Immigration & Deportation

Immigration and Deportation:

Border Control, Politics, and Discrimination

Cameron Novak

HST306 - Perera 1,221 Words

While the government states that immigration and deportation laws are set as a mechanism to safeguard our country and its sovereignty, the facts appear to tell a slightly different story. Immigration and deportation laws can be, and have been, created in a discretionary way and are often used for political purposes, which has led to a history of discriminatory thinking and action.

In the book Deportation Nation, by Daniel Kanstroom, Kanstroom smartly divides the deportation laws into two distinct types, “extended border control”, and “post-entry social control” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pg. 5). While the numerous immigration and deportation laws in our country could be divided up in a multitude of different ways, Kanstroom’s division makes sense. As you’ll soon see, laws in each group can be tools utilized to forward political purposes or discriminatory beliefs in the name of sovereignty.

Before getting into the discretionary immigration/deportation laws, I’d like to take a minute to explain the two types of immigration/deportation laws mentioned above.

As Kanstroom explains, extended border control is comprised of laws designed to both control those lands within the borders of the United States, and draw a distinct line placing each person firmly within the category of “citizen” or “noncitizen”. These laws make the determination regarding who may enter our country with legal right. They can also allow deportation for those who have evaded border controls, or violated specific terms under which they were allowed entry. Kanstroom further explains that the post-entry social control types of laws are designed to govern the conduct of those within the U.S. borders. He goes as far as to state that these laws were based on “eternal probation” or an “eternal guest” model, meaning that noncitizens here legally “are harbored subject to the whim of the government and may be deported for any reason” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pg. 6).

It is my opinion that the act of allowing someone into the country necessarily creates a legal relationship with that person. As such, it is also my belief that those who have not been given legal entry into our country do not have a legal relationship with our country and are without any rights therein.

While you might note that laws in either of these groups might be used in a discriminatory way, the uses under the post-entry social control are more troubling as we have a legal relationship with those people in our country than those of which we have refused entry. While a bulk of these laws go against the belief by many in free movement rights (the ability to go where one chooses), most agree that some type of regulation is necessary to secure national borders. In a perfect world, free movement would be the ideal. Unfortunately, we’re not living in a perfect world. This can be seen in many examples of our immigration and deportation laws which I’ll touch on briefly below.

One of the notable uses of discriminatory laws related to immigration/deportation was during the Red Scare of 1919, fueled by fear of the U.S. being overthrown by immigrants. In this situation, post-entry social control laws were used to justify raiding (Palmer Raids) suspected radical organizations and deporting many aliens suspected of adhering to socialist, communist, or anarchist ideologies. As this action was related to those already within our country and subject to our laws, the laws utilized for raids and deportations falls under the post-entry social control type of law and in some instances is a clear use of discrimination of those with altering beliefs. Having a particular belief isn’t criminal, but that doesn’t stop the authorities from utilizing the laws with supreme discretion. Note that even government authorities were not exempt from such discriminative action, as the act of Red-Baiting showed. Red-Baiting was the practice of identifying/uncovering suspected communist sympathizers within the U.S. government.

Post-entry social control laws are not unique to the United States, or recent. The 1740 Plantation Act was another example of a post-entry social control as it dealt with those already within our borders (at that time under English rule). Under this law, naturalization was conferred upon those who had resided in any American colony for at least seven years. This law was another example of a discriminatory law as it specified that only non-Catholics were eligible.

Another similarly discriminatory post-entry social control law was The Naturalization Act of 1790, which offered naturalization to free white persons after two years of residence in the United States (with other restrictions). Overt discrimination against those who were not white was widely acceptable, if clearly wrong. Similar laws were The Naturalization Act of 1795, and The Naturalization Act of 1798, with residence requirements of 5 years and fourteen years respectively.

