalization, but rather a zone of more or less debatable ground outside of which, upon the one hand, are those clearly eligible, and outside of which, upon the other hand, are those clearly ineligiblefor citizenship. Individual cases falling within this zone must be determined as they arise from time to time by what this court has called, in another connection …, "the gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion."
Impracticable: Incapable of being accomplished.
Anglo-Saxons: Descendants of the Germanic peoples who conquered England in the fifth century c.e., in this case referring to white non-Jews.
Imperceptible gradations: Gradual stages barely capable of being seen.
Judicial and executive concurrence: Agreement between courts of justice and the executive branch of government.
Legislative acquiescence: Acceptance by those who make laws.
Caucasian: Of or relating to the white race.
The briefs filed on behalf of appellant refer in complimentary terms to the culture and enlightenment of the Japanese people, and with this estimate we have no reason to disagree; but these are matters which cannot enter into our consideration of the questions here at issue. We have no function in the matter other than to ascertain the will of Congress and declare it. Of course there is not implied—either in the legislation or in our interpretation of it—any suggestion of individual unworthiness or racial inferiority. These considerations are in no manner involved….
Briefs: Legal documents outlining the facts and points in a case.
Two years after the Ozawa case, the Supreme Court ruled in another case (United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind) involving a man described as "a high-caste Hindu, of full Indian blood, born at Amritsar, Punjab, India" who had applied for citizenship, arguing that he was "Caucasian." In the Ozawa case, the Court ruled that the word "white" did not really refer to skin color (since many people have lighter or darker skins), but rather to the "Caucasian" race. But in the Thind case, the Court took the opposite approach: Thind might be Caucasian, in a scientific sense, but in a popular sense, his skin was too dark to qualify as "white," and therefore he was not eligible to become a citizen, the court ruled. "It may be true," wrote U.S. Supreme Court justice George Sutherland (1862–1942), "that the blond Scandinavian and the brown Hindu have a common ancestor in the dim reaches of antiquity, but the average man knows perfectly well that there are unmistakable and profound differences between them today; and it is not impossible, if that common ancestor could be materialized in the flesh, we should discover that he was himself sufficiently differentiated from both of his descendants to preclude his racial classification with either." In other words, the "average man" knows a "white" person when he sees one, even if lawyers and scientists cannot agree on what the term means. It was a startling admission that the concept of race and skin color, applied to immigration law, had no real meaning beyond what the "average man" might think at any given moment.
In 1924, Congress took another approach to limiting immigration. The Immigration Act of 1924 set permanent limits on the number of immigrants from each country. From 1924 through 1927, the number of immigrants from any one country was set at 2 percent of the number of foreign-born people of that nationality already in the United States in 1890. After July 1, 1927, the limits on each nationality were determined by a more complicated formula calculated by determining what percentage of the total population was represented by each national group, then multiplying that percentage by 150,000. Thus, if nationality "A" represented 1 percent of the U.S. population in 1890, the number of immigrants of nationality "A" admitted each year would equal 1 percent of 150,000, or 1,500 people. The practical effect of the 1924 law was to limit severely the number of immigrants after 1924, especially immigrants from non-European countries. The law also included a provision that barred anyone from immigrating who was not eligible to become a citizen. This provision was specifically aimed at Japanese immigrants and was at least partly based on the Ozawa decision of the Supreme Court.
The Ozawa case was just one of several examples of how racial consciousness played a large role in American politics during the 1920s. The year before the decision was handed down by the Supreme Court, Congress had passed the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, which limited immigration from any single country to a number equal to 3 percent of the number of immigrants of that country who were living in the United States in 1910.
The Ku Klux Klan was a secret organization that first appeared after the American Civil War (1861–65) as a means of terrorizing newly freed African American slaves and discouraging them from exercising their right to vote. Members of the original Klan wore long, white robes with a tall, peaked hood. They often burned crosses near African American neighborhoods at night as a means of frightening black people. In 1915, a new organization had been formed, using the same name as the Klan and the same costumes. The second version, however, was more open in its membership. Rather than being limited to the southern states, like the first Klan, the reborn Klan found many members in states of the Midwest, particularly Indiana. Although the second Klan still burned crosses, it also took on the form of a social club. Many elected politicians, including future president Harry S. Truman (1884–1972; served 1945–53), admitted to belonging to the Klan for a time. Whereas the first Klan had aimed its attacks at newly freed slaves, the second Klan attracted people opposed not only to racial minorities but also to Catholics, Jews, and immigrants from southern Europe (many of whom were also Catholic). Inside organizations like the Ku Klux Klan, racial prejudice and religious prejudice went hand in hand.
George Sutherland, the Supreme Court justice who wrote the opinion in Ozawa v. United States, was himself an immigrant. Sutherland was born in Buckinghamshire, England, and brought to the United States as a baby. His family settled in what was then Utah Territory, which be came a state in 1896. Sutherland, a Republican, was Utah's sole U.S. representative from 1901 to 1903 and a U.S. senator from 1905 to 1917. He was nominated for the Supreme Court by President Warren Harding (1860–1924; served 1921–24) on September 5, 1922, and confirmed by the Senate on the same day. He had been a Supreme Court justice for just a month when the Ozawa case was argued, October 3–4, 1922. The case was decided one month later, on November 13, 1922.
Dudley, William, ed. Asian Americans: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1997.
Ichihashi, Yamato. Japanese in the United States. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1932. Reprint, New York: Arno Press, 1969.
Ichioka, Yuji. The Issei: The World of the First Generation Japanese Immigrants, 1885–1924. New York: Free Press, 1988.
Tehranian, John. "Performing Whiteness: Naturalization Litigation and the Construction of Racial Identity in America." Yale Law Journal (January 2000): p. 817.
"The History of Japanese Immigration." The Brown Quarterly (Spring 2000). http://brownvboard.org/brwnqurt/03-4/03-4a.htm (accessed on February 29, 2004).
"In What Ways Did Our Laws Institutionalize Racial Prejudice Against Japanese Americans?" Denshō: The Japanese American Legacy Project.http://www.densho.org/causes/1racism/1institutionalizedracism.asp (accessed on February 29, 2004).
"Takao Ozawa v. U S, 260 U.S. 178 (1922)." FindLaw.com. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/260/178.html (accessed on February 29, 2004).
"Ozawa v. United States." U.S. Immigration and Migration Reference Library. . Encyclopedia.com. 29 Mar. 2019 <https://www.encyclopedia.com>.

