DEPORTATION AS WEAPON

I have just finished reading "A Dangerous Woman: The Graphic Biography of Emma Goldman" by Sharon Rudahl (2007) which I received as an unexpected, but very welcome gift. As one might imagine, Goldman's life fascinates me for several reasons, among them her idealism and unwavering activism on behalf of the working class and the poor; her struggle for the rights of women (although she did not support the right to vote given the tenets of anarchism), including collaboration in the efforts of Margaret Sanger to free women from the oppression of constant child-bearing; her deportation from the U.S. on political grounds; and her relationship to Rochester and Buffalo, NY. As well, Goldman’s story is a thread in the history of immigration and the unjustified deportation of those who are deemed undesirable. As a token to the memory of the people's historian Howard Zinn, I've chosen to dedicate this post to a brief and very simple historical account of immigration law and policy, and to those who were kept out or sent "home."

A few years ago, at the invitation of the instructor of a university media class, I screened a film entitled “Out of Status” about immigration law and policy post-9/11, and hosted a panel discussion following the film. The presentation was an overview of immigration history and those who have been identified as undesirable throughout the decades. Reading Goldman’s biography made me think of that presentation, so I went back to my notes. In preparing for the class, I learned that, quite interestingly, a survey of international legal opinions indicates that there was no consensus among nations about the right to control migration into one’s territory until the 20th century. Not surprisingly, it can also be discerned that the primary forces for immigration control revolve around economics (“they are stealing our jobs!”); creating an ideal society, such as one that conforms to Eurocentric norms; and a crisis attributed to the foreign-born, such as the threat of radical politics or today’s "war on terror." Various agencies in the Government, including the Treasury Department, the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice, all have been charged at some point with the enforcement of immigration law since the U.S. Supreme Court determined in 1875 that such responsibility fell on the federal government.

The Bureau of Citizenship, a forerunner to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which was abolished in 2003 after more than 60 years of existence, was created during the Civil War to encourage immigration from Northern Europe. It hired “Chinese Inspectors” who were stationed at ports of entry to limit the admission of Chinese nationals to the country. Such positions were maintained by the INS in later years. Obviously cheap labor was sorely needed in the U.S. in the late 19th century, and the Chinese were among the greatest contributors to the construction of the transcontinental railroad. Nonetheless, the U.S. sought to keep them from settling here after exploiting their labor. Indeed, Asians who came from nations as far west as Afghanistan were among the earliest victims of the U.S.'s racist exclusionary laws and policies. Angel Island in the San Francisco Bay was opened one hundred years ago as a detention facility to hold Asians seeking to enter the U.S., and it was in operation until 1940 (See posts about Angel Island below). These discriminatory migration laws were also extended to the Japanese. The Japanese internments during WWII are perhaps the most offensive evidence that the profiling of Asian people in the U.S. lasted well into the mid-20th century.

In spite of the aforementioned, open borders were the norm in this country until the late 19th century. The Government was not so much concerned about the border, but rather about who sought to cross it. For example, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798-1802 called for the arrest of those who were “dangerous to the peace and safety of the U.S.,” and the Know Nothing Party of the late 19th century rallied against the Irish and other Catholics deemed a threat to Anglo-Saxon Protestantism. The chronology of immigration laws which sought to exclude the so-called undesirable is more or less as follows:

— 1875 law bars convicts and prostitutes from entering the U.S.
— 1882 law bars “idiots, lunatics, convicts and persons likely to become public charges”
— 1891 law bars those who suffer from contagious diseases
— 1902 law bars anarchists

Today’s immigration law still renders inadmissible those likely to become a public charge and those likely to engage in prostitution, those convicted of most criminal offenses, those with contagious diseases (and until very recently it included those with the HIV virus), as well as Communists. Homosexuality was also deemed a ground of exclusion in past decades. Since President George H.W. Bush's declaration of a "war on drugs" to combat the perceived drug crisis in this country in the mid-1980's, no single offense, other than than the obvious terrorist-related violation, has more serious immigration implications than drugs. Rehabilitation is not an option in law enforcement's arsenal (See posts below regarding "aggravated felonies.)

The National Origin Quota System of 1912 was in effect until the mid-1960’s, and its primary purpose was to limit Southern and Eastern European migration to the U.S. The law also maintained an “Asiatic barred zone.” Discrimination against Italians was quite visible during WWII. Some 58,000 Italians living on the West Coast were required to relocate, and certain German and Italian nationals were also interned along with the Japanese. One may recall when Senator Pete Domenici sadly disclosed his Italian mother’s arrest and detention by immigration authorities in the mid-1940’s when he was just a frightened little boy. In fact, during those debates on immigration law in 2006, Senator Arlen Spector also described his parents' migration from Russia only to find anti-Semitism present in the U.S.

