My Blog

Blog Post #1

After reading Deportation Nation, it is apparent that the U.S. deportation system does not rely on a “one-size-fits-all” category or reasoning for deporting aliens. Contrarily, there lies a large gray area in the way people are deported and the reasoning for their removal. To better comprehend the complexities of deportation law, author Daniel Kanstroom notes two types of deportation laws: extended border control and post-entry social control (Deportation Nation, 5). As seen in the Naturalization Acts, modern day workplace raids, and the Alien Friends Law, post entry social control and extended border control laws have been infused into the U.S. deportation system since the early ages of the nation.

To further explain, extended border control is a mechanism of deportation that occurs after the alien has entered the U.S. These laws have more to do with violating legal or documented means of entry into the U.S., and less to do with the conduct of the alien once in the states. Extended border control uses sovereign power to control the state’s territory and contribute to the legal classification of a citizen from noncitizen (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 5). These laws are further broken down into two subcategories. One subcategory are laws mandating deportation of people who have secretly surpassed border control through stealth or fraud (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 5). Lacking proof of residency, giving a fake identity, or illegally entering the U.S. by being smuggled in, for instance, are examples of ways people are deported under this category. These laws support more legitimate reasons of deportation because they back the U.S. border control regime. The second subcategory of extended border control laws deport a person if he or she violates the terms on which they were permitted entry into the U.S. Conditions are established for a noncitizen to remain in the U.S. Noncitizen students must maintain a full course load to stay in the country, for example (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 5). In other cases, someone with a work visa must work for a specific employer to avoid deportation example (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 5). Basically, the second subcategory of laws uses contracts or conditions for noncitizens to reside in the U.S.

The second type of deportation laws are post-entry social control. They are less legitimate ways of deportation and watch over the conduct of the alien in the country to determine if deportation is necessary. Post-entry social control governs the conduct of a noncitizen for a specific period and does not directly connect to visa issuance or immigration processes (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 6). Laws dictate criminal or political conduct, sometimes without a time limit (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 6). In a way, the individual is always on parole. Any misconduct, even minor, could be cause for deportation. Noncitizens are not required to know of these laws at entry and they can be applied retroactively (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 6). In other words, if a new law states “aliens” cannot be part of a specific political group, but they could do so before that law, the person still can be deported, even if the group affiliation was legal at the time they were members. Unlike extended border control, which tracks whether noncitizens are legally living in the U.S. by referring to contracts or visas, post-entry social control monitors the conduct of aliens for grounds of deportation.

An event exemplifying extended border control was an immigration raid in 2004 at a poultry plant in Arkansas (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 13). One-hundred nineteen noncitizens were taken into custody from the raid (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 13). This event was in part a result of the U.S. deeming eighty-six thousand noncitizens “present without authorization (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 13).” This is an extended border control event because aliens were deported after entry into the U.S. as part of the border control regime. The event made a legal distinction between citizens and non-citizens by only rounding up people who were unauthorized to be in the U.S. The raid did not pertain to criminal or political conduct, as it would have in a case of post-entry social control.

Cases of post-entry social control can be seen in several Naturalization Acts. To elaborate, the Naturalization Act of 1790 set the tone for deportation based on unclear misbehavior and race. It required a noncitizen to reside in the U.S. for two years (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 33). Naturalization was possible for any white person of “good moral character” who took an oath to the U.S Constitution (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 33). This act reflects post-entry social control laws because it proscribes conduct and immediately excludes any other ethnicity except Caucasians, thus controlling the ethnic climate of the U.S. “Good moral character” was a vague description of conduct allowed for citizenship, which permitted unfair and highly conditional reasons for deportation. If someone was poor, it could be grounds for deportation in some cases, but not in others. The Naturalization Act of 1795 increased the residence period before citizenshipto five years, reflecting fears of the Federalist party in response to the French Revolution (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 54). There was a great anxiety of French radicals and sympathizers of the French Revolution. Federalists were concerned of internal security and the possibility of rebellion in the U.S. Federalists disliked the Irish because Irish leaders might agree with French Revolution ideals and inspire insurrection in the U.S. (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 54). The residence period increased to five years so that noncitizens, particularly French and Irish immigrants, could not vote. The longer they had to wait for naturalization, the longer their political voices could be suppressed. In 1798, the residence period increased to fourteen years, the longest naturalization waiting period ever (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 54). The Irish were a specific ethnic group targeted by the series of naturalization acts in an effort to hinder their political participation. These post-entry social control laws had less to do with distinct, legitimate paths to citizenship or admission into the country, and more with ethnic discrimination and political suppression.