lowercased:
"the intention was to confer the privilege of citizenship upon that class of persons whom the fathers knew as white, and to deny it to all who could not be so classified."
t akao ozawa was born in japan, moved to the territory of hawaii, and later lived in california. altogether he had lived in the united states continuously for twenty years when he applied in 1914 for naturalization, the process of becoming a u.s. citizen. at the time, he had graduated from high school in berkeley, california, and had been a student at the university of california for three years. he had children, all born in the united states. the family spoke english at home and attended american churches. nevertheless, the u.s. government opposed his application to become a citizen, on grounds that he was not "white." eight years after his application was filed, the u.s. supreme court agreed with the government: ozawa was not eligible to become a citizen.
1894, as japan was emerging as a strong military and industrial power in asia, a treaty with the united states had guaranteed free immigration to the united states for japanese. but six years later, in the midst of strong opposition to japanese immigrants among european americans in california, japan agreed not to issue passports for laborers seeking to enter the united states. (a passport is the formal travel document issued by a country's government that allows a citizen of that country exit and reentry.) for the japanese government, it was a way to cut off emigration and solve the problem without agreeing to treatment that would be regarded as discriminatory against japanese. the cutoff of passports did not, however, include passports for laborers seeking to enter hawaii, canada, or mexico, from any one of which it was easy for japanese to enter the united states.
in 1907, the san francisco board of education decided to segregate its asian students. all asian students, including japanese students, were to be placed in a single "asian school" that kept the students apart from "white" european american students. seeing japanese the objects of discrimination upset the government of japan just at the moment when the administration of president theodore roosevelt (1858–1919; served 1901–9) wanted to maintain smooth diplomatic relations with japan. roosevelt, who was eager to increase u.s. influence in east asia, was counting on japan to counter the influence of russia in the region.
to cool the diplomatic tensions with japan created by the school board in san francisco, roosevelt persuaded the school board to drop its segregation plan in exchange for promises that the federal government would try to solve the issue of japanese immigration. the result was the "gentleman's agreement" (an agreement that falls short of a formal treaty) of 1907 under which japan agreed to cooperate in stemming the flow of japanese workers to the united states. the japanese government said it would continue to refuse to issue passports for all japanese workers planning to go to the united states. in addition, it would not object to the removal of japanese from the united states who held passports issued for travel elsewhere, such as canada or mexico. in return, san francisco authorities discontinued segregating japanese students in a special school for asians. officially, japanese still had the right to immigrate, on an equal basis with citizens of other countries.
the san francisco school board incident demonstrated how u.s. immigration laws and attitudes affected american diplomatic policies unrelated to immigration. the incident also served as a reminder of the long-standing controversy in california over the admission of people from asia, whether japanese or chinese, and the importance of race in determining u.s. policy. as early as 1790, the congress had passed a law limiting citizenship to immigrants who were "free white persons." at the time it was adopted, the law was intended to deny citizenship to slaves from africa. seventy-five years later, after slavery was abolished, the immigration law was amended to include africans and people of african descent—but nothing was said about asians.
with many americans displeased with immigration from asia (and also from southern and eastern europe), the u.s. district attorney (prosecutor) had objected when ozawa applied for citizenship. the government, in its arguments to the supreme court, admitted that ozawa would make a good citizen: he was well educated; his family spoke english at home and attended church; and he had lived in the united states for most of his life. there was nothing in his conduct that might suggest he would make a poor citizen. nevertheless, the government argued in court that u.s. law had been clear, since 1790: "any alien being a free white person … may be admitted to become a citizen." the only exception was made in the naturalization act of 1870, which also made africans or people of african descent eligible to become naturalized citizens. ozawa did not fit any of these categories, in the government's opinion.
ozawa's lawyers cited inconsistencies in the way that u.s. immigration laws had been written. they argued that when congress passed a new naturalization law in 1906, it intended to overhaul the immigration law completely. since the 1906 law had not specifically barred citizenship for japanese people (as other laws specifically barred chinese people), ozawa's lawyers argued that he deserved to become a naturalized citizen. but the supreme court said no, ruling that if congress had intended to remove the racial limitations on naturalized citizenship, it would have done so explicitly and decisively, rather than simply ignoring the issue. the supreme court noted that limiting citizenship to free white persons had been the law since 1790 and that the law had only been amended to include people born in africa or of african descent. no such exception was ever made for japanese, which both sides on the argument described as being a separate "race."
the supreme court also ruled on two other questions raised in the case: first, whether someone from japan could be considered "white" under the law; and second, whether ozawa could be barred from becoming a citizen because of race.
on the first question, ozawa's lawyers had argued that the original immigration laws referred to "free white persons" in order to distinguish them from enslaved africans, or "black," people. the lawyers tried to persuade the court that "white" meant "not black," and that the phrase was not intended to exclude asians. the court's opinion rejected the argument, holding that people from japan were not considered to be "caucasian," which was what the law meant by "white," and were therefore not eligible to become citizens.
on the second question, the court ruled that congress did have the power under the constitution to determine the basis on which immigrants could become citizens, even if the basis was a concept as vague as race.
the ozawa decision was significant in the history of immigration to the united states because it reconfirmed the importance of race when deciding whether immigrants should be allowed to become citizens—a standard for eligibility that had existed since the very beginnings of the united states as an independent country. the ruling came at a period of history when prejudice against racial and religious minorities was very strong among european american citizens, a fact that was not lost on the justices of the supreme court.
the ozawa case came before the court at a time when the united states had already begun to restrict immigrants, especially those from southern and eastern europe. for the forty years preceding the case, a higher number of europeans than ever before had come to the united states, including many from poor areas of southern and eastern europe. the case was decided in an era when the idea of "race" seemed highly important to many americans, who were disturbed by the large number of darker-skinned individuals from countries around the mediterranean. although the supreme court is intended to interpret what congress might have meant in passing laws, and making sure those laws do not conflict with the u.s. constitution (the basic law of the land), in reality justices of the court usually have a political background and are often sensitive to the public sentiments of the time.
the concept of race has always been vague, as the court's opinion admits. what race is the child of a black mother and a white father, for example? the court's opinion brushes aside this fundamental issue by saying that such questions fall into a "zone of more or less debatable ground." but since ozawa had been born in japan, the issue of his race was not subject to question: he was not white, and therefore not eligible to become a citizen.
the court's opinion carefully examined minute details of previous immigration laws in an effort to understand what congress intended to do. on the subject of what constitutes a "white" person, the opinion in essence says the court did not have time to study the issue from a scientific basis. the court ruled that anyone who was not a "free white person" (or who was not born in africa or of african descent) did not fall into the category of people eligible to become citizens, and that included people from asia. on the question of whether the authors of the 1790 law intended to exclude asians, the court simply said that it has no power to read the minds of the authors of the original law. since no subsequent congress changed the wording, the court had no power to rule otherwise.
the act of june 29, 1906, entitled "an act to establish a bureau of immigration and naturalization, and to provide for a uniform rule for the naturalization of aliens throughout the united states," consists of 31 sections and deals primarily with the subject of procedure. there is nothing in the circumstances leading up to or accompanying the passage of the act which suggests that any modification of section 2169, or of its application, was contemplated.
"it is the opinion of your committee that the frauds and crimes which have been committed in regard to naturalization have resulted more from a lack of any uniform system of procedure in such matters than from any radical defect in the fundamental principles of existing law governing in such matters. the two changes which the committee has recommended in the principles controlling in naturalization matters and which are embodied in the bill submittedherewith are as follows: first, the requirement that before an alien can be naturalized he must be able to read, either in his own language or in the english language and to speak or understand the english language; and, second, that the alien must intend to reside permanently in the united states before he shall be entitled to naturalization."
this seems to make it quite clear that no change of the fundamental character here involved was in mind….
"any alien being a free white person … may be admitted to become a citizen…." 1 stat. 103, c. 3.
this was subsequently enlarged to include aliens of african nativity and persons of african descent….
in all of the naturalization acts from 1790 to 1906 the privilege of naturalization was confined to white persons (with the addition in 1870 of those of african nativity and descent), although the exact wording of the various statutes was not always the same. if congress in 1906 desired to alter a rule so well and so long established it may be assumed that its purpose would have been definitely disclosed and its legislation to that end put in unmistakable terms….
it is the duty of this court to give effect to the intent of congress. primarily this intent is ascertained by giving the words their natural significance, but if this leads to an unreasonable result plainly at variance with the policy of the legislation as a whole, we must examine the matter further. we may then look to the reason of the enactment and inquire into its antecedent history and give it effect in accordance with its design and purpose, sacrificing, if necessary, the literal meaning in order that the purpose may not fail…. we are asked [by ozawa's lawyers] to conclude that congress, without the consideration or recommendation of any committee, without a suggestion as to the effect, or a word of debate as to the desirability, of so fundamental a change, nevertheless, by failing to alter the identifying words of section 2169 , which section we may assume was continued for some serious purpose, has radically modified a statute always theretofore maintained and considered as of great importance. it is inconceivable that a rule in force from the beginning of the government, a part of our history as well as our law, welded into the structure of our national polity by a century of legislative and administrative acts and judicial decisions, would have been deprived of its force in such dubious and casual fashion. weare, therefore, constrained to hold that the act of 1906 is limited by the provisions of section 2169 of the revised statutes.
antecedent: referring to a preceding event, condition, or cause.
literal: referring to accepting the exact meaning of the words of a statement or opinion and allowing no further interpretation.
