—the Supreme Court held that Japanese were not'white'and, accordingly, ineligible for naturalization.

—it is now established beyond successful challenge that a court may seek out any reliable evidence as to legislative purpose regardless of whether the statutory language appears to be clear.

—the Court held that a man of the "Japanese race born in Japan" was not a "white person" and therefore was not qualified to be naturalized under the country's then-racially restrictive naturalization laws.

—holding that Japanese citizens were ineligible for US citizenship under the naturalization laws because the law was limited to "free white persons and to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent

"[E] ven when the plain meaning did not produce absurd results but merely an unreasonable one `plainly at variance with the policy of the legislation as a whole'this Court has followed that purpose, rather than the literal words. "

—ruled that “the words 'white persons' were meant to indicate only a person of what is popularly known as the Caucasian race,” and since Ozawa was “clearly of a race which is not Caucasian,” 8 he was ineligible for naturalization.

Thirty years later the Court again taught that if giving the words of the statute their natural significance "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 …

There is, of course, no more persuasive evidence of the purpose of a statute than the words by which the legislature undertook to give expression to its wishes.

"White" in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries meant citizenship, and individuals of Asian ancestry attempted to define themselves as "white" in order to naturalize and acquire the rights attendant to citizenship

—ruled against a Japanese man who met all the naturalization requirements except for his racial identification and contended he was not of Caucasian origin.

[CITATION] United States v. American Trucking Assns., Inc.