The Alien Friends Law was another post-entry social control law leaving discretion for deportation up to the president. The president had the authority to deport aliens deemed “dangerous to the peace and safety of the U.S. (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 56).” The president could deport anyone he was suspicious of treason or rebellion against the government. This law’s loose wording gives the president almost any reason to deport someone, even without physical evidence. There were no jury trials or need to specify grounds for deportation (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 56). Instead, the burden of proof lied with the alien. The president did not need sound evidence for deportation. This post-entry social control law left room for discrimination and exclusion of immigrants/ethnicities by permitting almost any reason to deport. At this time, the French and Irish were targeted for deportation because of fearful Federalist sentiment. Now that the president had full freedom to deport anyone, politicians and government agents could skirt around the need for solid, legal grounds of deportation. Therefore, the Alien Friends Law was a post-entry social control mechanism tightly monitoring a group of people for the government’s political interests.

Understanding these two types of deportation laws is crucial in realizing where inconsistencies, discrimination, and unfair prosecutions may lie. Kanstroom’s break down of the deportation system helps the average person understand the existence of different ways people are considered deportable. Extended border control pertains more towards legal classifications of citizens and non-citizens, allows for judicial hearings, and offers an overall more legitimate reason of deportation. However, potential for discriminatory enforcement and inflexibility in extended border control laws exist. For instance, if a noncitizen is unhappy with the employer they are contracted to work, can he or she leave the place of employment without fear of deportation? Also, what if the places the U.S. allows noncitizens to work in are low-level, low-paying jobs? The jobs allowed might socially categorize the person or limit their ability to make higher wages. It is equally important to understand that post-entry social control laws can deport people, not based on legalities or visa status, but on political or criminal conduct in the U.S., or by societies’ ethnic fears. The assumption that an alien has broken laws and thus should be deported needs rethinking because the laws they violated could have been created in such a way that makes it extremely difficult for naturalization or living in the U.S. Understanding deportation through the lens of post-entry social control helps someone recognize laws made to target specific immigrants.

Work Cited

Kanstroom, Daniel. Deportation Nation. Harvard University Press, 2007.

Blog Post #2

The U.S. deportation system has seen evolution in laws, events, and practices decade after decade. In Deportation Nation, Daniel Kanstroom explains the way events occurring centuries ago eventually built the foundation for modern deportation system procedures. While the events listed in chapters three and four occurred in two separate centuries, the mid to late nineteenth century in chapter three and the early twentieth century in chapter four, history clearly repeats itself when responding to new masses of immigrants. The theme of immorality and its link to foreigners was evident in deportation laws, including the Geary Act, and articles such as “Scum from the Melting Pot.” Almost parallel developments with vigilante mobs deporting aliens in the west occurred in Seattle, Washington and Bisbee, Arizona. The Supreme Court’s ruling that they had ultimate power to deport noncitizens was similar in the cases of Fong Yue Ting and John Turner. World War I caused differing developments in chapter four pertaining to “Americanism,” loyalty, and a “red scare.” The criminal justice system also became linked to deportation in chapter four. Chapter four’s developments show an expansion to deportation law in the form of immigrant quotas and the criminal system. The history behind the deportation system included numerous court cases, incidents, and political ideologies, some mimicking each other while others differed, and were an early basis for modern laws to form.

A theme resonating from chapter three to four in Deportation Nation was the immorality of foreigners and a belief that they were taking advantage of American virtues. Whilst immigrants were coming to America in hopes of benefitting from job opportunities and the civility of American society, they were thought as bringing immorality and corruption that needing ridding. In chapter three, the theme of immorality is seen in the case of Chinese immigrants. The large population of Chinese immigrants in the U.S. was a continuous topic of question for Congress over the span of the nineteenth century. More accurately, how to expel these foreigners from the country was debated after a sequence of laws passed, mostly excluding Chinese immigrants and laborers. In 1892, representative Geary extended exclusion of Chinese laborers through the passage of the Geary Act, which required Chinese in the U.S. to register and bear proof of their legality (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 116). To avoid deportation, the Chinese needed to prove their lack of certification was reasonable and they were legal U.S. residents with the testimony of white witnesses (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 116). While the Geary Act was a highly debated topic, the general sentiment amongst politicians, likely reflecting similar feelings of the public, was that the Chinese were a base people without virtue taking advantage of America and spoiling it. Chinese women were especially believed immoral because of Chinese prostitution brought to America. During debates of the Geary Act, Senator Felton argued that “ ‘The Chinese have no morals…With them the end justifies the means, and the end is to come in here and possess themselves of what we have and return to their own country with it…(Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 117).’” Senator Felton describes Chinese laborers as immoral and only seeking to take whatever they can from the opportunities in America and bring it back to China. The Chinese were not looking to better American society, and therefore did not benefit the country.