In looking at laws that fall under Kanstroom’s “extended border control”, there are several examples, some of which are just as discriminatory as post-entry social controls mentioned above. In the History 306 History of Deportation course headed by Judith Perera at Arizona State University, special attention is given to the laws designed to keep Mexican citizens from entering and remaining in the United States. These situations are a clear example of extended border control laws in two different ways. Certain laws restrict who may come in from Mexico, while others are focused on the recourse against those who have evaded border controls. These laws, while especially notable on the southern U.S. border, also affect those of other races and from other countries (the Fong Yue Ting deportation case of 1893 as one example). Discriminatory immigration/deportation activities were not limited to the post-entry social control model as we can see many instances of discrimination utilizing laws that fall under the extended border control type as well.

Another example of actions taken under the extended border control laws comes in the way of those allowed into the country for specific purposes or with specific conditions such as student visas, or work visas. People entering under these allowances can at some point in the future fail to meet the requirements under the agreement and as such, be subject to arrest and removal from our country. This is an example of a law which allows deportation due to violation of a specific condition under which they were admitted to the United States. While these requirements may seem straightforward, the opportunity for misuse of the law in a discriminatory manner is still present.

While understanding deportation laws through the lenses of “extended border control laws” or “post-entry social control” laws may be useful for some, many others, including those persons the laws affect (especially in a negative way) would likely argue that the categorization of the laws are much less important than the effect they have on aliens in the United States. I fall under the latter group as categorization of the law doesn’t change the effect of the laws or enforcement thereof.

In conclusion, I think I can safely say that the proof is irrefutable that many of our immigration/deportation laws have allowed discriminatory behavior undertaken in the name of U.S. security. Here’s to hoping we’ll all deal with immigration and deportation with a blind eye to our personal differences in the near future.

References

Kanstroom, D. (2007). Deportation Nation. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.

Immigration and Deportation:

Early Formation Of Our Deportation System And The Second Wave

Cameron Novak

HST306 – Perera 740 Words

As you might recall, my last blog post was centered around author Daniel Kanstroom’s delineation between extended border control and post-entry social control and the history of discrimination and the misuse of power in administering associated laws.

Today, I’d like to revisit Kanstroom’s Deportation Nation and take a look back to the early formation of America’s deportation system and compare it to a period Kanstroom labels the “second wave”. Particular focus will be given to differences (and commonalities) between these two periods, and my take on Kanstroom’s position that the latter period was one of expansion and refining of earlier laws.

Early formation of deportation laws occurred in the second half of the 19^th century with the Immigration Act of 1864. The laws enacted within the period Kanstroom labels the “second wave” occur after the start of the 20^th century with the passage of the 1917 Immigration act.

Early formation of our entry laws are seen in the Immigration Act of 1864, which was passed in order to encourage immigration for the main purpose of labor needs in America. As Kanstroom notes, in the decades that followed, “the national mood had changed” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pg. 93). Looking forward to the Second Wave, laws were clearly more restrictive and many (such as the Immigration Act of 1917) added onerous requirements on immigrants, if not excluding them from our country entirely. An example of the Second Wave expanding and refining earlier laws is seen in the 1917 act which “expanded” earlier Chinese exclusions such as the 1880 treaty with China which excluded Chinese from America for twenty years. The 1917 act expanded the exclusion to include “most Asians” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pg. 132).

It is of interest to note that many early deportation laws were focused on the entry of foreigners (or more appropriately, the prevention of entry to certain foreigners). Examples of these types of laws include the Immigration Act of 1864 which limited purpose of entry, the Scott Act of 1888 and 1875 Page Act which both “forbade the entry of certain Asian laborers” (the latter also “excluded certain convicts and prostitutes”)(Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pg. 93). In contrast with these exclusionary laws in the earlier period, many laws enacted during Kanstroom’s Second Wave not only sought to exclude certain people from entry, but to expand on our ability to deport those already here. Examples of this can be seen in the Immigration Act of 1917, the 1920 “Act to deport…”, and the Volstead Act.

Laws enacted during the Second Wave also can be seen to have expanded or refined earlier laws by adding subjective language serving those who enforce them. This is clearly seen in the statutory verbiage focused on crimes “involving moral turpitude” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pg. 135). While some may argue this is a poor excuse for “refining” a law, those who enacted it were well satisfied that the vague wording gave enforcers a wide latitude with which to act. This verbiage was intended to allow deportation of those already in America and again shows an evolution from earlier laws seeking primarily to restrict entry.

