8 , ▁ 1 9 3 ] ▁( with ▁the ▁addition ▁in ▁ 1 8 7 0 ▁of ▁those ▁of ▁African ▁n ativity ▁and ▁descent ), ▁although ▁the ▁exact ▁word ing ▁of ▁the ▁various ▁stat utes ▁was ▁not ▁always ▁the ▁same . ▁If ▁Congress ▁in ▁ 1 9 0 6 ▁desired ▁to ▁alter ▁a ▁rule ▁so ▁well ▁and ▁so ▁long ▁established ▁it ▁may ▁be ▁assumed ▁that ▁its ▁purpose ▁would ▁have ▁been ▁definitely ▁dis closed ▁and ▁its ▁legisl ation ▁to ▁that ▁end ▁put ▁in ▁un m ist ak able ▁terms ." ▁ ▁The ▁decision ▁goes ▁on ▁to ▁den y ▁that ▁the ▁common ▁population ▁could ▁con str ue ▁O za wa , ▁a ▁man ▁of ▁Japanese ▁descent , ▁as ▁white ▁( th us , ▁making ▁him ▁in el ig ible ▁under ▁section ▁ 2 1 6 9 ▁of ▁the ▁Re vised ▁Stat utes ▁of ▁the ▁United ▁States ). ▁Thus ▁he ▁could ▁not ▁be ▁natural ized , ▁under ▁the ▁current ▁laws , ▁in ▁ 1 9 2 2 . ▁ ▁Fact ors ▁leading ▁to ▁passage ▁of ▁the ▁law ▁ ▁Since ▁ 1 8 0 2 , ▁states ▁had ▁been ▁task ed ▁with ▁determ ining ▁procedures ▁for ▁the ▁American ▁natural ization ▁process . ▁ ▁State ▁level ▁courts ▁were ▁responsible ▁for ▁cases ▁rel ating ▁to ▁natural ization . ▁ ▁The ▁standards ▁across ▁all ▁the ▁various ▁states ▁were ▁often ▁unique ▁and ▁carried ▁out ▁incons ist ently . ▁ ▁The ▁ 1 9 0 6 ▁legisl ation ▁that ▁established ▁a ▁uniform ▁standard ▁procedure ▁was ▁a ▁direct ▁reaction ▁to ▁the ▁incons