In chapter four of Deportation Nation, a similar theme considered immigrants as lacking morality and taking advantage of America. Edwin E. Grant, a former California senator and president of the California State Law Enforcement League, shared his distaste for European foreigners in his 1925 article, “Scum of the Melting Pot (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 134).” His article compares immigrants to parasites; “scum that could have been eliminated from the melting pot (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 134).” Furthermore, he states that European foreigners are drawn to the United States because of the prosperity established by America’s forefathers (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 134). His solution to the problem is eliminating immigrants from the Unites States. While Grant’s writing is directed more towards the influx of European immigrants, unlike Senator Felton’s comments made towards the Chinese, both statements evoke the derogatory attitudes towards immigrants. Felton suggests the Chinese are only in America to take its benefits and bring it back to China, just as Grant describes Europeans being lured by the prosperity of the country and hoping to act on it for personal gains. Felton and Grant reflect the theme that foreigners are trying to take advantage of American prosperity while “scumming” up America with their immorality and crime. The attitude of immorality is a theme that spans from chapters three and four, continuing the distrust of immigrants into the twentieth century.

In the west, deportations by vigilantes and angry mobs were almost parallel occurrences between chapters three and four of Deportation Nation. The Chinese were rounded up by force and deported from Seattle, just as minority European laborers were removed from their mining town. To further explain, in 1886, a group of angry vigilantes, led by the police chief, went to Seattle’s Chinatown to question Chinese residents for health code violations (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 111). The mob of white citizens raided Chinese homes and loaded their furniture onto wagon, only before forcibly taking Chinese residents to the docks for shipment to San Francisco, California (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 111). After state militia intervened, the group of Chinese and vigilantes were taken to federal court (Kastroom, Deportation Nation, 111). The judge affirmed that the Chinese did not legally have to leave, but warned them that their protection if they remained was “dubious (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 111).” Gunfire broke out as Chinese residents waited on the docks to board the ship, killing two Chinese men (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 111). Angry sentiment against the Chinese turned violent. They were deported against their will by the vigilantes of Seattle, Washington.

Almost parallel developments occur in chapter four, this time aimed at European immigrant workers of mining towns across the U.S. Specifically, Bisbee, Arizona was a mining district that drew immigrants from Bohemia, Serbia, Italy, Austria, and other European nations to work the mines (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 143). Mining companies avoided union activities until inflation cut the miners’ salaries, and thus prompted union interventions (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 144). One union attracted to the Arizona miners’ situation was the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), which Kanstroom describes as “robust, high-spirited” and, “leftist-anarchist bent (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 144).” The IWW intervened in the Arizona mining company affairs. They organized Mexican and European immigrant workers and demanded from Bisbee companies better safety, working conditions, and an end to discrimination (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 142). To end the strike, an anti-union group called the Citizen’s Protective League, headed by Sheriff Harry Wheeler, was called in and rounded up over one-thousand men, even those without involvement in mining (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 142). They were forced to walk to a ballpark, where they were surrounded by armed men and told to either abandon the strike or face “drastic consequences (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 143).” Those men refusing to join the vigilantes were sent by train to New Mexico, left without shelter in the desert until they were detained in Columbus (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 143). In this incident, the mining town outcaste immigrants, loaded them onto boxcars against their will and removed them. The Bisbee deportations were the catalyst for other deportations to follow. On July 14^th, 1917 a mob of white citizens removed noncitizen, European workers from a mining towns near Flat River, Missouri (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 144). In a ripple effect, other towns across the states, including Nebraska, Minnesota, New Mexico, and California acted against foreign workers akin to the handlings of immigrants in Bisbee (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 144). The parallels between the Seattle deportation of 1886 and the Bisbee deportation of 1917 are uncanny. Both events occurred to minority mining workers, targeting the Chinese and the European immigrants, and forcibly rounding up the group for deportation.