section 2169: a sentence in the naturalization law that said naturalization "shall apply to aliens, being free white persons and to aliens of african nativity and to persons of african descent." ozama's lawyers argued that because this sentence did not explicitly ban japanese from becoming naturalized citizens, congress did not intend to bar japanese from becoming citizens when it passed a naturalization law in 1906.
second. this brings us to inquire whether, under section 2169, the appellant is eligible to naturalization. the language of the naturalization laws from 1790 to 1870 had been uniformly such as to deny the privilege of naturalization to an alien unless he came within the description "free white person. by section 7 of the act of july 14, 1870 …, the naturalization laws were "extended to aliens of african nativity and to persons of african descent." section 2169 of the revised statutes, as already pointed out, restricts the privilege to the same classes of persons, viz. "to aliens being free white persons, and to aliens of african nativity and to persons of african descent." it is true that in the first edition of the revised statutes of 1873 the words in brackets, "being free white persons, and to aliens" were omitted, but this was clearly an error of the compilers and was corrected by the subsequent legislation of 1875…. is appellant, therefore, a "free white person," within the meaning of that phrase as found in the statute?
appellant: a person bringing a lawsuit from a lower court to a higher court for a new hearing.
on behalf of the appellant it is urged that we should give to this phrase the meaning which it had in the minds of its original framers in 1790 and that it was employed by them for the sole purpose of excluding the black or african race and the indians then inhabiting this country. it may be true that those two races were alone thought of as being excluded, but to say that they were the only ones within the intent of the statute would be to ignore the affirmative form of the legislation. the provision is not that negroes and indians shall be excluded, but it is, in effect, that only free white persons shall be included. the intention was to confer the privilege of citizenship upon that class of persons whom the fathers knew as white, and to deny it to all who could not be so classified. it is not enough to say that the framers did not have in mind the brown or yellow races of asia. it is necessary to go farther and be able to say that had these particular races been suggested the language of the act would have been so varied as to include them within its privileges….
affirmative form: the structure of a phrase denoting assent or agreement.
framers: those who wrote the constitution.
if it be assumed that the opinion of the framers was that the only persons who would fall outside the designation "white" were negroes and indians, this would go no farther than to demonstrate their lack of sufficient information to enable them to foresee precisely who would be excluded by that term in the subsequent administration of the statute. it is not important in construing their words to consider the extent of their ethnological knowledge or whether they thoughtthat under the statute the only persons who would be denied naturalization would be negroes and indians. it is sufficient to ascertain whom they intended to include and having ascertained that it follows, as a necessary corollary , that all others are to be excluded.
corollary: deduction that needs no proof.
the question then is: who are comprehended within the phrase "free white persons"? undoubtedly the word "free" was originally used in recognition of the fact that slavery then existed and that some white persons occupied that status. the word, however, has long since ceased to have any practical significance and may now be disregarded.
we have been furnished with elaborate briefs in which the meaning of the words "white person" is discussed with ability and at length, both from the standpoint of judicial decision and from that of the science of ethnology. it does not seem to us necessary, however, to follow counsel in their extensive researches in these fields. it is sufficient to note the fact that these decisions are, in substance, to the effect that the words import a racial and not an individual test, and with this conclusion, fortified as it is by reason and authority, we entirely agree. manifestly the test afforded by the mere color of the skin of each individual is impracticable , as that differs greatly among persons of the same race, even among anglo-saxons , ranging by imperceptible gradations from the fair blond to the swarthy brunette, the latter being darker than many of the lighter hued persons of the brown or yellow races. hence to adopt the color test alone would result in a confused overlapping of races and a gradual merging of one into the other, without any practical line of separation…. moreover, that conclusion has become so well established by judicial and executive concurrence and legislative acquiescence that we should not at this late day feel at liberty to disturb it, in the absence of reasons far more cogent than any that have been suggested…. the determination that the words "white person" are synonymous with the words "a person of the caucasian race" simplifies the problem, although it does not entirely dispose of it. controversies have arisen and will no doubt arise again in respect of the proper classification of individuals in border line cases. the effect of the conclusion that the words "white person" means a caucasian is not to establish a sharp line of demarcation between those who are entitled and those who are not entitled to naturalization, but rather a zone of more or less debatable ground outside of which, upon the one hand, are those clearly eligible, and outside of which, upon the other hand, are those clearly ineligiblefor citizenship. individual cases falling within this zone must be determined as they arise from time to time by what this court has called, in another connection …, "the gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion."
impracticable: incapable of being accomplished.
anglo-saxons: descendants of the germanic peoples who conquered england in the fifth century c.e., in this case referring to white non-jews.
imperceptible gradations: gradual stages barely capable of being seen.
judicial and executive concurrence: agreement between courts of justice and the executive branch of government.
legislative acquiescence: acceptance by those who make laws.
caucasian: of or relating to the white race.
the briefs filed on behalf of appellant refer in complimentary terms to the culture and enlightenment of the japanese people, and with this estimate we have no reason to disagree; but these are matters which cannot enter into our consideration of the questions here at issue. we have no function in the matter other than to ascertain the will of congress and declare it. of course there is not implied—either in the legislation or in our interpretation of it—any suggestion of individual unworthiness or racial inferiority. these considerations are in no manner involved….
briefs: legal documents outlining the facts and points in a case.
two years after the ozawa case, the supreme court ruled in another case (united states v. bhagat singh thind) involving a man described as "a high-caste hindu, of full indian blood, born at amritsar, punjab, india" who had applied for citizenship, arguing that he was "caucasian." in the ozawa case, the court ruled that the word "white" did not really refer to skin color (since many people have lighter or darker skins), but rather to the "caucasian" race. but in the thind case, the court took the opposite approach: thind might be caucasian, in a scientific sense, but in a popular sense, his skin was too dark to qualify as "white," and therefore he was not eligible to become a citizen, the court ruled. "it may be true," wrote u.s. supreme court justice george sutherland (1862–1942), "that the blond scandinavian and the brown hindu have a common ancestor in the dim reaches of antiquity, but the average man knows perfectly well that there are unmistakable and profound differences between them today; and it is not impossible, if that common ancestor could be materialized in the flesh, we should discover that he was himself sufficiently differentiated from both of his descendants to preclude his racial classification with either." in other words, the "average man" knows a "white" person when he sees one, even if lawyers and scientists cannot agree on what the term means. it was a startling admission that the concept of race and skin color, applied to immigration law, had no real meaning beyond what the "average man" might think at any given moment.
in 1924, congress took another approach to limiting immigration. the immigration act of 1924 set permanent limits on the number of immigrants from each country. from 1924 through 1927, the number of immigrants from any one country was set at 2 percent of the number of foreign-born people of that nationality already in the united states in 1890. after july 1, 1927, the limits on each nationality were determined by a more complicated formula calculated by determining what percentage of the total population was represented by each national group, then multiplying that percentage by 150,000. thus, if nationality "a" represented 1 percent of the u.s. population in 1890, the number of immigrants of nationality "a" admitted each year would equal 1 percent of 150,000, or 1,500 people. the practical effect of the 1924 law was to limit severely the number of immigrants after 1924, especially immigrants from non-european countries. the law also included a provision that barred anyone from immigrating who was not eligible to become a citizen. this provision was specifically aimed at japanese immigrants and was at least partly based on the ozawa decision of the supreme court.
the ozawa case was just one of several examples of how racial consciousness played a large role in american politics during the 1920s. the year before the decision was handed down by the supreme court, congress had passed the emergency quota act of 1921, which limited immigration from any single country to a number equal to 3 percent of the number of immigrants of that country who were living in the united states in 1910.
the ku klux klan was a secret organization that first appeared after the american civil war (1861–65) as a means of terrorizing newly freed african american slaves and discouraging them from exercising their right to vote. members of the original klan wore long, white robes with a tall, peaked hood. they often burned crosses near african american neighborhoods at night as a means of frightening black people. in 1915, a new organization had been formed, using the same name as the klan and the same costumes. the second version, however, was more open in its membership. rather than being limited to the southern states, like the first klan, the reborn klan found many members in states of the midwest, particularly indiana. although the second klan still burned crosses, it also took on the form of a social club. many elected politicians, including future president harry s. truman (1884–1972; served 1945–53), admitted to belonging to the klan for a time. whereas the first klan had aimed its attacks at newly freed slaves, the second klan attracted people opposed not only to racial minorities but also to catholics, jews, and immigrants from southern europe (many of whom were also catholic). inside organizations like the ku klux klan, racial prejudice and religious prejudice went hand in hand.
george sutherland, the supreme court justice who wrote the opinion in ozawa v. united states, was himself an immigrant. sutherland was born in buckinghamshire, england, and brought to the united states as a baby. his family settled in what was then utah territory, which be came a state in 1896. sutherland, a republican, was utah's sole u.s. representative from 1901 to 1903 and a u.s. senator from 1905 to 1917. he was nominated for the supreme court by president warren harding (1860–1924; served 1921–24) on september 5, 1922, and confirmed by the senate on the same day. he had been a supreme court justice for just a month when the ozawa case was argued, october 3–4, 1922. the case was decided one month later, on november 13, 1922.
dudley, william, ed. asian americans: opposing viewpoints. san diego, ca: greenhaven press, 1997.
ichihashi, yamato. japanese in the united states. stanford, ca: stanford university press, 1932. reprint, new york: arno press, 1969.
ichioka, yuji. the issei: the world of the first generation japanese immigrants, 1885–1924. new york: free press, 1988.
tehranian, john. "performing whiteness: naturalization litigation and the construction of racial identity in america." yale law journal (january 2000): p. 817.
"the history of japanese immigration." the brown quarterly (spring 2000). http://brownvboard.org/brwnqurt/03-4/03-4a.htm (accessed on february 29, 2004).
"in what ways did our laws institutionalize racial prejudice against japanese americans?" denshō: the japanese american legacy project.http://www.densho.org/causes/1racism/1institutionalizedracism.asp (accessed on february 29, 2004).
"takao ozawa v. u s, 260 u.s. 178 (1922)." findlaw.com. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=us&case=/us/260/178.html (accessed on february 29, 2004).
"ozawa v. united states." u.s. immigration and migration reference library. . encyclopedia.com. 29 mar. 2019 <https://www.encyclopedia.com>.


