My Blog

Blog Post #1

Kanstroom’s argument that there are two basic types of deportation laws are based of the laws he identifies within the system. Kanstroom states that (Kanstroom, 5) it is useful to note the two-basic type of deportation laws: extended border control and post entry social control, (K, 5) work remarkably poor and are a tool of discretionary social control. Kanstroom defines the extended border by stating: The extended border control model implements basic features of sovereign powers, the control of territory by the state and the legal distinction between citizens and noncitizens. Kanstroom also states that (K, 5) the extended border laws also have two variants, each of which has been a part of US law for many years. In explaining the two varies Kanstroom writes: (K, 5) First there are laws that mandate the deportation of persons who have evaded border controls, either by surreptitious entry or by fraud or misrepresentation. Second there are laws that permit the deportation of persons who violate the conditions under which they were permitted to enter the country. (K, 5) Though the legitimacy of such laws derived from border control and sovereignty the law itself had the potential of uneven or discriminatory enforcement and insufficient flexibility for changed circumstances. Kanstrooms also makes clear that the contractual aspect of the deal is what permitted entry into the states and the second type of deportation law, post entry social control proscribes criminal or political conduct within the United States, often without time limit. (K, 5) Kanstroom also adds that they are often not connected to visa issuance, admission or immigration progress at all, and that the post -entry social control deportation laws derive from “eternal probation” or an “eternal guest” model.

Several specific laws written between 1700’s and 1800’s show how each law falls into the post-entry deportation laws made in Kanstroom’s argument. Starting with the Plantation Act of 1740, a (L,2) law that gave English citizenship (or naturalization) to any non-Catholic who had met a series requirement, a law that would fall into post entry social control argument made by Kamstroom. By controlling the faith of those within its’s borders U.S law controlled the social lives of those who were seeking residency in the U.S. This would be the first example of how social control would be used to determine who gets into the U.S. The Naturalization Act of 1790 would (L, 2) also be a law that would fall under the post social control laws. By not allowing indentured servants, slaves, and most women to become citizens the law controlled the social make-up of the demographics within the U.S. Therefore, favoring those deemed a free white person only able to become U.S citizens. (L,2) The Transportation Act of 1717, another law that also would fall into the post-social entry law. The Transportation Act of 1717 regulated a bonded system to control the population flow of criminals from England to North America, because of this process those who did enter the U.S under these conditions might be deemed an “eternal guest” under the post-entry social laws. Another law that would fall into the post-entry social control laws would be the Alien Enemies Act. (L, 2) Part of four laws known as the Alien and Sedition Act, the Aliens Enemies Act was created by two dominant political parties within the U.S because of the French Revolution. With the fear of aliens from France influencing U.S citizens the law put in press regulations and enacted restrictions from on foreigners the U.S was at war with. Indian removal would also be another social control measure that the U.S used to control its social order within its borders. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 signed into law by Andrew Jackson, was implemented for the removal of Native Americans from their homeland to make room for white settlers and farmers. The results would lead to the deaths of many Native Americans and social distress within many of the Native American tribes. Though many resisted, the continuation of such laws would continue not only effecting Native Americans but African Slaves. With the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 this law also falls into Kanstroom’s argument of the post-entry social laws passed by the U.S government. (L, 2) With the passing of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 a compromise between free state and slave holding states was made. The law required all escaped slaves who looked for refuge in Northern states to be returned to their masters and as a result social order was implemented affecting by the social order within U.S borders. The last law that I will use that supports Kanstroom argument regarding post-entry deportation laws is the Alien Friend Act. Though heavily debated over the power it gave to the executive branch, the law allowed the president to imprison or deport any alien deemed a threat to the U.S friend or foe. This law would be the clearest example of post-entry social deportation laws, by being able to remove those deemed a threat who lawfully entered the U.S the terms “eternal probation” and “eternal guest” fit properly.

