They think this due to finding fossils, artifacts, footprints, etc in africa leading into south america.
The drafting of the Code was the result of the accumulated experience of generations. A number of sources were tapped in the writing of the Code, including the Coutumes<span>, Roman law, Royal Ordinances, canon law, and Revolutionary law. Predominantly customary or common law prevailed. Customary law supplied the articles dealing with the disabilities of married women, community property, and succession. Roman law was the source for ownership, obligations, contracts and the marriage property system. Royal Ordinances served as the basis for certificates of civil status (the Ordinance of April 1667), gifts wills and entails (the Ordinances of 1731, 1735, and 1747), evidence (the Ordinance of Moulins of 1566 and the Ordinance of April 1667) and the redemption of mortgages (the Edict of 1771). Revolutionary laws were adopted for the age of majority, marriage, and the system of mortgages. The Civil Code enforced the Revolutionary laws dealing with the partition of estates among heirs. Canon law supplied rules dealing with marriage and legitimation. </span>
The San Francisco Borad of Supervisors blame the Chinese for these living conditions. They argue that it is as if the Chinese community existed in open defiance of the law and even say that they are stronger against the law than other races.
I do not agree with their assessment because it is profoundly racist, attributing this conditions to some racial essentialism and campaigning for the banning of Chinese citizens in American soil. Instead of this, the San Francisco Board of supervisors should try to address the political and social factors that have led the Chinese communities to live in those conditions: being denied certain jobs other than cooks or housemaids, affordable housing outside of ghettoes and the financial stability to look after their families, communities and the improvement of their spaces in the city.