text:
Every business is unique, much like its owner.
The most effective way for CMResource to have a valuable impact on your business is for us to start with a free initial consultation. This allows us to share your aspirations and future vision for your business and also offload any concerns or worries you may have about moving forward.
Investing in CMResource to support your business is flexible to suit a wide range of businesses and budgets and we can provide a project brief with costings, whether it’s short term help, specific project planning and execution, or regular support to your business needs.
Call us on 077866 55929 or email us at clare@cmresource.co.uk.

lowercased:
every business is unique, much like its owner.
the most effective way for cmresource to have a valuable impact on your business is for us to start with a free initial consultation. this allows us to share your aspirations and future vision for your business and also offload any concerns or worries you may have about moving forward.
investing in cmresource to support your business is flexible to suit a wide range of businesses and budgets and we can provide a project brief with costings, whether it’s short term help, specific project planning and execution, or regular support to your business needs.
call us on 077866 55929 or email us at clare@cmresource.co.uk.


text:
Class E Driver Licenses will be valid for 8 years, except for Customers 80 years of age and older.
Class A, B, or C Driver Licenses will be valid for 8 years, except for Customers 80 years of age and older. Licenses with a Hazardous Materials Endorsement will be valid for only 4 years.
All Licenses for Customers 80 years of age and older will be valid for only 6 years.
ID Cards for Children ages 5 to 14 years of age will be valid for 4 years.
ID Cards for Customers ages 15 years of age and older will be valid for 8 years.

lowercased:
class e driver licenses will be valid for 8 years, except for customers 80 years of age and older.
class a, b, or c driver licenses will be valid for 8 years, except for customers 80 years of age and older. licenses with a hazardous materials endorsement will be valid for only 4 years.
all licenses for customers 80 years of age and older will be valid for only 6 years.
id cards for children ages 5 to 14 years of age will be valid for 4 years.
id cards for customers ages 15 years of age and older will be valid for 8 years.


text:
My advice to all my fellow women out there who have been disappointed so many times like me to give love another chance.
Many thanks to the Admin and founder of this web site for making my long dream come true.
We met here few months ago regardless of the distance between us we have been so strong and finally met each other, planning to marry in the near future !
It is valid to say true love can be found anywhere you just have to log on at the right time and click on the right username!
It was fun while it lasted and I made some really good friends.
However, I find I don't have the time to get on as often as I would like.
I wish you guys the very best, and thanks for the opportunity Coolheadedlady Well yes i have found someone.

lowercased:
my advice to all my fellow women out there who have been disappointed so many times like me to give love another chance.
many thanks to the admin and founder of this web site for making my long dream come true.
we met here few months ago regardless of the distance between us we have been so strong and finally met each other, planning to marry in the near future !
it is valid to say true love can be found anywhere you just have to log on at the right time and click on the right username!
it was fun while it lasted and i made some really good friends.
however, i find i don't have the time to get on as often as i would like.
i wish you guys the very best, and thanks for the opportunity coolheadedlady well yes i have found someone.


text: I am currently a sophomore at Flathead High School in Kalispell, Montana. I hope to someday enter law school and pursue a career in Human Rights Law. When I’m not studying, I can usually be found reading news articles, studying foreign languages and consuming way too much coffee.

lowercased: i am currently a sophomore at flathead high school in kalispell, montana. i hope to someday enter law school and pursue a career in human rights law. when i’m not studying, i can usually be found reading news articles, studying foreign languages and consuming way too much coffee.


text:
The first three Ocean Eagle 43’s will operate as fishery patrol vessels for a new fleet of 27 fishing vessels being built by CMN shipyard (Constructions Mécaniques de Normandie), in Cherbourg for the government of Mozambique.
The Ocean Eagle 43 has a launch pad for fixed or rotary wing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) up to 300kg, stowage for a 7m high performance RIB, optical and radar sensors, air-sea radio transmission of satellite data and a medium calibre remote controlled gun turret.
New solutions were needed to create a new type of vessel, suitable for patrol and control enforcement of sovereign sea-space over large areas and for long periods of time, accessible to countries with budget constraints.