An additional similarity between both chapters involves the court cases of Fong Yue Ting and John Turner, showing comparable Supreme Court rulings. In both instances, Congress deemed itself to have the power to deport aliens without needing to follow conditions or Constitutional rights. In the case of John Turner, a British union leader and anarchist, extended border control laws were used against him to deport him from the U.S. (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 136). Turner was arrested as an alien anarchist violating the 1903 law demanding he be returned to the country he came from (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 136.) After detainment at Ellis Island for months, his case was appealed to the Supreme Court on grounds of violation of First Amendment rights and due process (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 137). Turner’s lawyers argued that he was given an unfair trial. They believed the trial for aliens was secret, without witnesses or the privilege of obtaining them and without the right of council (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 137). In Fong Yue Ting’s court case, Geary’s Law was under question. Men like J. Hubley Ashton and Maxwell Evarts believed Geary’s Law violated several amendments in the Constitution and lacked a full judicial process for the accused (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 118). However, the Supreme Court held that they had the absolute right to expel or deport foreigners (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 118). Their power to exclude aliens was derived from one source, and noncitizens remained subject to expulsion whenever Congress judged their removal necessary (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 119). As in chapter three, the question of what rights aliens had under the Constitution, if any, was being argued. John Turner left the U.S. before a final decision was made, but the Court reaffirmed that Congress has the power to exclude aliens from the U.S., to prescribe terms and conditions on which they enter, to establish regulations for deporting aliens who entered violating laws, and to enforce these regulations to executive officers (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 138). Basically, the court had ultimate power in deciding how aliens can be removed without abiding by provisions or conditions. They set their own conditions. Aliens were not covered under the Constitution, therefore they did not require a jury trial with witnesses.

A development that differed from chapter three to chapter four is the theme of U.S. loyalty. Brought on by World War One, a deeper fear of anarchy and political disloyalty developed. This new focus became linked to deportation. Contrary to the laws in chapter three aimed at deporting prostitutes and procurers, laws in chapter four made libel or acts against the Unites States means for deportation. The 1917-1918 immigration laws expanded the class of deportable citizens to include political dissidents and anarchists (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 139). The 1918 Sedition Act made it a criminal offense to for anyone to write, publish, or speak anything disloyal, profane or abusive about the U.S. government (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 140). Citizens and foreigners were both under scrutiny during the war for anything spoken or written against the U.S. The government sought to penalize disloyal people or enemy aliens in the country. Any language intended to create an uprising against the U.S. or to promote the cause of enemies was a crime (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 140). A large, private organization called The American Protective League worked with the Department of Justice to investigate subversion and received as many as one-thousand claims of sedition each day (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 140). Agents of The American Protective League were described as engaging in unlawful intrusions, burglary, slander, and illegal arrests (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 140). Aliens were under suspicion, especially during the war as investigations continued nation-wide. The link between loyalty and Americanism developed, thus citizenship was especially important. President Wilson targeted the issue of disloyalty among naturalized citizens, stating, “if there should be disloyalty, it will be dealt with a firm hand of stern repression (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 138).” The president made it clear that aliens would face severe consequences if their alliances were not for the U.S. Unlike previous chapters of Deportation Nation, chapter four introduces the correlation between loyalty and World War One. Fears of disloyalty affected the sentiments towards aliens and laws made to investigate subversion or slander.

Continuing this post-war fear, another differing development was political deportations caused by a “red” hysteria. After World War I, there were bombings by radicals that spurred a “Red Scare” in the U.S. Politicians were certain alien subversives lived in the country. As estimated by The General Intelligence Division, ninety percent of domestic radicals were aliens (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 148). People began fearing African Americans were socialists and anarchists. A link between race and ideology led to deportation (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 148). One man specifically attacked because of his race and fears of communism was Marcus Garvey. Garvey, an African American nationalist leader, was accused by president Hoover as corrupt and fit for deportation, although they could not deport him because he hadn’t violated federal crimes (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 149). Nonetheless, the target was set on Garvey, and he was eventually prosecuted for mail fraud and deported to Jamaica (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 149). The red scare led to the Palmer Raids of 1919 which were meant to capture anarchists and radicals (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 149).

