In 1921, a certain John Mohammed Ali became a naturalized citizen of the US. In 1925, this grant of citizenship was contested (United States v. Ali 7 F.2d 728 (1925) by Martin J. Kilsdonk, a United States naturalization examiner. His affidavit:
[A]lleges in substance that said defendant was born in Karpurthala, in the province of Punjab, India, on January 10, 1875, arrived in the United States on June 2, 1900, and has resided in the state of Michigan, in this district, since April 1, 1911; that when the said certificate was issued to him he was not a free white person nor a person of African nativity or descent; that such certificate was illegally procured, within the meaning of section 15 of the Naturalization Act, as decided by the United States Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U. S. 204, 43 S. Ct. 338, 67 L. Ed. 616, on February 19, 1923; and that, therefore, good and sufficient grounds exist for the cancellation of said certificate.
In United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind the Supreme Court had ruled that Thind, an Indian asking for naturalization on the grounds he was a Caucasian, and therefore eligible, was instead ineligible on the grounds he was not ‘white.’ The Supreme Court rejected the ‘scientific’ classifications of ‘race’ that ran together ‘White’ and ‘Caucasian’ and instead relied on the ‘common knowledge’ that Asian Indians, ‘Hindoos’, were not ‘Whites.’
Ali, for his part, had attempted to circumvent the impact of this ruling by claiming that he was of Arabian descent and therefore not Indian, not-not-White:
[H]e is not a “Hindu” of full Indian blood, but is an Arabian of full Arabian blood. While admitting that he is a native of India, as his ancestors for several centuries have also been, he contends that originally his ancestors were Arabians, who invaded the territory now known as India, and settled and remained there, but have been careful not to intermarry with “the native stock of India,” and have “kept their Arabian blood line clear and pure by intermarriage within the family.”
The court rejected this line of reasoning:
I am unable to follow the argument thus sought to be made. No reason has been suggested, and I can discover none, why the mere fact that the early ancestors of the defendant came to India from Arabia, where they had been called Arabians, renders the defendant a white person. His skin is certainly not white, but unmistakably dark, like that of the other members of his race.
The court ruled for the plaintiff, and stripped Ali of his citizenship, concluding:
He is a native of the continent of Asia, specifically of the country of India, and more specifically of the province of Punjab, the place of the nativity of the alien held, in the case of United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, supra, not to be a white person. Clearly, all of the conclusions of the Supreme Court in that case, as well as the reasons on which they are based, are equally applicable to this defendant.
The court also noted:
He admits that his ancestry, like that of other races residing in India, originally sprang from Caspian Mediterranean stock. It would seem that the most that could be claimed by him, by reason of Arabian ancestry, would be membership in the Caucasian race.
And so we have it folks, the official holding: Punjabis (whether Hindu or Arabian) are not White. We just can’t seem to catch a break.
Samir Chopra 
This is interesting in light of the 1909 Dept of Justice case in Los Angeles involving George Shishim, who was determined to be white and not Chinese-Mongolian, as some Syrian-Lebanese were classified. (Some of my ancestors who lived in Los Angeles at that time were listed in the Census as Turkish, Syrian, and Mongolian Turkish, and came to the U.S. on Ottoman Turkish passports.) It’s my understanding, though I haven’t read the case myself, that the ‘winning’ argument linked the Syrians to Caucasian origins.
Teresa, thanks for the comment. And you are right. The Thind case overturned such precedents. There is a full appendix listing such cases in _White By Law: The Legal Construction of Race_ by Ian Lopez.
Southern india has more semitic heritage.
Arabs are semitic not Caucasian fair skin which is not all of them. Some are Caucasian due to mixing with Europen types .Do you actually really think punjabis are the only ones from Indian subcontinent have arabian heritage.
Punjabis have Arab heritage???? Are you kidding me???? Arabs are SEMITIC and Punjabis claim they are ARYAN. So how did they turn into Semitics overnight???