lowercased:
the first three ocean eagle 43’s will operate as fishery patrol vessels for a new fleet of 27 fishing vessels being built by cmn shipyard (constructions mécaniques de normandie), in cherbourg for the government of mozambique.
the ocean eagle 43 has a launch pad for fixed or rotary wing unmanned aerial vehicles (uavs) up to 300kg, stowage for a 7m high performance rib, optical and radar sensors, air-sea radio transmission of satellite data and a medium calibre remote controlled gun turret.
new solutions were needed to create a new type of vessel, suitable for patrol and control enforcement of sovereign sea-space over large areas and for long periods of time, accessible to countries with budget constraints.


text:
Time to fill driveway potholes!
This time of year, potholes in your driveway fill with water making your driveway treacherous. Low spots fill with water and refreeze making things even worse. Scott Snyder Dump Truck Service is offering $10 off any driveway repair, or stone delivery order from today through the end of February.
Do you deliver to Menifee ca? Looking to fill pot holes on my dirt road.

lowercased:
time to fill driveway potholes!
this time of year, potholes in your driveway fill with water making your driveway treacherous. low spots fill with water and refreeze making things even worse. scott snyder dump truck service is offering $10 off any driveway repair, or stone delivery order from today through the end of february.
do you deliver to menifee ca? looking to fill pot holes on my dirt road.


text:
When filling out a job application, you are thinking like an employee. When going to the interview you must think like the employer. Your main consideration is what the employer wants, and how you will fill it. You can help answer this by considering five questions which an employer might think of.
What else do you bring to the job?
What about you might cause an employer to question your sincerity at an interview?
Do You Have the Skills for the Job?
This should be one of the first questions you need to ask yourself before applying to the job. Each job has different needs and different skills needed for that job. What the employer wants is a person who does not need training, or very little training, so the employee can simply start without any time lapse.
What Other Things, Beyond Skills, Would an Employer Look For in an Employee?
Will you do the job you are assigned?
Will you be dependable and reliable?
Will you meet the employer's expectations?
These are three things which the employer must be able to answer positively for you to get the job.
Why Does the Employer Care If I Am Staying for Any Length of Time?
Employers spend time, money and energy training new hires. While in some fields constant turnover is to be expected, having to replace someone after only a few months to an employer is a waste of resources. What an employer wants is someone who is willing to invest some time into the position.
What Positive Characteristics Do You Bring to the Workplace?
When Is an Employer Likely to Think You Are Conning Them at the Interview?
If you do not seem to show a willingness to be at the interview or can't answer questions directly then this will raise red flags at any interview. If the employer sees a different person at the interview than what is in the resume, this will also raise red flags. Not being able to give complete and meaningful responses is the biggest sign that there are discrepancies.
Employee Performance: What is Your Boss Looking For?

lowercased:
when filling out a job application, you are thinking like an employee. when going to the interview you must think like the employer. your main consideration is what the employer wants, and how you will fill it. you can help answer this by considering five questions which an employer might think of.
what else do you bring to the job?
what about you might cause an employer to question your sincerity at an interview?
do you have the skills for the job?
this should be one of the first questions you need to ask yourself before applying to the job. each job has different needs and different skills needed for that job. what the employer wants is a person who does not need training, or very little training, so the employee can simply start without any time lapse.
what other things, beyond skills, would an employer look for in an employee?
will you do the job you are assigned?
will you be dependable and reliable?
will you meet the employer's expectations?
these are three things which the employer must be able to answer positively for you to get the job.
why does the employer care if i am staying for any length of time?
employers spend time, money and energy training new hires. while in some fields constant turnover is to be expected, having to replace someone after only a few months to an employer is a waste of resources. what an employer wants is someone who is willing to invest some time into the position.
what positive characteristics do you bring to the workplace?
when is an employer likely to think you are conning them at the interview?
if you do not seem to show a willingness to be at the interview or can't answer questions directly then this will raise red flags at any interview. if the employer sees a different person at the interview than what is in the resume, this will also raise red flags. not being able to give complete and meaningful responses is the biggest sign that there are discrepancies.
employee performance: what is your boss looking for?


text:
What is ClientExec? Can this billing & support software enable you to maintain a profitable hosting business?
ClientExec is a very popular billing and support solution, that's used by a number of hosting companies along with their resellers. It's feature-rich and easy to customize, therefore it will help you create and maintain your own reseller company in no time. ClientExec will allow you to accept web payments through a variety of payment processors or to offer domain name registrations and SSL certificates via different providers, to set prices for website hosting packages and add-ons, to see in-depth stats about your customers and the services they have bought, as well as monthly reports about how your company is doing. In addition, ClientExec features an integrated ticket system, which means that you are able to provide support to all of your clients. If you operate an actual company, you're able to give different degrees of access to the management team, the help and support staff, your sales crew, etc., with pre-defined features they will be able to access and to modify.
When you purchase one of our Linux dedicated servers hosting packages, we will give you ClientExec as a part of the bundle which comes cost free with all of our servers, so that you won't have to search for a billing app for your reseller business or pay for such. We'll provide the software with a full license, so you will not be restricted in terms of time or functionality in any way and you'll be able to use it provided that you use the server itself. We will set up ClientExec for you and save you effort, time and money, so that you can set up everything and begin offering website hosting packages and domains to customers in no time. The application can be used with the eNom domain reseller account, that's part of our complimentary bundle as well, or with any other domain account via another registrar company. In this way, you will be able to offer your customers all the services that they need in order to start their world-wide web presence and you can charge and support them without any difficulty via a user-friendly interface.

lowercased:
what is clientexec? can this billing & support software enable you to maintain a profitable hosting business?
clientexec is a very popular billing and support solution, that's used by a number of hosting companies along with their resellers. it's feature-rich and easy to customize, therefore it will help you create and maintain your own reseller company in no time. clientexec will allow you to accept web payments through a variety of payment processors or to offer domain name registrations and ssl certificates via different providers, to set prices for website hosting packages and add-ons, to see in-depth stats about your customers and the services they have bought, as well as monthly reports about how your company is doing. in addition, clientexec features an integrated ticket system, which means that you are able to provide support to all of your clients. if you operate an actual company, you're able to give different degrees of access to the management team, the help and support staff, your sales crew, etc., with pre-defined features they will be able to access and to modify.
when you purchase one of our linux dedicated servers hosting packages, we will give you clientexec as a part of the bundle which comes cost free with all of our servers, so that you won't have to search for a billing app for your reseller business or pay for such. we'll provide the software with a full license, so you will not be restricted in terms of time or functionality in any way and you'll be able to use it provided that you use the server itself. we will set up clientexec for you and save you effort, time and money, so that you can set up everything and begin offering website hosting packages and domains to customers in no time. the application can be used with the enom domain reseller account, that's part of our complimentary bundle as well, or with any other domain account via another registrar company. in this way, you will be able to offer your customers all the services that they need in order to start their world-wide web presence and you can charge and support them without any difficulty via a user-friendly interface.


text:
❤The support wheels are individually adjustable.
❤Ensure your child is safe when learning to ride.
❤Supplied with fitting kit for easy installment to cycle.
❤ This bike stabilisers is suitable for all bikes from 12 to 20 inches,provide the necessary security and stability which it needs in the first road tests on the bike.
2 x Stable jockey wheel for bicycles from 12 “- 20″ mounting material(included Components)Universal fitting all 12″ – 20” Wheels.
Stable metal supports for more security.
The support wheels are individually strong and adjustable.
This practical training wheels, for bicycles from 12 “- 20”, provide the necessary security and stability which it needs in the first road tests on the bike. Gives your child the best start to gaining their balance and confidence on two wheels.

