My Blog
Lauren Click
W.P. Carey School of Business '18
Blog Post #1
The first type of deportation law is Extended Border Control (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, Pg 5). Extended Border Control is a form of deportation that takes effect after an alien who has entered the country turn out to have committed “surreptitious entry, [fraud], or misrepresentation” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, Pg 5) during their initial entry or has violated their initial reason why they were allowed into the country in the first place. For example, this could be a student coming into the country to go to school, and then not attending school.
One event that falls under Extended Border Control are the Palmer Raids, an event that removed “foreign radicals” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, Pg 1), defined as people without legal residence nor citizenship. As these people were never citizens of the country, this event falls into Extended Border Control because the aliens had committed “surreptitious entry” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, Pg 5) into the country, and therefore they did not have any rights to a legal hearing, nor counsel.
A second event that falls under Extended Border Control is the Acadian Deportation. “[People] from France, Brittany, and Normandy,” although they did not agree with British rule as they promoted self-governance, “[founded] a colony called Acadia”(Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, Pg 43) (“The Acadian Deportation, Lesson 2). As the Acadian’s were not citizens of Great Britain, falling under Extended Border Control, they were not given any legal rights and were deported in 1755. A colony founded by and formed of immigrants and their offspring, Acadia flourished for over 100 years before the Acadian Deportation occurred, ultimately causing the demise of the entire Acadian colony.
The second type of deportation law is Post-Entry Social Control (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, Pg 5). Post-Entry Social Control incorporates aspects of Extended Border Control, but is incredibly stricter. Post-Entry Social Control allows the country to determine if an alien is to be deported due to their behavior after entry, not issues due to the visa or immigration process, without a time limit as to how long they will be scrutinized for. Therefore, an immigrant never truly becomes a citizen of their new country and is seemingly just an “Eternal Guest” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, Pg 6) to the country who merely see’s them as a transient and not as an inhabitant. If a law is changed or created after a person immigrates into the country, and the person broke said law during their immigration process, said person can be deported for those crimes although they were not even crimes when they were committed.
The Alien Enemies Act and the Alien Friends Law of 1798 are great examples of Post-Entry Social Control. “All native citizens [of] the hostile nation [shall] be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as illegal aliens” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, Pg 55). Therefore, any person - citizen or not - who has immigrated from another country, in which the US is at conflict with, is liable under the Alien Enemies Act to be detained and deported. This act is still in affect in today’s immigration and deportation policies.
The Naturalization Acts of 1790,1795, and 1798 are also due largely in part to Post-Entry Social Control. With the Naturalization Act of 1790, immigrants were to reside in the country for two years (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, Pg 33) before they were to be granted citizenship. This increased to five years with the Naturalization Act of 1795, later becoming a fourteen year requirement with the Naturalization Act of 1798 (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, Pg 54). The length of the waiting period continuously increased due in part to subdue the political and social voice, and impact, of immigrants, in fears of a response to the French Revolution (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, Pg 54).
The Red Scare is another example of Post-Entry Social Control. In the mid 1900’s, as the Cold War continued between the United States and the Soviet Union, a widespread fear of communism erupted in America. As political views are behavioral, the Red Scare fell into Post-Entry Social Control. Leftist views went directly against the United States government, therefore becoming grounds for deportation of any immigrant who had, or were assumed of having, this political view, (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, Pg 3) as it threatened the safety of the American people and went directly against the purpose we were fighting for in the Cold War. An offshoot of speaking your personal belief, such as in the instance of speaking your leftist views during the Red Scare, comes writing or printing your personal beliefs. The Sedition Act of 1918 allowed the United States to deport any immigrants who negatively wrote or printed their beliefs against the United States. As this is a behavioral change that occurred after the person had come into the country, this falls into Post-Entry Social Control.
In understanding deportation laws, as well as their history and reasoning, through the view of Extended Border Control and Post-Entry Social Control, one is capable of understanding the lives of those directly affected by the laws, if they are not directly affected themselves. This is a necessary aspect in order to make a well-informed vote during your local and national elections, as one is able to understand the effect certain laws may or may not have on the affected parties. The absolute power enacted by the American government to ensure the safety of its people through the lens of both Extended Border Control as well as Post-Entry Social Control establishes the reasoning for enactment as well as justification as to why the laws should be revised, removed, or kept.
Works Cited
Kanstroom, Daniel. Deportation Nation: Outsiders In American History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007.
Blog Post #2
The Second Wave of Deportation, as Kanstroom describes in Chapters 3 and 4 of Deportation Nation, developed the immigration system of the United States immensely. This wave brought new laws, court cases, events, and public figures into the American limelight in the early 20th century. As time continued during this period, adjustments and additions were made. Chapters 3 and 4 of Kanstroom’s Deportation Nation highlight the comparison and contrasting themes, ideas, and developments in this critical period of American history.