While the two periods Kanstroom discusses have much in common, chiefly the desire to limit the number of aliens within our borders, differences were notable. I feel that while early period laws dealt with exclusion and deportation of some already in the country, actions (such as the Bisbee Deportation) and laws of the latter period were brought about as a result of decades of immigration during which many immigration laws were improperly enacted and poorly enforced. The result being enhanced personal prejudices which led to expanded laws designed to allow our citizenry and authorities to single out and deport those they didn’t understand and accept. Many times in the latter period, laws were ignored and groups of people were deported from localized areas within the country due to race. Such was the case in Bisbee in 1917. Based on my interpretation above, of the differences in the periods, I believe Kanstroom to be justified in his claim that the Second Wave did much in the way of expanding and refining earlier laws. As we look back now, it’s clear that while the Second Wave laws expanded and refined earlier laws, they did much to retard the advancement of the idea of America being a welcoming “melting pot”. Here’s to hoping our future leans more towards that melting pot and away from bigotry, hate, and prejudices.

References

Kanstroom, D. (2007). Deportation Nation. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.

Deportation Nation: A Look At Daniel Kanstroom’s Assessment Of The U.S. Deportation System

Cameron Novak

HST306 – Perera 1,350 Words

This will be my final entry to the 2017 Summer Immigration and Deportation Blog Series. During this series, I have written to address the basic types of immigration law, discussed benefits to understanding deportation through the different types of laws, compared and contrasted “early formation” and the “second wave”, and now finally, I’d like to consider Daniel Kanstoom’s overall assessment of the U.S. Deportation System.

In his book Deportation Nation, Daniel Kanstroom argues, “As a 100-plus years social experiment, the U.S. deportation system has caused considerable harm and done little demonstrable good. It is poorly planned, irrationally administered, and, as a model on which to base other enforcement systems, dangerous… In the end, the history of deportation law shows us how integral the removal impulse has been to our nation of immigrants” (Kanstroom, 2007).

While I enjoyed the topics, historical accounts, and court case reviews included in the book, I feel that Kanstroom was a bit narrow minded when dismissing the entirety of our immigration/deportation system as “harmful”, “Dangerous”, and as having “done little demonstrable good”. While I think Kanstroom’s assessment has a considerable amount of merit, I feel he’s done a disservice to his readers by glossing over or omitting benefits of previous events. This post is dedicated to reviewing some of the terms and concepts of Kanstroom’s book, while also pointing out benefits related to several of the events mentioned therein.

The underlying benefit, or “demonstrable good” associated with many of the events mentioned in Deportation Nation is the result the event brought future generations. Please consider that those who have been wronged and have seen wrong are the first to recognize the errors of the past and take steps to avoid such wrongs in the future. Disturbing events such as the Indian Removal Act fo 1830, Acadian Deportation, Bisbee Deportation, post-WWI political deportations, ideological deportations, Japanese Internment, and many more events that shake the foundations our country was founded on, also give rise to discourse which begets liberty and progress.

Taking a look at the Red Scare and Palmer Raids, I agree that the Palmer raids went a bit too far and jeopardized the rights of those in America, but it cannot be said that the Red Scare was not somewhat justified. Several acts of anarchy and violence were perpetrated in the name of communism here in the U.S. and the citizens were rightly concerned about the potential for a “revolution” to take place in America. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917 which sought the overthrow of capitalism for communism was enough to scare any country into fearing the same could happen to them. The Palmer Raids, actions based on such fears, without question, rose to a level well beyond acceptable to any reasonable citizen, but our history is filled with events that helped our nation evolve to be a world leader in civil liberties and this event is no exception. The Red Scare and Palmer Raids did much to bring the civil liberty narrative to the forefront of public discourse. This front page from The New Majority in 1920 demonstrates the discussion of liberties which arose from the raids…

Photo Link: The New Majority - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Palmer-Raids

The Bisbee Deportation of 1917 was another event in our history which while having serious issues in the way of ignoring civil liberties, did much to advance the discussion of liberties, deportation, labor laws, and unions. Striking miners (see photo) were captured, detained, and deported as a result of their peaceful labor strike.