The raids within this chapter differ from the raids seen in chapter three. In chapter three, raids were on a smaller, local scale led by vigilantes. In most cases, they were meant to deport aliens based on racist sentiments, as seen with the 1886 raids in Seattle, Washington. The people of Seattle disliked the Chinese and wanted to rid them from their town by forcibly deporting them. In chapter four, the raids are politically affiliated and are conducted on a large scale against anyone believed to be communists. Some six-thousand warrants of arrest were issue for alien “reds,” and four-thousand people were arrested across the country (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 149). One specific deportation on December 21^st sent two-hundred forty-nine suspected anarchists and aliens to Soviet Russia (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 150). Emma Goldman was on that ship sent for Russia. She was a feminist and anarchist leader who lost her citizenship where her husband was denaturalized (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 150). Goldman was deported because of her political speeches, inciting riots, unlawful assembly, and by being an anarchist (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 151). Politics played a heavy hand in chapter four’s deportations, specifically caused by fear of communist aliens. World War I brought new developments that hadn’t been seen in chapter three. There existed a pressure to conform to as an American. Foreigners struggled to fit in, and were especially feared as alien “reds.” The majority of deportations in chapter three were based off exclusion and expulsion of a race, mostly caused by hate against a race. Chapter four developments demonstrate how politics and war blended together to deport noncitizens.

The developments in chapter four show expansion of deportation law in the realms of criminal activity, immigrant labor, and quotas. The expansion of deportation was a response to the wave of immigrants who came during the early twentieth century. The deportation system refined immigrant quota requirements to directly discriminate ethnic groups from entering the U.S. In chapter three, the Chinese were major targets of exclusion laws, such as the Page Act, which forbade entry of Asian convicts, prostitutes, and laborers involuntarily brought to the country (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 93). However, this law only could exclude certain Chinese immigrants, while the government’s goal was to stop the entry of the whole race. In 1917, a refined law was passed to bar people from the Asiatic zone (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 132). Indeed, deportation law expanded to forbid a whole race from entry. The government tweaked its laws to satisfy their wishes of exclusions. Quota systems were refined and broadened in chapter four. The Immigration Act of 1924 was a quota law designed to reduce the number of new immigrants from eastern and southern Europe, whilst excluding almost all Asian immigration (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 132). Laws integrated racial discrimination as the deportation system expanded.

Deportation laws expanded to overlap with the criminal justice system. The general perception of Americans in the early twentieth century was that crime was increasing, thus the government responded to this perception by extending criminal legislation (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 133). The 1917 Immigration Act was an example of a refined law that more effectively deports immigrants. The gravity of a crime was determined by the length of the sentence and multiple offenses (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 134). A “crime involving moral turpitude” was deportable (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 134). This terminology is still used in modern day times, showing how the early twentieth century’s deportation system reflects today’s deportation law. Deportation laws from 1919-1920 involved deportation for aliens convicted of offenses related to opium, cocaine, or other narcotics (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 134.) These laws reflect modern deportation procedures because aliens arrested and convicted of crimes today, such as selling narcotics, are likely subject to removal from the U.S.

Kanstroom mentions that the ideological post-entry social control deportation of the early twentieth century evolved into the modern deportation system. The effects of World War I included a fear of immigrants, communists, and outsiders. It was imperative to “fit-in” as a loyal American; a task difficult for foreign born immigrants. Noncitizens who did not conform to political and ideological standards during and after the war were alienated and viewed as disloyal “slackers (Kanstroo, Deportation Nation, 139).” The class eligible for deportation expanded to political dissidents (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 139). Modern deportation resembles the standards for deportation during the time of World War I. For example, after the attacks on the Twin Towers on September eleventh, 2001, Muslims were viewed as outsiders, un-American, and investigated by the government. Similarly, American Protective League working with the Department of Justice to investigation subversion and sedition (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 140). Indeed, early developments in the deportation system involving ideological concerns remained a part of modern day deportation.

Work Cited

Kanstroom, Daniel. Deportation Nation. Harvard University Press, 2007.

Blog Post #3

Since the birth of the United States and spanning to contemporary times, the deportation system has had time to be tweaked, updated, and altered in relation to the events of the world around it. One would think after so much time, the deportation system would be perfected to benefit both noncitizens and citizens alike. Yet the true history of deportation tells a different tale. Daniel Kanstroom, author of Deportation Nation, describes deportation as a social experiment causing more harm than demonstrable good. Indeed, multiple cases of poorly planned, impulsive deportations exist, as proven by the court cases of Harisades v. Shaughnessy, Chae Chan Ping v. United States, and Fong Yue Ting v. United States. The violent, forced deportations in Bisbee, Arizona and of the Native Americans, along with harsh internment of the Japanese demonstrate how dangerous deportations and the subsequent enforcement can be. Removal of aliens, often based on political and societal fears rather than hard evidence, has become an integral part of deportation. Even the court system relies on discretion and plenary power, thus allowing for convenient removals. Daniel Kanstroom’s statements on deportation brings light to the damaging, irrational, and unjust U.S. system which has shown time and time again to cause harm to the aliens.

