環太平洋帝国アメリカにおける統治権力と移動の権利――フィリピン系住民のハワイ市民権認定を事例として――

<p>The United States of America became a trans-Pacific empire at the turn of the 19th/20th century, in that it possessed formal colonies, namely Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam and the Philippines. However, it did not mean that they were governed uniformly. Hawaii was “incorporated” while the others were not. The United States citizenship was applied to Hawaii; another type of citrzenship was created for the Philippines and Guam; citizenship of any kind was not granted to American Samoa. Furthermore, the life course of these islands showed different outcomes. Hawaii became a state; the Philippines gained independence; Guam and American Samoa ate unincorporated territories even to this day.</p><p>Despite these differences, there were certain commonalities. People intermarried and population became racially and ethnically mixed in each territory. Along with this intermixing, power relations were established around sexuality and race. These characteristics of colonial societies resulted in differences in rights of movement for different Asian ethnicities at different time periods. Starting from the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the so-called “aliens ineligible for citizenship” gradually expanded into other Asian ethnicities: Japanese in 1924 and Filipinos in 1934. After they were designated as such, it was prohibited not only to move to the mainland United States but to move from one insular territory to another.</p><p>According to John Torpey and Adam McKeown, the modern state controls the movement of people across its borders by checking the traveler’s passport. Torpey further claims that the modern state “penetrates” and “embraces” the society for its own survival and that the state’s monopolization of the legitimate means of movement is an extension of this “embracement.” On the other hand, Toshio Iyotani interrogates the primacy of the modern state as a form of governmentality and insists that it would be more beneficial to see the place from the perspective of movement.</p><p>Based on Torpey’s characterizatron but responding to the call of Iyotani, I have analyzed the fine lines drawn among the Filipino people’s desire for movement, the INS rules, and actual responses of the INS office in Honolulu. As a result, two findings were made. First, the INS checked on the identity of the Filipino applicants by testing their testimonies against the network of the existent documents. The applicant needed to prove his own legitimate status. This aspect can be described as a normal procedure in accordance with the characteristics of the modern state. Second, certain laws applicable in the mainland U.S. were applied haphazardly in Hawaii. One was the Cable Act, in which a female American cittzen lost her citizenship by marrying a male “alien ineligible for citizenship.” An American citizen retained her citizenship even after marrying a Filipino but lost it when she married a Japanese. The other was the right of return. A half-Chinese half-Filipino resident was initially prevented from returning to Hawaii. She was able to return only after submitting a “section 6 certificate” as a Chinese “traveler.” Filipinos on the other hand were issued “unofficial reentry permit” prior to departure from Hawaii.</p><p>In conclusion, Hawaii showed the characteristics of “contact zone.” The applicant needed to testify to prove his or her legitimacy. Hence, he or she needed to avoid the identification as a “Chinese” or as a member of an undesirable class. At the same time, certain laws were applied so haph azardly that the applicant needed to know which laws were applicable in Hawaii in order to avoid the trap of illegitimacy.</p>