Photo Link: Striking miners detained by armed posse members in July 1917 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisbee_Deportation#/media/File:Bisbee_deportation_ballpark.jpg

During the Bisbee event, several newspapers carried daily reports, which helped to forward public discourse regarding citizen liberties and labor laws.

Photo Link: Newpapers reporting daily on the Bisbee Deportations

http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/bisbee/primarysources/newspapers/

As Sheila Bonnand from Arizona University wrote, “The Bisbee Deportation of 1917 was not only a pivotal event in Arizona's labor history, but one that had an effect on labor activities throughout the country” (Bonnand, 1997). The event was also helpful in highlighting the problems with the jury system in that guilty parties could evade punishment simply by having like minded jurors ruling in their case (see State of Arizona v. Wooten).

Many political deportations also did much to forward the discourse on issues pertinent to citizens. Such notable deportations Kanstroom mentions are those of Marcus Garvey, Emma Goldman, and Peter Frank. The deportation of Emma Goldman was particularly effective in raising the attention to rights violations. After the charismatic Goldman was deported as a result of her husband being denaturalized, many were moved by the event. Kanstroom writes, “Indeed, Goldman articulated a view of the importance of free speech in the United States that was to be later championed… by Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.” (Kanstroom, 2007).

The deportation of John Turner in 1903, another well known event in deportation history, revolved around country loyalty and was also a catalyst for positive change. Turner was deported for his anti-american government leanings. As Kanstroom writes of the event, “The case became a cause célèbre, in large part because many saw the statute as a direct assault on the First Amendment.” (Kanstroom, 2007). This event led to the formation of the Free Speech League.

America’s freedoms and liberties were also enhanced through these deportation/immigration struggles as evidenced by the outcome of yet another deportation case, where by the government sought to deport a man due to his “subversive thoughts and associations”. The Harry Bridges deportation case “influenced nearly thirty years of legal proceedings and public discourse” and led Supreme Court Justice Frank Murphy to write, “The record in this case will stand forever as a monument of man’s intolerance of man. Seldom if ever in the history of this nation has there been such a concentrated and relentless crusade to deport an individual because he dared to exercise the freedom that belongs to him as a human being and that is guaranteed to him by the Constitution” (Kanstroom, 2007). Such a stand being taken in the support of someone who so clearly hated those ideals our country was founded on was unheard of just a few years prior. Indeed, our history which has had its fair share of darkness, helped us to move toward the light.

While the list of events that initially shine a negative light on our immigration and deportation practices is long, the position they have in the advancement of ideals that hold all people as worthy of respect, liberty, and human rights is not to be diminished. Where once discretion was simply subject to mob rule, it has evolved to carefully worded statutes that advance the ideals of human value and liberties and continues to evolve. While not yet at a point where we can be proud of our immigration/deportation positions, they are arguably far better than they have been in the past, and far better than most of the countries in the world which have not endured the battle scars of the same fight.

In conclusion, I’d like to use a slavery analogy to make my final point. Our country went through a dark, divisive time during the period of slavery. Today, as a result of that turmoil, we are more cognizant than ever of the fact that each human has value and slavery is beyond the pale. It is clearly evident in looking at other countries which have not been through the struggle, as many still endure as slave holding peoples. In the same way the slavery struggle has ensured our country will never again be a slave nation, the struggles we’ve had with regard to immigration/deportation ensure we’ll continue on the road to a more perfect union.

References

Bonnand, S. (1997). Bisbee Deportation of 1917. Retrieved August 8, 2017, from

http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/bisbee/history/overview.html

Kanstroom, D. (2007). Deportation Nation. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.

Push, A. (2012, July). The Bolshevik Revolution. Retrieved August 8, 2017, from

http://apushredshare.weebly.com/the-bolshevik-revolution.html