lowercased:
❤the support wheels are individually adjustable.
❤ensure your child is safe when learning to ride.
❤supplied with fitting kit for easy installment to cycle.
❤ this bike stabilisers is suitable for all bikes from 12 to 20 inches,provide the necessary security and stability which it needs in the first road tests on the bike.
2 x stable jockey wheel for bicycles from 12 “- 20″ mounting material(included components)universal fitting all 12″ – 20” wheels.
stable metal supports for more security.
the support wheels are individually strong and adjustable.
this practical training wheels, for bicycles from 12 “- 20”, provide the necessary security and stability which it needs in the first road tests on the bike. gives your child the best start to gaining their balance and confidence on two wheels.


text:
A new Brexit referendum with an option to remain in the EU is "likely", the Labour first minister of Wales has said.
Carwyn Jones told Wales' National Assembly that people had "the right to express a view as to whether they wish to leave in circumstances that not one Brexiteer suggested would happen".
It follows comments from shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer at Labour's conference in Liverpool today that nobody was ruling out a second referendum with an option to Remain on the ballot paper.
In response to a question at first minister's questions from Plaid Cymru Assembly Member Steffan Lewis whether there should "also be a question there asking the people whether or not they wish to remain in the European Union", Jones said: "I think that's likely."
He told the Senedd, the Assembly's debating chamber: "I think that there are two possibilities here, are there not? If there's no deal, then it would be 'no deal' or Remain.
"If there is a deal, it becomes a bit more complicated, in the sense that it's: 'Do you accept the deal? But, if you don't, what do you want: "no deal" or Remain?' There are ways in which the Electoral Commission, I'm sure, can finesse that referendum.
"No-one said it. Everyone said, 'There will be a deal.' That's changed."
The first minister, who is standing down later this year, said that he did not like the idea of a second referendum on exactly the same issue.
But, he said, "where the circumstances have changed fundamentally, where the promises that were made two years ago have come to nothing, then, at that point, and if there's an inconclusive result in a general election... who knows what parties might put forward in a general election?
"There has to come a point where, if there is an impasse, the people have to decide, and they have to be allowed to decide on the basis of what they know now and not on what they were told two years ago, which hasn't happened."
It followed a question from Neil Hamilton, the disgraced former Tory minister who now sits as a Ukip AM in the Assembly, who said that Theresa May had "badly bungled the negotiations with Brussels".
He added that "Jeremy Corbyn, with whom I marched through many lobbies voting against EU legislation over the years, seems to be sitting on the fence".
Jones said there was "increasing mood music in this chamber and outside that if there is no deal and, therefore, a disaster, it'll be the fault of the Remainers and not the fault of those who gave a pie-in-the-sky analysis two years ago of what the referendum would mean.
He said: "We were told it'd be the easiest negotiation ever. It hasn't been. We were told that the EU would fold in the face of the UK's demands. It hasn't done.
"We were told that German car manufacturers would ride to the rescue - or drive to the rescue - and would force the German Government to accept a deal in favour of the UK. They haven't done it.
"The reality is that the UK is more divided than the EU has been at all in the course of this process."
Hamilton was, Jones said, "a member of a party who, for eight years, argued strongly for a second referendum [on the establishment of the Welsh Assembly] after 1997, because they didn't like the result, and went into the 2005 general election on a manifesto of having a second referendum on the existence of the Assembly".
He added: "So, there's a certain level of double standards there that has to be recognised."
The first minister said that if Parliament rejected any Brexit deal, or no deal, put before it he did, not see any alternative other than a general election, and "in that general election, Brexit would be the only topic, I suspect, of discussion".

lowercased:
a new brexit referendum with an option to remain in the eu is "likely", the labour first minister of wales has said.
carwyn jones told wales' national assembly that people had "the right to express a view as to whether they wish to leave in circumstances that not one brexiteer suggested would happen".
it follows comments from shadow brexit secretary sir keir starmer at labour's conference in liverpool today that nobody was ruling out a second referendum with an option to remain on the ballot paper.
in response to a question at first minister's questions from plaid cymru assembly member steffan lewis whether there should "also be a question there asking the people whether or not they wish to remain in the european union", jones said: "i think that's likely."
he told the senedd, the assembly's debating chamber: "i think that there are two possibilities here, are there not? if there's no deal, then it would be 'no deal' or remain.
"if there is a deal, it becomes a bit more complicated, in the sense that it's: 'do you accept the deal? but, if you don't, what do you want: "no deal" or remain?' there are ways in which the electoral commission, i'm sure, can finesse that referendum.
"no-one said it. everyone said, 'there will be a deal.' that's changed."
the first minister, who is standing down later this year, said that he did not like the idea of a second referendum on exactly the same issue.
but, he said, "where the circumstances have changed fundamentally, where the promises that were made two years ago have come to nothing, then, at that point, and if there's an inconclusive result in a general election... who knows what parties might put forward in a general election?
"there has to come a point where, if there is an impasse, the people have to decide, and they have to be allowed to decide on the basis of what they know now and not on what they were told two years ago, which hasn't happened."
it followed a question from neil hamilton, the disgraced former tory minister who now sits as a ukip am in the assembly, who said that theresa may had "badly bungled the negotiations with brussels".
he added that "jeremy corbyn, with whom i marched through many lobbies voting against eu legislation over the years, seems to be sitting on the fence".
jones said there was "increasing mood music in this chamber and outside that if there is no deal and, therefore, a disaster, it'll be the fault of the remainers and not the fault of those who gave a pie-in-the-sky analysis two years ago of what the referendum would mean.
he said: "we were told it'd be the easiest negotiation ever. it hasn't been. we were told that the eu would fold in the face of the uk's demands. it hasn't done.
"we were told that german car manufacturers would ride to the rescue - or drive to the rescue - and would force the german government to accept a deal in favour of the uk. they haven't done it.
"the reality is that the uk is more divided than the eu has been at all in the course of this process."
hamilton was, jones said, "a member of a party who, for eight years, argued strongly for a second referendum [on the establishment of the welsh assembly] after 1997, because they didn't like the result, and went into the 2005 general election on a manifesto of having a second referendum on the existence of the assembly".
he added: "so, there's a certain level of double standards there that has to be recognised."
the first minister said that if parliament rejected any brexit deal, or no deal, put before it he did, not see any alternative other than a general election, and "in that general election, brexit would be the only topic, i suspect, of discussion".


text:
I've been testing out the new Ultra Motor FastForward Edge Folding Electric bicycle for the past week. This thing is fun- fun for the whole family. In fact, our test mule has been cause for argument and disappointment at our house for this last week with my 12 year old son, me and my wife quietly fighting for the right to ride it.
This is a very versatile bike. For a little over a grand you get a kind of 3 in one product. You get a folding bike. You get an electric bike AND you get a bike-bike. I mean, it's hard to get any of these in the kind of quality of this all in one package for this price and this one has it all.
It's comfortable to ride as bike. Feels like a tall BMX ride, or a scooter with a seat. Stiff, quick handling. Turn on the button, twist the throttle and the electricity takes over. It will let you cruise comfortably on the flats and on slight inclines. Switch to e-assist mode and you just pedal and the motor works on back-up, giving you much better climbing ability.
Hard to beat for the money. It's not fast. If you want fast, you'll need to get a Metro, or a bike with a bigger motor.
The Edge seems to be a great flatlander rider and commuter. Fold it up on the bus or train. Bionical bike gets the job done. Unfold it, start your roll down to the cafe and to work. Tuck it under your desk the rest of the day.
Simple. The FastForward Edge, from Ultra Motor.

