KRISTOPHER COMEAUX
Currently a senior student majoring in Liberal Studies at ASU, with plans of graduating fall of 2017. Loving father of one son, age 6, and lifelong musician, songwriter, producer, and engineer. Also works in finance as a loan officer.
In dealing with the history of deportation laws in America, we have come to understand two separate yet equally recognizable facets of these laws: extended border control, and post entry social control. The extended border control method simply put is the stipulation that a nonresident must enter the country legally, and under the terms that he/she will maintain their nonresident purpose, such as properly fulfill their work visas, or remain enrolled in University studies (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pp. 4-5). If one does not abide by these terms they would be subject to deportation. The post entry social control method delves into a more abstract function of deportation laws. It stipulates that even after legitimate entry and a permanent resident alien status is granted, behaviors by the noncitizen, which may conflict with the social or political agenda, may then subject the person to deportation at will (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pp. 4-5). These functions of policy, or systems, are power mechanisms that have come to define the policies beyond the obvious scope of national security purposes (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pp. 4-5). These control mechanisms have and still do encompass a much broader impact on our society, especially with regard to the various cultures and ethnicities whom have contributed to the greater good of the nation.
One of the most influential times in American deportation policy, which has correlated most with the extended border control perspective, would be the post 9/11 “war on terror” era. At this time, many were detained, questioned, and even deported upon circumstances that were mostly benign or unreasonable. Kanstroom states that even students who had let their visas expire by one day were subject to deportation, and many others who might have failed to properly register with the INS after 9/11, even though they came to the county lawfully and posed no threat to national security would still be detained and deported (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pp. 8-11). In looking back, much of this policy closely resembled the Alien Friends Act of the 1790’s, which allowed the president to completely override congress on the matter of deportation of lawfully present non-citizens based on rhetorical circumstances.
From the post entry social control perspective, the early Alien Enemies Act is one of the most striking. The act allowed the deportation of enemy friendly noncitizen, even if law abiding and upon entry were not considered enemy friendly (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pp. 55-59). This was a perfect example of social control in the sense that, political and social agenda would be imposed and maintained by the government at all costs, and even against one’s will. This also hinges on the issue of non-citizens’ rights as set forth by the constitution, as well as the Alien and Seditions Act, of course which has been argued for centuries. The later “War on Crime” policies which followed the 9/11 “War on Terror” policies targeted non-citizens with minor infractions and misdemeanors, and left many detained and deported despite being completely out of context (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pp. 11-14). Changes in circumstance, such as these, could not have been predictable, and like the Alien Friends Act, gave relentless power to the executive branch. Another example being the “warning out” type laws during the 18th century, which would continuously prevent poor and colored from obtaining resident or citizen status amongst colonies based on profiling, causing constant evasion, and continued deportation or removal (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pp. 35).
Understanding both of these facets of deportation laws and policy is extremely imperative in addressing social concerns for the future of America. The issue of deportation has always been a delicate subject because of the vast complexity of social implications imposed by these laws. Many of the deported people are an integral part of the very system these laws are trying to protect. As we have seen in our lessons, deportation affects the industrial and agricultural complex a great deal, which in terms of macroeconomics, affects us all. Therefore, it is not to be taken lightly, or brushed off as an easy solution.
References: APA 6th ed.
Kanstroom, D. (2010). Deportation nation: outsiders in American history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
In tracing the early formation of the modern deportation system, and what Kanstroom labels the “second wave”, we are presented with an unprecedented facet of policy interpretation and implementation. One common theme that is prominently displayed from Chapter 3 into Chapter 4 is the inclusion of federal authority over state jurisdiction. For the first time in the history of deportation laws the Federal Government had undertook the authority to make executive decisions on matters of deportation over state laws and legislature. This proved to be a major push in the favor of what we know now to be the modern deportation system.