The case of Harisades v, Shaughnessy demonstrates the harm the U.S. deportation system inflicted on an alien resident. Peter Harisades was a legal, permanent resident who built a life and family in the U.S., but was deported without any regard to those aspects. More specifically, Harisades was born in Greece and became a lawful permanent resident alien in the U.S. as a teenager (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 203). He organized for the Communist Party in 1928, but left the party in 1939 (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 204). In New York City, he raised his two sons and worked as a newspaper editor (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 204). In an unfortunate twist of fate, his application for citizenship caused his eventual deportation. Two years after his application, the Immigration Service called him in for an interview and immediately arrested him using a warrant issued almost twenty years earlier based on his membership in the Communist Party (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 204). It was not enough that he no longer affiliated himself with the Communist Party or lived a relatively normal, non-threatening life as an editor and father. Harisades was found deportable. Justice Jackson admitted that remaining in the U.S. is a matter of permission and tolerance instead of a right, and the power to deport for any reason was unlimited (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 205). No matter how irrational, Congress could basically deport anyone for any reason. There was no structure or specific rules that needed abiding by Congress, allowing for sporadic deportations and showing how poorly planned the system was. Harisades took asylum in Poland, leaving behind his family in the states (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 205). Results of the case show that the permanence of a so-called permanent resident can be easily destroyed and the lack of rights for noncitizens (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 205). Even further, the government practiced unlimited power to deport whomever it wanted (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 205). Having immigrated to America a such a young age, Harisades was basically an “American.” He himself stated that he worked in shops, railroads, factories, helped the unemployed and went on strike in his past (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 204). It is true that he supported the Communist Party at one point in his life, but that affiliation was irrelevant at the time of his deportation. The deportation wronged Harisades by splitting him from his family and removing him from the country he spent most of his life in. Instead of doing good and granting citizenship to a man who paid his dues in America, Harisades was harmed by the deportation system. Poorly planned, the system failed to take into account nonresidents with American children or how to deal with family situations.

The irrationally administered and impulsive removal of aliens, as described by Kanstroom, can also be seen in the interment and deportation of the Japanese in the 20^th century. Spurred by WWII hysteria after Japan bomber Pearl Harbor, Japanese residents in the U.S. were targeted for removal. What makes their removal so unique is that both aliens and naturalized citizens were eligible for internment and deportation, unlike typical deportation that only removes aliens. Deportation laws were impulsive, caused by the current anti-Japanese sentiment during the war. Japan was the enemy nation. Americans began treating Japanese within the U.S. as possible enemies. Over 70,000 Japanese citizens and 40,000 noncitizens were forced to leave their homes, farms, or businesses (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 206). They were shipped to camps called “relocation centers,” where some were detained for years (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 206). Once WWII began, the old 1798 Enemy Aliens Act gave the legal authority to apprehend, restrain, and remove Japanese aliens and citizens alike because they were subjects of the Japan (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 207). This old act was outdated and poorly planned when considering citizens of the hostile enemy lived in the U.S. for many years. Why were all people with the heritage of a specific country be subject to removal if they have nothing to do with that country or haven’t been there in years? Shouldn’t there be safeguards or conditions that prevent them from removal? Instead, President Roosevelt’s proclamations in 1941 deemed Japanese, Germans, and Italian aliens subject for immediate arrest and removal (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 207). By October 1943, 5,303 Japanese were arrested as alien enemies (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 208). One would think Japanese citizens would be safe from arrest and detention. Instead, 2,000 denaturalization investigations took place in 1943, and 75 denaturalizations occurred in one year (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 208). President Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066 allowed the army to control all persons of Japanese ancestry in California and parts of Oregon, Washington, and Arizona (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 208). Eugene Rostow shared similar views as Kanstroom when giving his opinion on the Japanese exclusion program as being the utmost potential menace that allowed political opinions to justify imprisonment and the military to decide which ethnic groups are justified to be imprisoned (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 209). Military leaders planned the removal and internment of all Japanese from West coast areas, believing the Pacific Coast was in imminent danger of attack from within (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 213). Removals and detentions had less to do with specific deportation procedures or violations of residency and more to do with long-standing racism and fears of attack during WWII. Japanese were removed on impulse, without legal rights, because of wartime fears. The deportation system caused more harm uprooting the Japanese from their homes and forcing them to live in internment camps.