The Immigration Act of 1864 and The Immigration Act of 1917 were enacted 53 years apart. While the Act of 1864 was signed into law in order to encourage immigration into America, the Act to 1917 punished those who had immigrated into the United States. The Act of 1864 encouraged immigration by establishing the Commissioner of Immigration, the office of the Superintendent of Immigration, exempting immigrants from compulsory military service, and validating labor contracts made by immigrants prior to their arrival into the United States. (“The Immigration Act of 1864”, Section 2-4). Further, the Immigration Act of 1864 also led to the Chinese Credit Ticket System. The Immigration Act of 1917, however, discouraged immigration - as previously stated. The Act’s provisions included “a literacy test for those over 16 years [old], increased [tax payment] by new immigrants upon arrival, an exclusion of “idiots, imbeciles, epileptics, alcoholics, poor, criminals, beggars, and any person suffering from attacks on insanity”, and an exclusion of anyone born in the “Asiatic Barred Zone” (excluding immigrants from Japan and the Philippines)” (“Immigration Act of 1917”, Lesson Four Slide Five). The Immigration Act of 1917 also permitted a list of legal resident immigrants who faced deportation, any immigrant sentenced more than once to be deported at any time after entry, recognized a pardon as a defense to one's deportation, as well as permitting judges to override provisions with a binding “recommendation” against deportation. All in all, it is clear to see the Immigration Act of 1864, spoken on in Chapter Three, clearly contrasts the ideas of the Immigration Act of 1917, spoken on in Chapter Four.
Another comparison between the two chapters can be seen in the Immigration Act of 1882 and the case of John Turner. The Immigration Act of 1882, of Chapter Three, was used as the basis of the 1903 Deportation Trial of John Turner, of Chapter Four. This Act was the basis of laws prohibits anarchy against the United States, of which John Turner had done exactly such (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pg 136).
A similar theme throughout both chapters is the added acts prohibiting more and more with each passing. For instance, the Geary Act of Chapter Three added requirements to Chinese immigrants, the Volstead Act of 1919 added strict provisions to the sale, consumption, purchase, and more of alcohol, and the Naturalization Act of 1906 now included “crimes of moral turpitude” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pg 135,125).
Additionally, we can see comparisons between the chapters Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893) and the Bisbee Deportation. All in the Bisbee Deportation, and Fong Yue Ting, were immigrants, and treated as though “[they had] no constitutional rights” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pg 119). Although Fong Yue Ting was, contrastingly, granted to appear in court while those deported from Bisbee were not.
Although the Immigration Act of 1864 contrasts the Immigration Act of 1917, the Page Act of 1875, focused on in Chapter 3, is clearly comparable to the Immigration Act of 1917, of which was focused on in Chapter 4. The Page Act of 1875 made the importation of women into the U.S. for the purposes of prostitution illegal. Anti-chinese sentiment, primarily within California, significantly factored into the passing of the Page Act, as arguments for the act included notions of Chinese men stealing American jobs and money, and Chinese women to be morally corrupting American men. (“Page Act”, Lesson 3 Slide 8). Both the Immigration Act of 1917 as well as the Page Act of 1875 focused on limiting the freedom of immigrants in America. The Anti-Chinese Sentiment of Chapter 3 correlates directly to the “Scum From The Melting Pot” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pg 134) beliefs of Chapter 4, in that both were unfair racial accusations made based on prejudice and insecurity of Americans.
Another contrast between Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 can be seen in Chae Chan Ping v. United States, The Immigration Act of 1882, and Chy Lung v. Freeman (1876), of Chapter 3, and Marcus Garvey, Emma Goldman, and Peter Frank, of Chapter 4. Chae Chan Ping was a Chinese citizen and an unskilled worker, who returned to the United States after an 1888 trip to China. This was after the Scott Act of 1888 had gone into effect. Due to the provisions of the Act which canceled the return certificates for laborers who left the United States, he was denied entry. He went against the denial, which ultimately brought his case to the Supreme Court. The Court sided with the U.S., upholding the Federal authority and contradicting the Burlingame Treaty of 1868. While Chapter Three focused on deportation due to labor laws, Chapter Four focused on the deportation due to anarchism, such as with Marcus Garvey, Emma Goldman, and Peter Frank. (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pg 136).
I agree that the developments in Chapter Four show an “expansion and refinement of modern deportation law”. This is due to the basis of the laws. Previously I stated the contrast of the root cause of deportation. Chapter Three focused on race, while Chapter Four focused on anarchist principles. I believe deportation law broadened its horizons to look above the color of one’s skin and finally began to dig into the root principles of deportation - moral character. Although there is certainly a long way to go to, in terms of refining modern deportation law, one can certainly see the growth and change when comparing and contrasting Chapter Three and Four. All in all, there are many comparisons and contrasting statements that can be seen between the two chapters. In this important section of American Deportation History, we are able to see the growth, change, and struggle our predecessors faced.
