My Blog

EARLY DEVELOPMENT

Citizenship, that stems from English roots, has been established based on an individual’s place of birth. The act of deportation that has evolved overtime, as ones’ legal status has been questioned, leads us to the laws that are now enforced today. Based on the book, Deportation Nation: Outsiders in American History, by Daniel Kanstroom, he argues that there are two basic types of deportation laws. While there are many different deportation laws that have been established in the New World, it is the extended border control and post-entry social control, that are the umbrella of those laws; they are the most useful types to understanding deportation laws because they are clear concepts that explain what fosters deportation and represents sovereign power.

The first of the two deportation laws is extended border control which demonstrates absolute power. It breaks down the supreme power by both land restrictions and creating division between a citizen and noncitizen. There are two versions of this law, the first being an individual being deported because of “… surreptitious entry or by fraud or misrepresentation” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 5). The second variant is deporting an alien because they violated the initial reasoning they were permitted to enter the country. The second of the two deportation laws is the post-entry social control which is deporting a noncitizen for violating the law after being admitted into the country. The noncitizen may have violated the law without initially being addressed of what is considered a crime. Any individual that is not a citizen may be deported at any time for any intention.

These two modern terms, being the umbrella of deportation laws, correlate with both antecedent events and present laws. According to Kanstroom, “Such post-entry social control deportation laws derive from what might be termed an “eternal probation” or an “eternal guest” model” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 6). The “eternal guest” model correlates with post-entry social control because according to the definition it states that individuals are subject to the control of the government and its desire to deport for any intention. The term freedom of movement falls into both deportation laws because they limit the rights of noncitizens movement. Kanstroom, states, “The law… requires all noncitizens to report changes of address within ten days” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 3). This law strips the control and privacy from freely moving without documenting their whereabouts. They are legally required to have their every move documented. They also can both exile an individual back to their place of origin under their jurisdiction.

Palmer raids and the Red scare were events that took place to deport individuals that were a threat to the United States. They both fall into post-entry social control law because they both conducted these events after the noncitizens were established in the United States. The aliens were accused of having intentions of possibly violating a crime as a Leftist. Kanstroom, quotes a deportation law regarding the right to deport any individual that has the motive to oppose, control, or overthrow the U.S. government (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 3). They fall into border control laws because they were supposed to be loyal to the U.S., but they presumably had too much loyalty to their country of origin causing them to become deported. It is a crime to join a group that has a motive of going against the United States government which is justification for deportation.

The Alien Enemies Act correlates with post-entry social control law because it involved deporting any individual during a time of hostility with their native country. The post-entry social control law had the right to deport any noncitizen for any reason and, therefore, had the right to deport a noncitizen during a time where they became a threat simply due to affiliation of the hostile country. The Alien Friends Law gave the President the right to deport any individual that deemed a danger to the United States. It, therefore, fell under the post-entry social control. The Sedition Act banned the right to negatively write, or print about the U.S. An example of the Sedition Act in action was in regards to John Daly Burk. According to Kanstroom, “Although he knew that Pickering was watching his words and writings carefully, … he reportedly had said of the French coming to America that “he wished to God they would…” Burk later denied these statements” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 61). It falls under the post-entry social control law because it clearly monitored any criminal violations to the Act; Similarly, the law monitors, for an unlimited time, immigrants in America after they reside in the country in search of any criminal behavior.

The terms inhabitant and transient were difficult to decipher, but correlate with border control laws because under this law it clearly defines the difference between a citizen and a noncitizen. It distinguishes the terms in such a way that ensures there is no misunderstanding which was an issue that they faced in New England. Kanstroom, states, “… a proto-deportation system, known as “warning out,” developed in New England... they required “more scrutinized means for sustaining social order” … [orders] might also derive from socially objectionable or minor criminal behavior, such as trespassing, or owning an annoying dog” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 35-36). The warning out system was an early method to charge a noncitizen of wrongdoing to deport them out of the state. It uses the same method for social control that is used under post-entry social control.

Extended border control and post-entry social control are two types of deportation laws that act as the umbrella for both antecedent and present events/laws regarding noncitizens; To grasp a better understanding of deportation laws it is important to recognize the usefulness of both extended border control and post-entry social control laws. Throughout history there are events, laws, and personal testimonies that have taken place that has led America to the deportation laws that are established and in use today. After reading Kanstroom’s input of where deportation laws have originated from: English roots, slavery, Native American removal, and the list continues, it is understood that as time progressed these events and laws have enabled modification to establish laws that are present today. These two laws have been clearly established stating the differences between a citizen and noncitizen. They clearly show absolute power that is in the hands of the President and break down what is grounds for deportation, which could be for any reason.