Supporting Kanstroom’s statement that deportation was a dangerous model to base other enforcement systems, one can look at the removal of Native Americans as a prime example of said danger. Native American’s were viewed as foreigners by white settlers, although white settlers were technically the immigrant aliens. The two groups of people butted heads often and the government needed a way to remove Native Americans. Indian law saw its subjects as noncitizens within U.S. territory and the rights of Native Americans held no ground over the plenary power doctrine (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 64). Plenary power being ultimately superior to noncitizen rights was a model seen in many cases to come, specifically the Chinese Exclusion case and Fong Yue Ting (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 64). In Fong Yue Ting, several men argued that the law in question, the Geary Act, violated Constitutional rights. Specifically, the Geary Act laid the burden of proving legality to the noncitizen and required a white witness at trial (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 116). In this court case, the power to deport was absolute and unqualified, and, as with Native Americans, no aliens had constitutional rights in deportation proceedings (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 119). The U.S. eventually declared itself as having the right to extinguish Indian title of occupancy and claim title by conquest (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 66). The Indian Removal Act was signed in 1830, making removal a federal government policy (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 66). As white settlers moved in and needed more land, the Indian Removal Act forced Native Americans to the territory west of the Mississippi River. Indian removal swept across the young nation. The massive removal of Native Americans, known as the Trail of Tears, forced over 70,000 natives across the Mississippi, causing thousands to die from disease, famine and exhaustion (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 70). The deportation system inflicted harm on Native Americans. In another instance, Kit Carson rounded up 8,000 Navajos and forced them on the “Long Walk,” which was over 300 miles, and ended in New Mexico (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 70). Like the Trail of Tears, which seemed to be the model for Carson’s deportation, Navajos died during the walk (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 70). Indian removal laws continued after the Civil War. The Appropriations Act of 1871 declared that “no Indian nation or tribe within the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 71).” It wasn’t enough for the government to uproot tribes from their land. They stripped any rights or powers of the Native Americans. The removal of Native American created a dangerous model for future deportations to follow. It set the precedent for deportations in Seattle, Washington and Bisbee, Arizona. Laws created were impulsive and conveniently made to aid the government and white settlers by ridding Natives from land and any chance at rights as a citizen. Indeed, Kanstroom’s statement that the history of deportation law shows how integral removal has been in the country is evident in the early removal and exclusion laws targeting Native Americans.

The harm done to aliens by vigilante raids, such as in Seattle, Washington and Bisbee, Arizona, set the model for similar enforcement in future instances. These deportations were impulsive, done by angry mobs, and caused panic, fear, and death. In February 1886, a group of white citizens entered Chinatown to supposedly investigate health code violations (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 111). A mob began raiding Chinese homes, loading their furniture onto wagons, and forcibly taking the Chinese to the ship docks (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 111). Waiting in the rain for ships to sail to San Francisco, about 200 Chinese residents boarded the ship, leaving behind about 200 people who still wanted to board (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 111). Gunfire broke out, killing two Chinese men and wounding several more (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 111). The deaths of the Chinese were caused by the lost control of the vigilante mob. This exemplifies the danger past of deportation, especially in the hands of an impulsive, angry mob.

In Bisbee, Arizona, foreign mining workers on strike were rounded up and deported in similar fashion. The mining workers were striking with the support of the Industrial Workers of the World, a robust, leftist union organization, for improvements to working conditions and an end to discrimination (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 142). The Citizen’s Protective League, and anti-union group headed by Sherriff Harry Wheeler, was called in to break the strike (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 142). Over 1,000 men, both strikers and non-strikers of the town, were gathered, forced to walk two miles to a ballpark, and were surrounded by armed men who told them to abandon the strike or face drastic consequences (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 143). 1,186 men who refused to join the vigilantes were put on boxcars sent to New Mexico where they were left in the desert without shelter until they were detained in Columbus (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 143). The way immigrants were deported was admired and subsequent deportations mimicked the actions in Bisbee. On July 4^th, 1917, a mob of citizens drove alien immigrant workers from mining areas in Missouri (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 144.) Vigilantes cited the Bisbee deportation when they removed orange grove workers from Ponoma Valley, California (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 144).