lowercased:
i've been testing out the new ultra motor fastforward edge folding electric bicycle for the past week. this thing is fun- fun for the whole family. in fact, our test mule has been cause for argument and disappointment at our house for this last week with my 12 year old son, me and my wife quietly fighting for the right to ride it.
this is a very versatile bike. for a little over a grand you get a kind of 3 in one product. you get a folding bike. you get an electric bike and you get a bike-bike. i mean, it's hard to get any of these in the kind of quality of this all in one package for this price and this one has it all.
it's comfortable to ride as bike. feels like a tall bmx ride, or a scooter with a seat. stiff, quick handling. turn on the button, twist the throttle and the electricity takes over. it will let you cruise comfortably on the flats and on slight inclines. switch to e-assist mode and you just pedal and the motor works on back-up, giving you much better climbing ability.
hard to beat for the money. it's not fast. if you want fast, you'll need to get a metro, or a bike with a bigger motor.
the edge seems to be a great flatlander rider and commuter. fold it up on the bus or train. bionical bike gets the job done. unfold it, start your roll down to the cafe and to work. tuck it under your desk the rest of the day.
simple. the fastforward edge, from ultra motor.


text:
You will find more than 900 of the best primary care researchers in the world, policy makers, patients and clinicians from more than 35 countries. All eager to collaborate, mentor, and share and learn a wealth of new results, data sources, frameworks and methods. You will find patients taking active roles and clinicians eager to learn and participate in generating new knowledge... You will find colleagues who share your belief that new knowledge about primary care is the way forward for the health of the public, our patients and our health systems.
The North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) will celebrate the 45th NAPCRG Annual Meeting November 17-21 in Montreal, Quebec. More than 900 primary care researchers from around the world will attend the event where they will share findings, network with colleagues, and make the most of opportunities with over 800 educational sessions. School research will be included as oral presentations, in workshops and forums, as posters and in plenary sessions.
Professor Amanda Howe, a prominent member of the RCGP and SAPC, and President of the World Organisation of Family Doctors (WONCA), will be presenting a plenary A World of Opportunity - But How to Choose? on Sunday at 10.30am. View the abstracts here.
ACTIB Trial (Assessing Cognitive Behavioural Therapy in Irritable Bowel): A Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial. Hazel Everitt,Gilly O’Reilly, Alice Sibelli, Stephanie Hughes, Sula Windgassen, Paul Little, Sabine Landau, Felicity Bishop, Paul McCrone, Nicholas Coleman, Robert Logan, Trudie Chalder, Rona Moss-Morris.
ATAFUTI: Alternative Treatments of Adult Female Urinary Tract Infection: A Double Blind, Placebo Controlled, Factorial Randomised Trial of Uva Ursi and Open Pragmatic Trial of Ibuprofen. Michael Moore, Jeanne Trill, Andrew Flower, Angeliki Galanopoulou, Catherine Simpson, Fran Webley, Alastair Hay, Esther van de Werf, George Lewith, Paul Little, Merlin Willcox.
Developing a Measure of Appropriate Polypharmacy in Primary Care: Systematic Review and RAND Appropriateness Study. Jenni Burt, Natasha Elmore, Stephen Campbell, Sarah Rodgers, Anthony Avery, Rupert Payne.
Can Research Inform Service Development and Policy? A Systematic Scoping Review of After Hours Primary Medical Care. Kate O’Donnell, Hamish Foster, Sara Macdonald.
Developing a Core Outcome Set for Trials for Multimorbidity (COSmm) Through a Delphi Consensus Process. Susan Smith, Emma Wallace, Chris Salisbury, Maxime Sasseville, Elizabeth Bayliss, Martin Fortin.
Implementing the PINCER Intervention in the East Midlands of the UK to Reduce Prescribing Errors. Sarah Rodgers, Anthony Avery, Aloysius Siriwardena, Despina Laparidou, Antony Chuter.
Society for Academic Primary Care (SAPC): Healthcare Use by the Very Old as They Age and Implications for Primary Care: Findings From the Newcastle 85+ Study. Louise Robinson.
Bath Additives for the Treatment of Childhood Eczema: Results of a Multi-Centre Parallel Group Randomised Trial. Miriam Santer, Kate Rumsby, Beth Stuart, Matthew Ridd, Nick Francis, Maria Chorozoglou, Martina Prude, Lyn Liddiard, Claire Nollett, Julie Hooper, Emma Thomas-Jones, Amanda Roberts, Kim Thomas, Hywel Williams, Paul Little.
The Potential of Alternatives to Face to Face consultation in General Practice, and the Impact on Different Patient Groups. Helen Atherton, Heather Brant, Sue Ziebland, Annemieke Bikker, John Campbell, Andy Gibson, Brian McKinstry, Tania Porqueddu, Chris Salisbury.
Improving Medication Safety for Patients in Primary Care. Sarah Rodgers, Sally Giles, Penny Lewis, Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi, Antony Chuter.
Association Between Practitioner Empathy and Risk of Cardiovascular Events and Death Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Population-Based Prospective Cohort Study in Primary Care. Hajira Dambha-Miller, Adina Feldman, Ann-Louise Kinmonth, Simon Griffin.
OPtimising Treatment for MIld Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (OPTiMISE): A Qualitative Study to Explore Deprescribing of Antihypertensive Medication in the Elderly. Jenni Burt, PhD, Fiona Scheibl, Natasha Elmore, Carol Sinnott, Rupert Payne, John Benson, Jonathan Mant, James Sheppard, Richard McManus.
OPtimising Treatment for MIld Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (OPTiMISE): A Protocol for a Randomised Controlled Trial. Jenni Burt, James Sheppard, PhD, Mark Lown, Jonathan Mant, Paul Little, Richard McManus.
Satisfaction and Adherence to Pharmacological Treatment in Controlled and Uncontrolled Hypertensive Patients at UMF. José Hernandez Martinez.
Mapping the Thinkable: Ways of Characterizing and Researching General Practice Placements. Sophie Park.
Facilitators and Barriers to Teaching Undergraduate Medical Students in Primary Care in the UK: The GP’s Perspective. John Barber, Hannah Randles, Kim Jensen, Paula Mcdonald, Robert McKinley, Hannah Marshall, Sophie Park, Hugh Alberti.