Though understanding deportation laws through the lens of the two types of varies are helpful, I would make the argument that it complicates a simple issue. And that is to simply treat people the way you would want to be treated. If people are hurting we as a country or should I say as a people or person should help. Laws or no laws, having kind heart is easy. Your either good or evil.

Blog POst #2

In Kanstroom’ s book Deportation Nation chapter 3 and 4 share common themes and ideas in discussing immigration policies within the U.S government. By comparing immigration laws that were written in 1864 and 1917, both chapters when compared share common themes along with ideas that stay consistent. For example, the immigration Act of 1864 written in chapter 3 (Kan,93) allowed Chinese immigration under the “credit ticket” system and generally allowed certain types of immigrant labor contracts. In chapter 4 the 1917 Immigration Act (Kan, 133) included a list of otherwise legal resident aliens who were to be “taken into custody and deported.” Also, along with the 1917 immigration act came a radical change with assorted reasons and permitted deportation without a time limit in certain cases. Though both acts differ in how they dealt with immigrants within the U.S, the common theme along with the idea remain the same, control who gets in and who can get deported, along with creating ideas and making it law to justify why decisions are made to deal with immigrant within the U.S. Both chapters are parallel in the fact that both deal with immigrants and both chapters share similar developments in the fact that laws were developed to deal with immigrants. The development between the two chapters do not differ, though the literature in the laws may have changed all laws were written for one purpose, control the U.S population by using laws to social engineer the U.S population. Though chapter 4 shows “expansion and refinement of modern deportation law” the fact that the laws are designed to control other human’s beings does not mean that it is right. Focusing on deportation laws themselves displays an ideology of racism and social economic discrimination. Adjusting laws for political gains and expanding laws for more control only allow for more control, more discrimination and mistreatment towards other human’s beings. To develop a law to separate, places priority on human lives and in (Kan, chapter 4) quotes like “Scum from the Melting Pot” would be used to describe those who were poor and deemed leeches feeding of the challenging work of the U.S forefathers. To understand these laws, I feel it is important to follow the money and understand that most of these laws were written only for financial reasons, and ones’ economic status or skin color did not come into play until a shift in economics start hurting those who shared the same physical characteristics of those in power. With eugenics playing a role in the ideology of those in power of U.S immigration and deportation laws, justification of the mistreatment of others and separation became validated through science. Laws that clearly discriminated against those with dark skin would be the foundation of U.S immigration during the 18^th and 19^th centuries and those policies still affect laws to this day. Expansion and refinement of modern deportation laws are nothing more than a tool that is used for political reasons and economic reasons. The laws discussed in chapter 3 and 4 clearly display that ones’ skin color and social status had a significant role in U.S deportation law.

Blog Post #3

When Kanstroom states the U.S. deportation system “has caused considerable harm and done little demonstrable good” I couldn’t agree anymore. With U.S. policies like “War on Crime”, a “Return of Ideological Deportations”, and “Deportation and Discretion” one should agree when analyzing these policies, Kanstroom’s statement is accurate and that is why I agree. When analyzing the 1920 crime wave, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and the 1965 Immigration Act of 1965 it is clear how why Kansroom made this statement.

Starting with the 1920 crime wave, Kanstroom states that during this time that (Kan, 132) a general regulatory ethos over immigrants and concerns about the realities of admitting “poor, tires, huddled masses” mainly from eastern and southern Europe would turn to post- entry social laws that would mark this era. (Kan, 132) With an increase of federal attention being payed to crime, federal intervention in labor struggles, federal action related to vigilantism, continuous ideological turmoil, the expansion and development of border patrol the U.S would pass immigration policies that would be based on race. An example of such laws would be the (Kan, 132) “barred Asiatic zone” in the 1920s, such laws would be developed into broader immigration quotes based of national origin. The Immigration Act of 1924 which (Kan, 132) refined the quota system to reduce the number of new immigrants from eastern and southern Europe. This law also excluded all persons “illegible to citizenship,” that virtually covered all Asian immigrants including the Japanese.” With passing of these laws along with the enforcement of these laws (Kan, 133) a new racial category would be created and racial exclusion became a central component of the twentieth-century immigration, naturalization and deportation laws. (Kan, 134) The laws to deport undesirable aliens and to deny readmission to those deported gave the government a free hand and with (Kan, 144) much of the press supporting deportations, the language would be intertwined in the public mind creating a negative image of immigrants which in turn has harmed those who seek to immigrate to U.S and those who reside in the U.S. (Kan, 134) As one writer noted, “In the decade from 1920 to 1930 a nostrum often advocated for the ills of the United States was the removal of aliens from the country.”

