Page |1
ASAM 1 Quizzes Review Pt. 2 Questions
and Correct Answers/ Latest Update /
Already Graded
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the equal
protection clause of the 14th Amendment
a.Applies to all persons within the jurisdiction of the U.S., citizens and
aliens alike.
b.Only applies to U.S. citizens and nationals.
c.Applies to both white and black Americans but not Asians.
d.Only applies to U.S. citizens born on U.S. soil.
Ans: a.Applies to all persons within the jurisdiction of the U.S.,
citizens and aliens alike.
In Estate of Tetsubumi Yano 1922, the court ruled that
a.Japanese immigrants could not own land, unless the land was used
for sharecropping.
b.Japanese immigrants could not own land, but could lease land for 3
years.
c.Japanese immigrants could not own land, but could farm the land
that was purchased under the names of their American born children.
All rights reserved © 2025/ 2026 |
, Page |2
d.Japanese immigrants could not own land, unless they worked in the
legal profession.
Ans: c.Japanese immigrants could not own land, but could farm
the land that was purchased under the names of their American
born children.
In Wong Kim Ark v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled, in 1898,
that
a.Chinese could not become citizens, even if they were born in the U.S.
b.Those who were born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens and could always
return to the United States regardless of their ethnicity.
c.The only way to keep one's citizenship was to remain in the U.S.
d.Chinese could not re-enter the United States even if they were born
in the U.S.
Ans: b.Those who were born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens and
could always return to the United States regardless of their
ethnicity.
In Toyota v. the United States, the court ruled that
a.Filipinos were not "aliens" and therefore could not be classified as
"alien ineligible for citizenship."
b.Japanese could gain citizenship if served in U.S. Military.
All rights reserved © 2025/ 2026 |
, Page |3
c.Filipinos were "alien ineligible for citizenship."
d.Filipino and Japanese children could go to integrated schools.
Ans: a.Filipinos were not "aliens" and therefore could not be
classified as "alien ineligible for citizenship."
In the United States v. Thind, the court
a.Denied Asian Indians the right to bring their wives from South Asia to
the United States because they were not citizens.
b.Denied Asian Indian the right to own land.
c.Denied Asian Indian immigrants the right to return to the US after
they participated in the Ghadar movement.
d.Denied Asian Indians the right to be naturalized U.S. citizens because
they were not "white persons."
Ans: d.Denied Asian Indians the right to be naturalized U.S.
citizens because they were not "white persons."
Asian immigrants utilized the judiciary system to challenge
discriminatory laws in the late 19th and early 20th centuries
a.Based on their understanding of the American government system
and the US constitution.
b.Based on common practices in Asia.
All rights reserved © 2025/ 2026 |
, Page |4
c.Because many second-generation Asian Americans were in the legal
profession.
d.Because they were guided by the Confucius ideology.
Ans: a.Based on their understanding of the American
government system and the US constitution.
The court denied the entry of wives of Chinese laborers during the
exclusion and decided
a.that wives of Chinese laborer would be classified as laborers, even if
they never labored outside the home.
b.that Chinese women would take away jobs of American workers.
c.that the United States would not allow women of small feet to
immigrate.
d.that no picture brides would be acceptable.
Ans: a.that wives of Chinese laborer would be classified as
laborers, even if they never labored outside the home.
The lobby to win admission of citizens' Chinese wives was led in public
by
a.CCBA, the federation of Chinese immigrant organizations
b.Chinese American citizens alliance
All rights reserved © 2025/ 2026 |
ASAM 1 Quizzes Review Pt. 2 Questions
and Correct Answers/ Latest Update /
Already Graded
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the equal
protection clause of the 14th Amendment
a.Applies to all persons within the jurisdiction of the U.S., citizens and
aliens alike.
b.Only applies to U.S. citizens and nationals.
c.Applies to both white and black Americans but not Asians.
d.Only applies to U.S. citizens born on U.S. soil.
Ans: a.Applies to all persons within the jurisdiction of the U.S.,
citizens and aliens alike.
In Estate of Tetsubumi Yano 1922, the court ruled that
a.Japanese immigrants could not own land, unless the land was used
for sharecropping.
b.Japanese immigrants could not own land, but could lease land for 3
years.
c.Japanese immigrants could not own land, but could farm the land
that was purchased under the names of their American born children.
All rights reserved © 2025/ 2026 |
, Page |2
d.Japanese immigrants could not own land, unless they worked in the
legal profession.
Ans: c.Japanese immigrants could not own land, but could farm
the land that was purchased under the names of their American
born children.
In Wong Kim Ark v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled, in 1898,
that
a.Chinese could not become citizens, even if they were born in the U.S.
b.Those who were born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens and could always
return to the United States regardless of their ethnicity.
c.The only way to keep one's citizenship was to remain in the U.S.
d.Chinese could not re-enter the United States even if they were born
in the U.S.
Ans: b.Those who were born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens and
could always return to the United States regardless of their
ethnicity.
In Toyota v. the United States, the court ruled that
a.Filipinos were not "aliens" and therefore could not be classified as
"alien ineligible for citizenship."
b.Japanese could gain citizenship if served in U.S. Military.
All rights reserved © 2025/ 2026 |
, Page |3
c.Filipinos were "alien ineligible for citizenship."
d.Filipino and Japanese children could go to integrated schools.
Ans: a.Filipinos were not "aliens" and therefore could not be
classified as "alien ineligible for citizenship."
In the United States v. Thind, the court
a.Denied Asian Indians the right to bring their wives from South Asia to
the United States because they were not citizens.
b.Denied Asian Indian the right to own land.
c.Denied Asian Indian immigrants the right to return to the US after
they participated in the Ghadar movement.
d.Denied Asian Indians the right to be naturalized U.S. citizens because
they were not "white persons."
Ans: d.Denied Asian Indians the right to be naturalized U.S.
citizens because they were not "white persons."
Asian immigrants utilized the judiciary system to challenge
discriminatory laws in the late 19th and early 20th centuries
a.Based on their understanding of the American government system
and the US constitution.
b.Based on common practices in Asia.
All rights reserved © 2025/ 2026 |
, Page |4
c.Because many second-generation Asian Americans were in the legal
profession.
d.Because they were guided by the Confucius ideology.
Ans: a.Based on their understanding of the American
government system and the US constitution.
The court denied the entry of wives of Chinese laborers during the
exclusion and decided
a.that wives of Chinese laborer would be classified as laborers, even if
they never labored outside the home.
b.that Chinese women would take away jobs of American workers.
c.that the United States would not allow women of small feet to
immigrate.
d.that no picture brides would be acceptable.
Ans: a.that wives of Chinese laborer would be classified as
laborers, even if they never labored outside the home.
The lobby to win admission of citizens' Chinese wives was led in public
by
a.CCBA, the federation of Chinese immigrant organizations
b.Chinese American citizens alliance
All rights reserved © 2025/ 2026 |
