In the Land of the Free

Eaton’s “In the Land of the Free” ties together two distinct narrative styles—journalistic objectivity and sympathetic characterization—to convey the frustrating and tragic situation that befalls Hom Hing and Lae Choo. By presenting their situation with the US immigration system clearly and directly, the story becomes difficult for readers to dispute. Similarly, it is easy for readers to imagine that this tale of family separation could, and very likely did, happen to many Chinese families as a result of racist legislation.

The narrative’s objective and factual tone is apparent in the interaction between Hom Hing and the customs officers who confront the family in the San Francisco port. They explain the matter of taking custody of Little One with an air of detachment, indicating that they are merely doing their jobs and complying with the law as written. One officer addresses Hom Hing with language that references official policy: “Seeing that the boy has no certificate entitling him to admission in this country you will have to leave him with us” (4). They lay out the facts of the situation and the word of the law plainly, without additional commentary or editorializing to convey that this is, quite simply, the legally correct and “right” thing to do.

Their matter-of-fact explanations contrast starkly with Hom Hing and Lae Choo’s more emotional and impassioned pleas. Even in his justification for why Little One is not registered on any of their papers, Hom Hing relies on a symbol—the tree in his wife’s dream—to note why he had Lae Choo return to China before giving birth:

‘He is my son.’ reiterated Hom Hing slowly and solemnly. ‘I am a Chinese merchant and have been in business in San Francisco for many years. When my wife told to me one morning that she dreamed of a green tree with spreading branches and one beautiful red flower growing thereon, I answered her that I wished my son to be born in our country, and for her to prepare to go to China’ (5).

The juxtaposition between Hom Hing and Lae Choo’s confusion and sorrow and the customs officers’ impersonal nature demonstrates the profound effects that US legal and immigration systems have on the individuals and families they are meant to serve. The distanced language used by the officers shows that there is no room for sentiment or familial ties when it comes to matters of the law. In this way, discrimination can be passed off as objective and rational because it is bolstered by legal language. The customs officers don’t need to engage with their prejudices or emotions because they can simply follow orders. Those who do not have the benefits or protections of white citizenship are not given the same power and feel the injustice more acutely, as shown in Lae Choo’s resistance to giving up her child.

The character of Lae Choo, the mother of the family, further showcases the limitations and contradictions of US immigration law and, crucially, highlights the specific difficulties of being a Chinese woman in America at this time. Not only does she lack the protections afforded to white women, but she is also subservient to her husband, who makes the final choices about their course of action when it comes to fighting for their son’s return. Notably, Lae Choo initially refuses to give the officers her child; her maternal instincts correctly identify that this is a dangerous situation. When her husband reassures her that they will only have to give up Little One for a short time, she responds in a voice “eloquent with pain” (5); however, she has little ground to resist either her husband or the male customs officers. Because she is “accustomed to obedience, she yielded the boy to her husband who in turn delivered him to the first officer” (5). Hom Hing is the intermediary between Lae Choo and the state; though he is also discriminated against as an Asian man, his role as patriarch allows him the hope that his participation in American capitalism provides him with some power. He resists conflict and trusts that the system will allow things to work out in their favor.

Lae Choo, by contrast, insists, demands, and works toward reunification with Little One, even when it costs her a great deal. She willingly gives up her precious jewelry to the lawyer, James Clancy, so that he may go to Washington to argue for Little One’s return. Although she is initially skeptical of his intentions, she is also willing to take chances to get her son back. Her position as a Chinese woman means that she is doubly marginalized when it comes to accessing resources, and her only option is to give up her personal items, removing them directly from her body as a kind of sacrifice. Her jewelry is symbolic—it is “pure China gold” and sentimental, given to Lae Choo by her parents and husband (10). Selling the jewelry to pay the lawyer represents how much this family must give up to be reunited in the United States. For Lae Choo, her role as a mother is everything. The framing of her as emotionally overcome, so much so that Hom Hing fears she might die, illustrates how deeply and palpably legal separation impacts families, mothers most of all.

Despite the effort expended and the sacrifices made by Lae Choo, reunification with Little One proves to be complicated, if not impossible. The story’s tone, heightened by the juxtaposition of emotion with dispassionate reason, foreshadows that there will be an unhappy outcome. The conclusion when Lae Choo travels to the mission to meet up with her son confirms this. Not only does the white woman who works there mention that Little One has been renamed, but she also speaks animatedly about him in a way that suggests love and intimacy. Furthermore, she remarks that despite being initially inconsolable, Little One soon “forgot” his attachment to his mother and became “bright and happy as a bird” (9). In this moment, Eaton emphasizes that familial attachment and motherly love are not as strong as one would think and can be altered through legal separation. Even as Lae Choo eagerly opens her arms to receive Little One, he does not view her as his mother anymore and clings instead to his caretaker’s skirts, highlighting the legal elevation of white femininity above women of color.

Eaton’s story ends without a clear resolution, but one can assume that the reunification of Lae Choo, Hom Hing, and Little One is painful, made so by a US legal system that emphasizes citizenship over kinship. Although the story’s title suggests that America is a land of possibility and freedom, the narrative tone and tragic outcome of the story illustrate the limits and contradictions of this freedom. For Chinese immigrant families, freedom comes at a great and often personal cost. If, as the narrative suggests, freedom is tied to legality and whiteness, it is often not fully attainable for these families at all.