In Chapter 3, the Immigration Act of 1882 was the first official legislature that put the Federal Government at the forefront of immigration and deportation policy (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pp. 94-95). Prior to this act, policy was solely enforced on the state level, and the interpretations of laws were interpreted on a state-by-state basis depending on the severity of the offense, the needs of the local economy, and political influence. The act concerned itself with judgments of character and morality upon its subjects, and imposed a very broad definition of these characteristics (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pp. 94-95). Nonetheless, the act became a pivotal milestone for the Federal government in gaining ultimate authority over deportation policy and implementation. The case of Chae Chan Ping vs. The Supreme Court was a perfect example of this newfound autonomy. In this case, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field ruled that the sovereignty of the U.S. remains a matter of executive power and decision, and in the case of deportation policy, it should remain the power of Congress to expel or deny anyone right to reside within its boundaries (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, p. 96). To further that notion, the Geary Act of 1892 sought to expand these Federal authorities by standardizing Chinese immigration and requiring documentation to validate residency; with immediate punishment and deportation upon violation of these requirements (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pp. 116-118). The blowback resulted in various Supreme Court appeals including the Fong Yue Ting case, which ultimately led to a nail in the coffin for legislative objectors. In this case the Supreme Court reverted back to the decision that deportation is a matter of Congress and not as a result of due process as designed by the constitution (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pp. 116-118).
In Chapter 4, the 1917 Immigration Act created an even more ambiguous description of behavior, which might prompt deportation. The act centered on expanding deportation laws and policies to individuals who may have not been subject to deportation prior to the act, and mostly affected individuals who might have been convicted of certain offenses in the past, or outside of a statue of limitations for a previous offense (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pp. 133-134). This proved to be a new and improved way for the Federal Government to sidestep constitutionality and impose policy and agenda otherwise. There were also continuances of morality judgment in policy as noted in the 1919 National Prohibition Enforcement Act (1919), which took an extreme stab at border control policy with the scapegoat of protecting national interests from foreign smugglers (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, p. 135). This was expanded by the 1922 Narcotics Deportation Law, which added yet another set of guidelines to deportation policy and protocol. As a result, we would see cases such as the Turner case, which again proved the common theme that one’s fate would be reserved by the executive power of the Federal Government. Turner was a British anarchist who was legally admitted into the country and had no plans of remaining, and even admitted to a temporary stay in anticipation of promoting his ideology, but was later deported (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pp. 136-137).
To say that deportation policy was expanded and refined throughout these periods would be easily justified. Whether one agrees with the ethical or moral standpoint of the policies and their implementations, it is impossible to argue the effect to which these policies expanded the deportation system in the U.S. during these times. The shift of authority from state to Federal was the most crucial development in this expansion and refinement.
References: APA 6th ed.
Kanstroom, D. (2010). Deportation nation: outsiders in American history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
In the prompt to this post, we are asked whether or not to agree with Kanstroom’s retrospective position on U.S. immigration policy. Kanstroom (2010) makes a blunt assertion and denouncement of U.S. deportation policy as being “poorly planned” and “irrationally administered” along with an overwhelming anti-sentiment towards non-citizens in pointing out the emphasis on removing immigrants rather than finding reasons for amnesty (Kanstroom, pp. 243-246). After experiencing Kanstroom’s (2010) insight into the matter as exposed by his work in “Deportation Nation”, it becomes rather impossible to disagree. Focusing on the later “Third Wave” and beyond, with regard to deportation policy, we can see that this argument is intensely justified, regardless of the various types of discretion and progressive social ideals apparent of those times. Eventually leading up to where we are today, it is in plain view that we are still currently facing the same issues as our forefathers, with no real effective means of controlling or administering proper immigration laws.
