Blog Post #1

In Deportation Nation, Daniel Kanstroom argues there are two basic types of deportation laws, the first one, extended border control and the second post-entry social control. Extended border control most closely resembles the protection and control of territories and of its citizens, both by deporting people who entered fraudulently and second by deporting people who violate the specific conditions of their allowed entry and stay in the country. Post- entry social control is not remotely related to the immigration process at all but more created to control the people who have already gone through the immigration system.

Post entry social control can easily be considered the most deceitful and sinister of the two types of post entry social control. Laws can be applied retroactively and without notification at the time of entry, offenses that were previously not considered reasons of deportation can in the future cause deportation. As described in Deportation Nation, a case of social control is that of a woman named Mary Worsely whose “unruly tongue” had her expulsed from Gloucester. Moreover, through social control poor residents of New England during the 18th century would find themselves forcibly removed from their town if deemed unworthy by the towns council. In both of these instances entry and border control had absolutely nothing to do with the protection of borders and citizens, instead people deemed unworthy were forcefully removed for the selfish reasons of people in control.

Without the acknowledgement and understanding the role these two type of deportation laws play on the lives of people it will be impossible to create fair immigration policies. Extended border control can be easy to understand and justify, a person who has fraudulently entered a country can be subject to punishment. A person who violates the very reason for their entry, such as a student taking less than a full workload can also be a just reason to deportation, dishonesty and fraudulence can be less than desirable in a society. Post entry social control however does not apply to entrance of an individual nor does it have any real relation to the protection of country or its citizens. Instead post entry social control does just that, it controls people post entry, laws can be applied retroactively and without warning. Failure to acknowledge the ways in which post entry social control can be used to control people will create a system in which those who do understand it can exploit it. As Kanstroom notes it in Deportation Nation, the 9/11 attacks created the perfect conditions for social control, especially when there is a specific target. Examples of overreaching powers include “eliminated judicial review for many types of deportation cases”, “retroactively expanded criminal grounds for deportation” and lastly “radically changed many grounds of exclusion and deportation” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, 10). Every single of these actions would be deemed unacceptable for citizens, for pawns of the immigration system however, these actions are deemed necessary in times of panic. Failure to realize the tactics being use to violate civil liberties under the guise of immigration control will always be exploited by the people in control.

Blog Post #2

The similarities shared between chapters 3 and 4 in Kanstroom’s Deportation Nation are clear to see, in both instances laws were created to rid foreigners deemed unworthy of living in the United States. Deportations laws in the late 19^th century as described in chapter 3 From Chinese Exclusion to Post Entry Social Control aimed to exclude Asian, Chinese nationals in specific. While chapter 4 Second Wave describes laws and measures taken to rid the United States of Mexicans, in both instances laws are aimed at specific groups who find it harder to blend in that any other European group illegally in the country.

Chapter 3 in Deportation Nation heavily focuses on Chinese exclusion and the progression in severity of laws aimed to exclude Chinese nations while disregarding the tremendous amount of work Chinese laborers put into the railroad. In Chapter 4 Kanstroom better follows the prosecution of Mexicans while describing the indifference the government took in their huge presence in the southwest mines. Furthermore, the government wasn’t alone in ridding the country of foreign workers, parties with strong anti-immigrant sentiment took it upon themselves to prosecute Chinese and Mexican laborers. For the Chinese in the California Workingmen’s Party became a violent anti-immigrant group led by a man named Dennis Kearney, who Kanstroom points out to be an immigrant as well. For Mexicans in the early 20^th century, the Citizen’s Protective League took it upon themselves to rid southwestern mines of Mexicans and turn them over to federal authorities. However, in contrast laws of their respective times have different goals. Immigration laws of the late 19^th century at first were solely geared towards stopping the arrival of Asians, Chinese nationals in specific, but never Japanese nationals because that would have been bad for business. As time passed and the Scott Act of 1888 forbade the entrance of Chinese into the United States, laws started to focus on the elimination of unworthy persons. The first move towards excluding the “scum of the melting pot” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pg. 134) can be attributed to the Page Act of 1875 who forbade entry to the United States for convicts and women deemed prostitutes. In continuance with riding the country of undesirables “deportation law also developed into a bastion of rather unpredictable moralist discourse” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pg. 135).

Chapter 4 of Deportation Nation also describes the ways in which immigration laws and practices of the time started to resemble what we know today. Much like work place raids are common in today’s immigration practices, Mexicans of the early 20^th century in Bisbee found out what it was like to be mass arrested and shipped off elsewhere. While the country was still figuring out how to operate and immigration system and employ agents, individual state agents served as the immigration agents, although come to think of it our current administration advocates the use of state agents to act as immigration officers. More so, much how permanent residents of the United States today can lose their status over a criminal offense, Emma Goldman lost her citizenship over voicing her beliefs, nothing is permanent. It can be said that today’s policies aren’t as harsh as they were one hundred years ago but the blueprint for today’s practices was laid out in the early 20^th century.