Works Cited:
An Act to Encourage Immigration. (1864, August 02). Retrieved July 17, 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/1864/08/03/news/an-act-to-encourage-immigration.html
Edwin E. Grant, "Scum from the Melting Pot," The American Journal of Sociology Vol. XXX, No. 6 (May 1925), 643.
Kanstroom, Daniel. Deportation Nation: Outsiders In American History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007.
Blog Post #3
“Recognize yourself in he and she who are not like you and me” Carlos Fuentes. Our country was founded by immigrants, and over the entirety of the six weeks of this course we have covered over one hundred years of American Immigration and Deportation History, its root causes, and the effects it created, both short and long-term. The two statements given to agree or, respectfully, disagree with were, “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,” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 243) and, “In the end, the history of deportation law shows us how integral the removal impulse has been to our nation of immigrants” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 246). Respectfully, I both agree and disagree with multiple aspects of the two given statements, listed above, due to the history, causation, and effects of the American Immigration and Deportation System throughout our Country’s history.
As stated in my hypothesis, I both agree and disagree with the two given statement by Kanstroom. A main point I would like to shed light onto would be the adjectives Kanstroom used in the first statement. He states that the deportation system is a “social experiment”, was “poorly planned”, and “irrationally administered”. Respectfully, I disagree with how he chose to phrase this statement. Similar to an elementary teacher deciding which lessons work best in their classroom, a producer selecting an actress for a role, or a doctor choosing a particular medication for a patient, the Immigration and Deportation systems of our country will go through an eeb and flow of understanding. The students in the classroom, the movie that needs a role, and the patient that needs a medication will change on a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly basis. The needs and desires of these people is continuously changing with the social, political, and environmental climate of the country. Consequently, the Immigration and Deportation laws, rules, and regulations of a country must be changed as their people do. We can see the change of immigration policies over the course of decades in Lesson Three’s Immigration Act of 1865, 1882, and 1891, Lesson Four’s Immigration Act of 1917, Lesson Five’s Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and Lesson Six’s Immigration Act of 1965, Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1896. These acts were passed in good-faith at the time of their creation, but there are obvious consequences that fell through after their passing, such as employer sanctions, economic turmoil for the deportee’s, and quite obviously, more (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, page 226). As policy makers learn more about the people they serve, amendments and new acts are created and edited as needed or seen fit. Ergo, I do not agree with the accusatory terms “social experiment”, “poorly planned”, and “irrationally administered” with purposeful negative connotation that Kanstroom placed on the Deportation System.
“In the end, the history of deportation law shows us how integral the removal impulse has been to our nation of immigrants.” This is the second given quote by Kanstroom in Deportation Nation. I somewhat agree with this statement because I believe that the history of deportation law does, in fact, show how necessary (“integral”) the removal process is to America. Albeit, this quote is not specific as to who is being removed and why so. Due to the non-specificity nature of this quote, I must somewhat disagree. History has proven that many people were removed from the United States due to bias, belief, and disagreement of political, social, or religious belief. A clear example of this can be seen in the Anti-Chinese sentiments fulfilled by the Page Act of 1875, Chinese Immigration Act of 1923, Bisbee Deportations, Trail of Tears, “Eternal Guest” model, and Chinese Exclusion Acts. These acts were clearly not based on factual evidence, as I have stated in previous blog posts. Albeit, there are acts that have clear reason and purpose for their enactment, such as those enacted to prevent the spread of communism during the Red Scare like the Internal Security Act of 1950. Clearly, no matter the law, there will be people who suffer from its enactment. The goal of the acts is to do the best for the American people, not the American individual. Unfortunately, not everyone will always benefit from the acts, and some acts are passed in fear instead of in protection. All in all, I disagree with the second given quote because the quote is not specific as to who is being removed and why so.
Conclusively, I do not whole heartedly agree nor disagree with the two given statements by Kanstroom. Rather, I agree and, both, disagree with different aspects of each statement. The first, “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”, I believe to have biased words used to persuade the reader to agree with the author, Kanstroom. Albeit, as stated previously, I do agree that the U.S. Deportation System has, in fact, done some good and some bad. This is clearly determined on political and social belief, as what is “good” and what is “bad” changes from person to person, and is not black and white. Per the second quote, “In the end, the history of deportation law shows us how integral the removal impulse has been to our nation of immigrants,” I both agree and disagree with because although the course has proved that the deportation of immigrants has been happening since we first became a country, I do not believe this to be an integral, a term described as “necessary to make a whole complete; essential or fundamental” (“Integral”, 2017), or 100% necessary for the United States – as we change as a country, so do our deportation laws, and such, one thing can never be truly “integral” for our country except for our basic needs of water, food, and shelter. All in all, Kanstroom has made wonderful points to ponder about when considering the deportation and immigration processes, and how they affect us all, in his book Deportation Nation.
Works Cited:
Integral [Def. 1]. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved August 5th, 2017, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integral.
Kanstroom, Daniel. Deportation Nation: Outsiders In American History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007.