lowercased:
you will find more than 900 of the best primary care researchers in the world, policy makers, patients and clinicians from more than 35 countries. all eager to collaborate, mentor, and share and learn a wealth of new results, data sources, frameworks and methods. you will find patients taking active roles and clinicians eager to learn and participate in generating new knowledge... you will find colleagues who share your belief that new knowledge about primary care is the way forward for the health of the public, our patients and our health systems.
the north american primary care research group (napcrg) will celebrate the 45th napcrg annual meeting november 17-21 in montreal, quebec. more than 900 primary care researchers from around the world will attend the event where they will share findings, network with colleagues, and make the most of opportunities with over 800 educational sessions. school research will be included as oral presentations, in workshops and forums, as posters and in plenary sessions.
professor amanda howe, a prominent member of the rcgp and sapc, and president of the world organisation of family doctors (wonca), will be presenting a plenary a world of opportunity - but how to choose? on sunday at 10.30am. view the abstracts here.
actib trial (assessing cognitive behavioural therapy in irritable bowel): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. hazel everitt,gilly o’reilly, alice sibelli, stephanie hughes, sula windgassen, paul little, sabine landau, felicity bishop, paul mccrone, nicholas coleman, robert logan, trudie chalder, rona moss-morris.
atafuti: alternative treatments of adult female urinary tract infection: a double blind, placebo controlled, factorial randomised trial of uva ursi and open pragmatic trial of ibuprofen. michael moore, jeanne trill, andrew flower, angeliki galanopoulou, catherine simpson, fran webley, alastair hay, esther van de werf, george lewith, paul little, merlin willcox.
developing a measure of appropriate polypharmacy in primary care: systematic review and rand appropriateness study. jenni burt, natasha elmore, stephen campbell, sarah rodgers, anthony avery, rupert payne.
can research inform service development and policy? a systematic scoping review of after hours primary medical care. kate o’donnell, hamish foster, sara macdonald.
developing a core outcome set for trials for multimorbidity (cosmm) through a delphi consensus process. susan smith, emma wallace, chris salisbury, maxime sasseville, elizabeth bayliss, martin fortin.
implementing the pincer intervention in the east midlands of the uk to reduce prescribing errors. sarah rodgers, anthony avery, aloysius siriwardena, despina laparidou, antony chuter.
society for academic primary care (sapc): healthcare use by the very old as they age and implications for primary care: findings from the newcastle 85+ study. louise robinson.
bath additives for the treatment of childhood eczema: results of a multi-centre parallel group randomised trial. miriam santer, kate rumsby, beth stuart, matthew ridd, nick francis, maria chorozoglou, martina prude, lyn liddiard, claire nollett, julie hooper, emma thomas-jones, amanda roberts, kim thomas, hywel williams, paul little.
the potential of alternatives to face to face consultation in general practice, and the impact on different patient groups. helen atherton, heather brant, sue ziebland, annemieke bikker, john campbell, andy gibson, brian mckinstry, tania porqueddu, chris salisbury.
improving medication safety for patients in primary care. sarah rodgers, sally giles, penny lewis, sudeh cheraghi-sohi, antony chuter.
association between practitioner empathy and risk of cardiovascular events and death among patients with type 2 diabetes: a population-based prospective cohort study in primary care. hajira dambha-miller, adina feldman, ann-louise kinmonth, simon griffin.
optimising treatment for mild systolic hypertension in the elderly (optimise): a qualitative study to explore deprescribing of antihypertensive medication in the elderly. jenni burt, phd, fiona scheibl, natasha elmore, carol sinnott, rupert payne, john benson, jonathan mant, james sheppard, richard mcmanus.
optimising treatment for mild systolic hypertension in the elderly (optimise): a protocol for a randomised controlled trial. jenni burt, james sheppard, phd, mark lown, jonathan mant, paul little, richard mcmanus.
satisfaction and adherence to pharmacological treatment in controlled and uncontrolled hypertensive patients at umf. josé hernandez martinez.
mapping the thinkable: ways of characterizing and researching general practice placements. sophie park.
facilitators and barriers to teaching undergraduate medical students in primary care in the uk: the gp’s perspective. john barber, hannah randles, kim jensen, paula mcdonald, robert mckinley, hannah marshall, sophie park, hugh alberti.


text:
Victor (Eric Braeden) takes a page from Fred Sanford in faking a sick spell to try to get out of trouble this week on The Young and the Restless. Too bad his loved ones — not to mention the police — aren't buying what the mogul is selling.
Nikki (Melody Thomas Scott) is the first Newman to call b.s. following Victor's "dizzy spell". However, it's doctor son-in-law Stitch (Sean Carrigan) who confirms the patriarch is perfectly healthy. Will Victor once again weasel out of paying for his crimes against the Abbotts? Watch the video below then sound off in the comments!

lowercased:
victor (eric braeden) takes a page from fred sanford in faking a sick spell to try to get out of trouble this week on the young and the restless. too bad his loved ones — not to mention the police — aren't buying what the mogul is selling.
nikki (melody thomas scott) is the first newman to call b.s. following victor's "dizzy spell". however, it's doctor son-in-law stitch (sean carrigan) who confirms the patriarch is perfectly healthy. will victor once again weasel out of paying for his crimes against the abbotts? watch the video below then sound off in the comments!


text: a daily driver, or quiver killer. Its roots are purely freestyle driven, but my riding has evolved. The design is inspired with the intention to perform well in all conditions. I wanted to have the ability to fully commit to carving as hard as possible, yet allow forgiveness in the entry and exit of each turn, regardless of how subtle or dynamic. I spend a lot of time in the backcountry searching for powder but in reality, I still cant pass up a good wall hit at the resort or resist the urge to blast a method out of a good transition I come across. I love it because I can have fun on it on any mountain in any condition. -Bryan Iguchi The Bryan Iguchi Pro is available in both Rocker System and Camber System technologies. The Camber System design offers a poppy ride with crisp, fully engaged performance.

lowercased: a daily driver, or quiver killer. its roots are purely freestyle driven, but my riding has evolved. the design is inspired with the intention to perform well in all conditions. i wanted to have the ability to fully commit to carving as hard as possible, yet allow forgiveness in the entry and exit of each turn, regardless of how subtle or dynamic. i spend a lot of time in the backcountry searching for powder but in reality, i still cant pass up a good wall hit at the resort or resist the urge to blast a method out of a good transition i come across. i love it because i can have fun on it on any mountain in any condition. -bryan iguchi the bryan iguchi pro is available in both rocker system and camber system technologies. the camber system design offers a poppy ride with crisp, fully engaged performance.


text:
The Felicia Buell Study Abroad Scholarship will award one (1) student $5,000 to participate in an AFS Study Abroad year program.
This is a need-based scholarship.
No previous language experience required.
One (1) student will be awarded $5,000 towards a year AFS program.
Must be enrolled at Marietta High School in Ohio.
Must be on schedule to graduate no earlier than Spring 2021.
Must give a presentation at Marietta High School about their AFS experience immediately following their year abroad.
Must choose an AFS Fall 2019 Year Program (Program departing in between July - September).
Start or continue to work on your AFS application.
Download and fill out The Felicia Buell Scholarship Application.
Email the application to mdbuell2@gmail.com.
Awards will be announced in mid-April.
If you’re interested in other possible scholarship opportunities in your area, please reach out to scholarships@afsusa.org.

lowercased:
the felicia buell study abroad scholarship will award one (1) student $5,000 to participate in an afs study abroad year program.
this is a need-based scholarship.
no previous language experience required.
one (1) student will be awarded $5,000 towards a year afs program.
must be enrolled at marietta high school in ohio.
must be on schedule to graduate no earlier than spring 2021.
must give a presentation at marietta high school about their afs experience immediately following their year abroad.
must choose an afs fall 2019 year program (program departing in between july - september).
start or continue to work on your afs application.
download and fill out the felicia buell scholarship application.
email the application to mdbuell2@gmail.com.
awards will be announced in mid-april.
if you’re interested in other possible scholarship opportunities in your area, please reach out to scholarships@afsusa.org.


text:
Continuing Education's office at the Kansas City Art Institute is located on the 2nd-floor of the historic Jannes Library. Temporary 15 minute and reserved Continuing Education parking is available behind the library, at the top of the hill for students wishing to enroll in office.
Office hours are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
*Please see your registration receipt for first course procedures and additional details on classroom location.

lowercased:
continuing education's office at the kansas city art institute is located on the 2nd-floor of the historic jannes library. temporary 15 minute and reserved continuing education parking is available behind the library, at the top of the hill for students wishing to enroll in office.
office hours are monday through friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
*please see your registration receipt for first course procedures and additional details on classroom location.