Of the many examples, I will start with the efforts of Frances Perkins, and the ultimate fate bestowed upon Harry Bridges in the light of Perkins’ efforts. Frances Perkins was originally hired into the Roosevelt (FDR) administration as head of immigration administration, and her sole purpose became that of ridding the operations of dirty deportation schemes based on extortion and corruption (Kanstroom, 2010). She faced many in opposition and was ultimately shut down in her noble efforts to prevent Harry Bridges, a Longshoremen’s Union Leader with past affiliations to the anarchist party, from being deported by INS after intense scrutiny from the federal government (Kanstroom, 2010). This was a classic example of two individuals whom believed in the constitutional functionality of free speech and inherent human values, both shut down at the helm of deportation policy.
Another example of this would be the later used Japanese internment camps throughout WWII. Initially based upon on the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, the U.S. was able to completely disregard existing civility in the Japanese population, and deem them complete and utter enemies once at war with Japan. Of the many actions against foreign born, and migrant aliens, this could take precedent as the most irrational and racist reaction to fear the U.S. had ever taken. Thousands of Japanese were forced from their homes into government-controlled camps and treated with a complete lack of respect and humility, some even deported. Later reports would come to find these camps as a result of “war hysteria” and a “failure of political leadership”, and would become a major travesty to the Japanese race on the behalf of the U.S. (Kanstroom, 2010, pp. 207-209) Yet another milestone in the direction of intolerance, in spite of years of progressive revisions in deportation policy designed to expand constitutionality.
One of my favorite subjects to address would be the infamous Bracero Program of the 1940-1950’s. This program is a case and point example of how U.S. deportation policy has created systematic problems over generations. The program was initially designed to sustain the agricultural economy of the Midwest U.S. by allowing Mexican migrant workers to work in the farming industry while American soldiers were away serving the war efforts. The main issue being, the program incentivized Mexican migration to the U.S. by the thousands, as well as relocated thousands of families with aspirations of becoming naturalized over decades of employment and residency. This was horribly flawed, with migrants by the hundreds of thousands to eventually be deported and denied further access as designated by the INS and “Operation Wetback” (Kanstroom, 2010). This would lead to years of harsh deportation efforts, as well as years of harsh border control efforts as many came to the U.S. seeking work (as promised) and also asylum from violent homelands.
As we came to approach more modern history, U.S. deportation policy took a broader significance in the fight against terrorism, with an emphasis on expanding the grounds in which a person can be deported. The various laws passed throughout the 1990’s would render it much more difficult to remain in the country with a prior or outstanding felony. In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombings, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act signed into effect by President Bill Clinton would create unrelenting difficulty in appealing felony cases via “Habeas Corpus” which ultimately resulted in expedited convictions and deportations of alien felons who simply could not meet deadlines in appealing their cases (Kanstroom, 2010). We would then see the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which then ultimately threatened businesses to take action against undocumented employees in fear of being deported, and facing sanctions on business affairs if disobedient (Kanstroom, 2010). This would include undocumented employees turning themselves in, which could result in the discovery of past felonies, or other factors for deportation. Unfortunately these policies were more intended to monitor individuals than to grant amnesty.
It is without a shadow of a doubt that I agree with Kanstroom. I have barely scratched the surface in what could be considered “irrational” behavior by the political factions that be in the grand scheme of deportation policy. It has been proven time and time again that policy continually seeks to benefit the executive authority in which governs the policy, rather than the accused of such policy. Unfortunately we are not granted with the luxury of time in this context to completely delve into every single atrocity ever committed by the Federal government in its relentless and exhausting pursuit of deportation policy, yet we are afforded the privilege of institution and higher education, where exploring such endeavors is hardly a chore. However, the courts are forever elaborating on the various legal facets of discretion, and at some point this discretion may apply to cases of the past, present, or future, which may not have applied before. Without relying on legal semantics, or interpretations of discretion, it seems only logical that Kanstroom has made a fair assumption as to the state of U.S. immigration and deportation policy, and one can only hope this is not a permanent staple of our political affairs for the future to come.
References: APA 6th ed.
Kanstroom, D. (2010). Deportation nation: outsiders in American history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