Understanding the two types of laws gives insight on the inhumanity of deportation laws. It clarifies that anyone is subject to deportation and may never be addressed of any crimes that may lead them to being exiled. It demonstrates that human beings given the opportunity to reside in this country temporarily are forbidden to steer away from the initial purpose that granted them the right to stay in America. They must remain devoted to what granted them access to this country no matter if someone passes away, they get sick, they lose their job, or for any personal reason. If they steer away from that reason, then they risk becoming deported. These two laws give insight on the sovereign power that the government has over noncitizens. Understanding the absolute power and the lack of rights given to noncitizens that are represented in these two laws, allows for a better understanding of the events that have taken place, and deportation laws that have been established. It is the control of society by the government that remains the overall goal through these laws. To ensure the “safety” of the country they wrote these two laws which allow them to continually monitor noncitizens and deport them at their own leisure. Therefore, it is useful to use these two laws as the lens of deportation laws because they signify the absolute power that the government has by developing a flexibility of justification to deport a noncitizen.

Work Cited

Kanstroom, Daniel. Deportation Nation: Outsiders in American History. (Cambridge:

Harvard University Press, 2007).

"Second wave"

The early formation of deportation laws was shifting towards expansion and unpredictable change. According to the book, Deportation Nation: Outsiders in American History, by Daniel Kanstroom, argues in Chapter 3 and 4 that a “second wave” occurred where the laws of deportation were detailed and polished through events that focused on excluding particular gender, racial, and political groups. Kanstroom’s focal points are on different groups, but the two chapters focus on how those groups correlate with the evolvement of deportation laws. It is not only that the two chapters expand the early formation of the modern deportation laws, but Chapter 4 piggybacks on laws and cases, such as the Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1896) and the Immigration Act of 1891, in Chapter 3.

Chapter 3 and 4 both focused on excluding a group of people that were seen as a “threat” to America by not only expanding the early deportation laws, but establishing new laws. In Chapter 3, Kanstroom, states, “…Senator John T. Morgan [stated] … “After you have got the Chinese here and they become incorporated … the power will be found wanting to expel them”” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 115). He states this after the Scott Act of 1888, which forbid Chinese travelers from entering and returning to America, was enacted. Later in Chapter 4 he states, “… Mexican workers eventually became the prototypical illegal aliens… But its roots lie in massive labor recruitment by U.S. employers” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 159). This statement comes about after the 1924 law. Initially both the Chinese and Mexicans were lured into America through opportunities in labor and then introduced to laws that restricted them. Eventually, in each chapter, these two laws arose demonstrating that despite the differences in groups they were both targets for deportation. Kanstroom argues that both groups entered the country because of labor opportunities, but then were undesired people.

The Chinese experienced not only unpredictable change in laws, but endured Violence in the West due to many reasons to include their appearance. After the Scott Act of 1888 the Geary Act of 1982 required proof of legality. It was almost impossible to offer proof because a credible White witness was required. Much like the Chinese, the Mexicans endured a mixed reception following their arrival; especially after the 1924 law was passed which made extended border controls stricter. During the following years they endured admission laws that required them to validate their literacy and experienced restrictions when arriving to the border. Both groups were restricted with laws and impossible means to remain in the country.

The similar developments between the two chapters lies among groups of people that were excluded, or deported by any means. According to Kanstroom, he states, “Exclusion had always been pregnant with deportation” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 115). He argues that throughout history if not one group, then it shall be another. It was groups of people such as the Chinese, Mexicans, women, prostitutes, Germans, certain people from Europe, and radicals. Events took place where the public took matters into their own hands to exclude groups. This was represented in both chapters. In Chapter 3 the violence in the West consisted of brutality, exclusion, and deportation of the Chinese based on being undesirable people. In Chapter 4 the Bisbee Deportation demonstrated brutality on strikers by abandoning them to a desert without shelter.

Despite the fact that Kanstroom argues the exclusion of unwanted groups in America in both Chapters 3 and 4, there are vast differences in the development of both chapters. Chapter 3 focuses on the exclusion of the Chinese and laws that extended the deportation system. Chapter 4 focuses on a multitude of groups such as Bolsheviks, Mexicans, Radicals, other groups of people, crime, and ideologies. In Chapter 3, Kanstroom mentions an anarchist leader named Emma Goldman who “was a naturalized U.S. citizen” that was eventually deported “simply for being an anarchist” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 150-151). Mrs. Goldman once a citizen and then deported based on political views is a different development structure from excluding Asians from America. Deportation is the umbrella between the two chapters, but under it stems different groups that are affected by laws enacted to deport, or exclude.

Chapter 4 expands modern deportation laws to a broader audience, but it does not refine them. It does extend the post-entry social control deportation law with the 1917 Immigration Act that offered no time limit and allowed for deportation after entry. For that reason, I can agree that it expands the formation of the modern deportation laws. It is because the chapter is broad on the targets for deportation with still no solid basis for whom, or what can deport an individual that steers me to disagree that the laws were refined. Kanstroom argues a variety of cases from political nationalist such as Marcus Garvey, who eventually was deported, to “slacker raids” that consisted of drafting men to war and causing a riot against noncitizens. The chapter only created a broader spectrum for deportation. Therefore, Chapters 3 and 4 both have similarities and differences, but overall, demonstrate expansion of the modern deportation laws.

Work Cited

Kanstroom, Daniel. Deportation Nation: Outsiders in American History. (Cambridge:

Harvard University Press, 2007).