Let me start by saying that there have been few if any things that Kanstroom has either said or expressed an opinion on, that I have not completely agreed with. That being said, I could not agree more with his opinion and idea the, “100-year social experiment that is the US deportation system” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 243) has had a massive and almost always negative effect on the US. The planning, ideas, enforcement of those ideas and the model from which our deportation policy is built on is completely flawed.
Let’s go back to the ideas that started a flawed system of deportation. We can first look at Kanstrooms ideas of two types of border control, Extended Border Control and Post Entry Social Control (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 5). Both of these types of controls where founded and have paved the foundation for the negative and always racial laws that followed. They also gave birth to events like the Palmer Raids. This was one of the first actually process of rounding up large groups of people for deportation. As Kanstroom puts it, it was against “Foreign Radicals” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 1). This is a prime example of how the US system of deportation started off on the wrong foot. People rounded up in these raids were not given any rights or the ability to defend themselves. Kanstroom put it best when he quoted a document from the time that states it was a, “continued violation of the Constitution and the Laws by the Attorney General at the time” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 1).
Citizenship in the States started out as a free venture. However shortly after, there would be laws that would put stipulations and unfair and unjust rules or required beliefs as requirements for citizenship. This would start with the Plantation Act of 1740; this law gave people the chance to become citizens, but with extremely racist and unfair restrictions. Kanstroom states that these were the following requirements, “you had to be non-catholic, reside in any colony for at least seven years, had to have received the sacrament in a protestant church, swore allegiance to the king of England and profess a belief in Christianity” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 25). For people who know about why people came to the colonies to escape religious persecution and start fresh, these demands seem rather backwards coming from people who left England for this same reason. At this point, there are now restrictions that disqualify people from entrance or gaining citizenship status.
The acts and laws that would follow would build on these already established dangerous and unethical laws. Few acts could be seen as more unethical and dangerous then that of the Acadian deportation of September 5th, 1755. According to Kanstroom the Acadians where, “settlers from the provinces of Northern France, Brittany, Normandy, Picardy and Poitou and they settled in modern day Nova Scotia” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 43). At the time, the colonies where primarily British and they feared, “the potential of dangerous French communities in their midst” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 43). This ultimately lead to the mass deporting and uprooting and of this entire group of people. This was allowed to happen because of another idea at the time of “Inhabitant vs Transient” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 35). This idea expressed that there was a major difference between a contributing member of a community who owns land or a business or a “Inhabitant” and a person who was either dependent on the government for their lively hood, did not have any ties or property or business in the community, or a “Transient”. This idea and class system for people still exist today. People are viewed to be in either one or the other categories. They are either treated with respect as upstanding members of the community or seen as less than or not belonging in a community or social situation.
Many laws that would build off of exclusion and fear would soon follow, laws such as the Alien Enemies Act, which allowed the government to restrain any person of the ethnic group that we as a country were at conflict with (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 55). Laws such as the Alien Friends Act, which build on the unjustness of the Alien Enemies Act, this gave the President the power to deport any alien he saw fit (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 56). The following Sedition Act would improve on these unjust laws and make it even harder for aliens to vote (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 60).
The next step in this system would then start to move towards the exclusion and specific expulsion of ethnic groups as a whole. Starting with the Immigration Act of 1864, which only allowed Chinese immigrants under the “Credit Ticket” system (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 93). This would lead to other acts and laws that would continue the racial exclusion of the Chinese. This could be seen best in the rules for the Scott Acts of 1888. These acts completely excluded any person or persons from China from being allowed entrance or to be allowed to return to the US if they had left for any reason (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page113). No better example of the effects of this act can be found then that of Chae Chan Ting. He was denied entrance to the US after leaving to go visit China, he was separated from his family and could not return despite having lived in the US and having a family residing there (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 113).
Following laws and acts would continue to be passed out of fear and prejudice. There would be other factors that were taken into consideration such as WWI, WWII, and The Great Depression. Though modern laws can be seen as moving in the right direction, such as the 1965 Immigration Acts. This act was a huge movement in US history that was the stepping stone in US immigration, which was the centerpiece in the Civil Rights Initiative (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 225). Many laws were passed with what might be seen as good intent, but did not end up being completely so. Laws such as The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which was considered a “Carrot and Stick” act (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 226). The “Stick” was sanctions against employers who knowingly hired illegal immigrants, that were required to complete forms and attest under penalty of perjury that the persons where authorized to work in the US (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 226). The “carrot” was that people who had lived in the US since January 1st, 1982 who could apply and possibly gain legal citizenship; however, if you were denied you would be deported (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 227).
It is Kanstrooms belief that laws, especially those that deal with deportation, do not leave room for what he calls “Descretionary Decision” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 231). This most accurately means that very little of the proceedings and decisions made about deportation have any positive forms of discretion. Kanstroom says, “a rough pragmatic definition is simply, the power to make a choice between alternative courses of action” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 231). Kanstroom discuses three types of discretion: prosecutorial, ultimate, and interpretive. Prosecutorial is what he describes as Agency Interpretive Discretion (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 236). Ultimate Discretion is, “The power to grant an adjustment of status is a power to dispense mercy” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 233). Last is Interpretive Discretion, which is “procedural interpretive discretion” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 237).
I have come to completely agree with Kanstrooms believe of this system being a “100-plus year social experiment that has caused considerable harm and done little to no demonstrable good” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 243). As I have learned about all the laws and acts that have come into play and have been passed, I have come to my own conclusion that is started out as a rather racist and excluding system and has continued to be so. The foundation of our deportation laws was constructed unfairly and with many flaws. Consequently, they have been built on and “improved on” in extremely similar ways. I still believe today that our laws and the process that the laws are enforced need to be reconstructed and redefined. They need to be able to have the ability to use discretion and take into account basic human rights and morality.