Works Cited

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

Blog Post #3

Throughout the last hundred years, laws that would be deemed unconstitutional if applied to United States citizens have been the basis of the United States immigration system. Deep rooted in nativist attitude, every immigration law passed since the twentieth century has brought us to this point in time whereas of 2015 11 million immigrants (Krogstad, Passel, & Cohn, 2017) find themselves here illegally. This however is by no means a new problem for the United States, the last hundred years in immigration policy have been marked by outsiders have been excluded from colonies, Chinese nationals found themselves unjustly banned, Communists have been prosecuted and most recently Mexicans crossing the southern border. It would be unjust to not mention the small glimpses of good that has been done for immigrants, such the 1980 Refugee Act however this is the exception and not the rule. Kanstroom’s fear of other enforcement systems being based of off the immigration system is of warranted concern, the immigration system is erratic, fear driven and lacking judicial review. As history shows us the primary reaction to immigrants has always been immediate removal and exclusion.

Laws of the mid-twentieth century such as the McCarran-Walter bill laid the foundation of zero tolerance and no room for error for immigrants living in the country. The McCarran-Walter (also known as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952) bill aimed mostly at communists, grew from fear during the Cold War. For Communists in specific the bill required registration of the Communist party and its members in addition to the possibility of retroactive deportation of the party’s members if they were deemed to be dangerous and a threat to public safety. However, as anti-Communist as the bill may have been, the ever-present nativist sentiment of the last hundred years was also felt. The McCarran-Walter bill came with oppressive immigration measures such as limited judicial review, a raised standard for reasons of deportation, eliminated statutes of limitation for deportation. However, in my opinion the worst part of the Nationality Act of 1952, even worse than limited judicial review, has to be its ability to reinforce retroactive deportation. By a United States citizens standard, judicial review is a fundamental right, refusing someone their day in court is a violation of their constitutional rights. Moreover, retroactive deportation means that nobody will ever be truly safe and seen as a citizen if actions that previously not qualify as means for deportation now do. It would be considered inhumane to refuse a citizen of their constitutional rights, however very few find it inhumane when it is done to a non-citizen.

In contrast to the harsh laws and regulations of the twentieth century the 1980 Refugee Act gave people hope and the illusion the United States is a welcoming place. The Act allowed for people who would otherwise be deported to stay in the United States through political asylum. People seeking refuge from an oppressive government, such as an escape from Communism, in addition to “catastrophic natural calamity” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pg. 226) were now granted passage to the United States even if it meant of no direct and guaranteed financial benefit to the country. Laws such as the 1980 Refugee Act are one of the few instances of demonstrable good to the immigration system.

To follow the 1980 Refugee Act, the immigration laws of the mid 1980s aimed to crackdown on the criminal immigrants living in the country. With limited judicial review, the government sought to rid the country of non-citizens who had committed serious crimes such as murder, money laundering, and drug trafficking to name a few. While one cannot blame a country for wanting to rid its cities of criminals, limited judicial review would be a violation of constitutional rights for a citizen. “Largely unfettered from substantive constitutional restraint, the political branches have long felt free to enact disproportionate, retroactive laws with mandatory detention and little or no judicial oversight.” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pg. 229). The basis of the anti-criminal laws of the 80s lay in a government whose actions went unchecked by justifying its only applicable to illegal immigrants.

When speaking of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and the Immigrant Responsibility Act, Kanstroom writes “designed in large part to stifle the dialogue between the judiciary and the executive branch enforces of deportation laws, were a bold assertion that deportation law was outside the mainstream of the U.S. rule law.” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pg. 229). Herein lies the danger Kanstroom refers to if United States immigration laws become the basis for other enforcement systems. Our immigrations systems ability to do and undo and retroactively charge people and prosecute with little to no judicial review sets the foundation for an omnipotent government free of restraints. If another enforcement agency were to base its practices off of our, Kanstroom described “schizophrenic” immigrations policies, the outcome would be harsh consequences based on fear to anyone the deemed criminal. The United States would in turn be no different than the Communist countries, refugees from the 1980s admitted into the United States, sought relief from.

In agreement with Kanstroom one thing throughout history has been for certain, removal of immigrants from the United States has long been the governments impulse. The McCarran-Walter Bill sought to impede the naturalization and quick deportation of Communists they saw as threats to society. The Bisbee Deportation of the early twentieth century saw the forceful removal, by civilians nonetheless of Mexican miners working in Bisbee Arizona. After decades of being a United States citizen, anarchist Emma Goldman found herself fighting deportation brought upon by her anarchist views. There is also the story of Mary Worsley who in early colonial times found herself warned out of Gloucester because she had an “unruly tongue” (Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, pg. 36). Time and time again since before the United States became the United States the theme has been to remove those deemed undesirable, for the foreseeable future the impulse for the United States will continue to be deportation.

Works Cited

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

Krogstad, J., Passel, J., & Cohn, D. (2017, April 27). 5 Facts About Illegal Immigration in the U.S. Retrieved from Pew Research Center : http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/