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 would also be an example of why I support Kanstroom’s statement. A law designed to govern immigrants and citizens in the United States the, law would (Kan, 175) be “the sole and exclusive” deportation procedure for U.S. immigration policy. The law mandated the deportation for drug offensives and would deny due process for a fair impartial hearing conflicting with Procedure Act. (Kan, 179) The law also provided that deportation might be directed to any country of which the deportee was a “subject, national, or citizen, if that country would be willing to accept him into their territory. Though the law would be enforced a (Kan, 234) Senate Judiciary Committee stated, “To continue in the pattern existing under the present law is to make a mockery of our immigration system.”. With this statement alone, Kanstroom’s statement can be viewed as valid, even those in government viewed this law as more harmful than good. The results would lead to (Kan, 234) a new standard with exceptional and extremely hardship to those applying for citizenship and discretionary decision would be insulated from judicial scrutiny leaving individuals without any rights. With the Supreme Court focusing on the discretionary nature of suspension, the (Kan, 235) “sound discretionary nature of the Attorney General would be given unfettered discretion”. (Kan, 236) Kanstroom also states that despite the courts struggle to avoid a direct confrontation with attorney general confusion over discretion regarding immigration laws would still come into play even in 1965.

Finally, the Immigration Act of 1965. Another immigration law that supports Kanstroom’s statement on why the U.S. immigration system was a failure. Kanstroom starts of by saying in Chapter 5 that (Kan, 225) the 1965 Immigration Act was a watershed moment in U.S history and the national quota system that stamped immigration law since the 1920s has ended. Kanstroom also states that the law strongly prioritized family unity and certain occupational skills for the issuance of immigrant visas, but it would also be a that created a quota of 120,000 per year on Western Hemisphere immigration which lead to a backlog in legal visas processing time for Mexicans and Latin American immigrants. (Kan, 235) This would lead to illegal migration and the pressure for immigrants to enter the U.S. illegally creating an unprecedented expansion of border control deportation. The House Judiciary Committee would even take notice in 1976 and noted “the results of the new quota, completely unforeseen and unintended,” was considerable hardship for intending immigrants from this hemisphere. Kanstroom also writes that the 1965 act included a “seventh preference” category for the admission of refugees for those fleeing Communism and persecution, but also notes that the (Kan, 226) the general countertrend in deportation has been laws that are harsher, less forgiving and more insulated from judicial review. In fact, Kanstroom goes on to state that what has emerged is an exceptionally rigid legal regime mediated by legislative special case exemptions, some ad hoc, some more durable riven with discretionary executive authority.

In conclusion Kanstroom’s statement is one that I agree with, though there are many laws and court cases that I feel would also support Kanstroom’s statement I do feel pointing out the 1920s crime wave, the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, and the Immigration Act of 1965 support why I agree with Kanstroom. More importantly by analyzing U.S. immigration laws that Kanstroom discuses in his book, insight to why immigration is such an issue is clear. The effects of Nationalism, eugenics, and racism all play a part in the foundation of U.S immigration policies and Kanstroom’s argument that “As a 100 plus years social experiment U.S deportation system has caused considerable harm and done little demonstrable good” is spot on.