Another case supporting Kanstroom’s notion that deportation was poorly planned and did more harm than good was Chae Chan Ping v. United States. Ping, a legal resident, felt the brunt of injustice after the Scott Act went into effect, which labeled him deportable. The Scott Act of 1888 was created as a federal attempt to further restrict Chinese immigration to the U.S. (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 113). This act prohibited the entry of all Chinese laborers, forbade the issuance of return certificates for aliens wanting to travel, and cancelled outstanding certificates (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 113). Chae Chan Ping resided in San Francisco for twelve years and temporarily left the U.S. in 1887 to visit China (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 113). The Scott Act passed while he was away, and when he returned to San Francisco, he was detained on the ship (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 114). His case was brought to the Supreme Court, but Ping lost because the Scott Act overrode prior treaty-based rights to travel and because immigration law only needed minimal judicial review, since the right to regulate immigration was plenary and “inherent in sovereignty (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 114).” This case is an example of the wrong that was done against a laborer and legal resident of the U.S. How can one new law override any prior standings and rights of aliens without allowing for exceptions? Ping lived and worked in the U.S. a substantial amount of time, and was only temporarily visiting China. He should not have been held deportable because he was out of the country when it passed. When he left, he was not violating any laws. Instead, protections should have been set for people like Ping, who happened to be out the country at the wrong time, but still were long-time legal residents. By pushing the Scott Act to apply to all cases and not planning what to do when special instances arise, the deportation system was poorly planned.

Fast forwarding to more recent history, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 showcased a poorly planned law that had the potential to harm aliens. While its initial intentions wanted to aid immigrant laborers, upon deeper analysis, the law made it difficult for aliens to find and work. The IRCA placed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired or continued employing an alien without federal authority to work (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 226). For employees to be allowed to work, they needed to complete forms and attest under penalty of perjury that they were authorized to work in the U.S. (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 226). Employers had to attest to believing the employee was authorized to work (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 226). There was a benefit for aliens under this law, but it was more of “catch twenty-two.” Aliens legally living in the U.S. continuously since January 1^st, 1982, were eligible for legalization (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 227). The IRCA was confidential and excluded judicial review of an administrative denial of a claim unless the claimant turned themselves in for deportation proceedings (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 227). In other words, for judicial review to be present, aliens risk themselves of deportation. The IRCA, masked as a law to help gain legalization, actually obstructs the path to legal employment. Many immigrants come to America as laborers to better themselves financially through work. Yet, the IRCA adds multiple steps for immigrants to be allowed to work. Paperwork, attesting authorization, and risking deportation for a fair trial are obstacles hindering their employment. How can immigrants provide for themselves and their families if they can’t find jobs? Additionally, employers may fear hiring aliens because of the possible penalties if paperwork hasn’t been filed correctly or if they let an alien work without authorization. Many employers may avoid hiring aliens altogether because they don’t want to fill out all the forms or don’t have them time. As an effect, the IRCA is detrimental to nonresidents seeking work. The law is hypocritical, offering legalization, but risking deportation for claimants in court that seek judicial review.

Deportation found a way to irrationally and impulsively remove aliens using discretionary power. Using discretion to constitute deportation lacks structure or rules for every judge to abide by, instead causing inconsistent deportations. Kanstroom describes this as “a fabric of discretion.” Discretionary power exists at many stages of a nonresident’s experience in the U.S: during admission of the alien, permanent residence, and eventual citizenship (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 230). In deportation proceedings, discretionary power is the power to dispense mercy in some cases, while at the same time causing a great hurdle to overcome in the citizenship process (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 230). The government can choose whom to deport from a great range of potential charges (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 230). the interpretation of statutory terms and procedural decisions are considered discretionary (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 230). Yet, monitoring discretionary decisions is lacking, creating a possibility for unjust deportations. Congress passed laws to stop the judiciary from checking discretionary decisions. The 2005 REAL ID Act states that no court shall have jurisdiction to review most discretionary decisions in deportation cases (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 230). Confusion and irrationality ensues because the true definition of “discretion” fails to be defined. There exists a large ambiguity over “discretion,” although it was given a lose definition as being the core of the “rule of law (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 231). Further, discretion means the power to make a choice between alternative courses of action (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 231). There is no defined right or wrong decision. This creates a problem because incorrect, unauthorized discretionary decisions can occur (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 231). Therefore, nonresidents are susceptible unjust deportation proceedings without the protection of judicial review. They are at the mercy of judges, who may base deportations off biased beliefs, insubstantial evidence, or impulsivity. This is not to say that discretionary proceedings are all incorrect or unwarranted, but it does show that the possibility for undeserved deportations exists. Discretion in deportation proceedings support Kanstroom’s notion that the U.S. deportation system is irrationally administered and integrates the impulse to deport aliens because there is no clear definition of discretion.

Work Cited

Kanstroom, Daniel. Deportation Nation. Harvard University Press, 2007.