Border control gained prominence at the beginning of the 20th century following the Mexican Revolution, and the fear that its “radical” ideals would spread northward. This led to an increase in the presence of agents on the Southern border in 1917, although there still were no quotas on migration from the Western Hemisphere countries until the mid-1920’s. Mexican agricultural labor was desperately needed in the United States and border enforcement remained lax. Moreover, until only about a half century earlier, the Southwestern U.S. had been Spanish, and then Mexican territory, and people were accustomed to venturing back and forth over the Rio Grande with relative ease. However, when the economy turned sour, American politics changed accordingly. During the Great Depression there were mass deportations of 415,000 Mexicans, some of whom were U.S.-born citizens, and no due process was ever afforded to the victims during these drastic practices. Prior to this time, the focus of border agents had been on the smuggling of alcohol into the country during Prohibition, especially from Canada. However, by 1933 immigration enforcement began to focus on Mexicans and the Southern border. When WWII produced labor shortages in the U.S., Mexicans were again encouraged to migrate North. The notoriously exploitative “bracero” program was created in 1946 to bring farm labor to work in the booming U.S. agricultural industry. (Its bitter legacy of abuse is one of the primary reasons why reaching an agreement today about an appropriate visa program for unskilled laborers is so difficult.) Although no formal restrictions against Mexican migration really existed until 1968 after the end of the “bracero” program, “Operation Wetback” was instituted in 1954, which in turn led to massive round-ups of suspected undocumented Mexicans in the Southwest. A record number of deportations ensued.

The Red Scare of the 1920’s, which led to the Palmer Raids, arguably set a historical precedent for today’s “war on terror.” Hundreds of immigrants, mostly Italian and Jewish, including Emma Goldman and Marcus Garvey, were deported for unionizing and/or for their “radical” political opinions and activism. Anarchists were deemed particularly threatening after the assassination of President McKinley in 1901 at the Pan American Exhibition in Buffalo by a Polish-American anarchist. The accused, Leon Czolgosz, who was born in Detroit, was arrested, tried and hanged in a little more than one month from the date of McKinley’s death. Goldman was suspected of having participated in the assassination plot, though Czolgosz always insisted that he had acted alone and that Goldman was innocent of any wrongdoing.

This is the period in American history during which J. Edgar Hoover rose to power, turning the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) into a massive bureaucracy, and using the agency to effectively suppress all dissidence which he deemed subversive, including anti-war protests during WWI and the rising labor movement. Labor organizing, in particular, involved many immigrants since they were already quite sensitive to issues of exploitation (For example, in John Sayles' film "Matewan," set in the early 20th century, the Italian immigrants, while initially viewed skeptically as outsiders, are ultimately called upon to tip the balance in favor of the miners' efforts unionize). Hoover had begun his career at the Justice Department as the head of the Enemy Aliens Registration Section. In fact, even John Lennon had to fight Hoover to obtain a “green card” in the 1970’s due not only to a marijuana possession conviction, but because of his popular political activism. (See the film “The U.S. v. John Lennon” ). As is also well known, Senator Joseph McCarthy led a witch hunt for Communists in the 1950’s, and operated his mission to rid the nation of leftists. He operated parallel to the House Committee on Un-American Activities, which was active from 1938 until 1975. Many of those brought before the Committee, like those accused of suversion in earlier years, were simply implicated through guilt by association.

Illegal migration in general became a crisis for the U.S. in the 1960’s and 70’s, although its targets in those years were still Mexicans and subsequently Central Americans, especially during the civil wars in Guatemala and El Salvador. It was not until 1980 that Congress passed the Refugee Act, formalizing the process by which those seeking safe haven in the U.S. could apply for asylum, something which, until then, seemed reserved exclusively for Soviets and other fleeing Communism. During the 1980’s, as the war in El Salvador became intensely violent, and the well-documented human rights atrocities committed against civilians grew fierce, Salvadorans fled en masse to this country for protection. Disturbingly, only about 5% of them were granted asylum status due to the U.S.'s support of the repressive Central American regimes primarily responsible for persecuting their own citizens. Out of this obvious injustice grew the sanctuary movement which was dedicated to helping Central Americans reach Canada, where asylum grants were much more generous (VIVE La Casa in Buffalo was founded with this objective); as well as the landmark lawsuit, American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, which denounced the Government for having brought Central American policy considerations into the objective asylum process. Both forever affected immigration policy and law toward Central Americans.

On September 24, 2008, I read an article in The San Francisco Chronicle reporting that Customs and Border Protection officials were inquiring about the political opinions and religious beliefs of those seeking to enter the U.S. These interrogations involved such questions as "do you hate America?" "did you attend mosque abroad?" "whom did you see while abroad?" These tactics coincided with newly instituted searches of laptops and other electronic equipment. Both measures were strongly denounced by civil rights groups and advocates for Muslims and Arabs, and have been the subject of legal action. Very interestingly, these types of policies had been previously instituted in the early 1980’s by President Ronald Reagan to question and search those returning from trips to Sandinista Nicaragua. However, even then, reasonable suspicion was required to undertake this kind of obtrusive search, and probing one’s thoughts and life was prohibited.

Excluding the undesirable, defined as such for various reasons throughout history, is most evident in deportation. The banishment of people who have made the U.S. their home is an aggressive measure, and Emma Goldman's recollection of the day when she was deported from the United States is a clear representation of the moment. Like Goldman, my own clients have frequently related to me how their own removal occurs when they are awakened in the early hours of the morning.

Below is Emma Goldman's narrative, reprinted from Emma Goldman Papers Project maintained on-line by the University of California at Berkeley:

"It was almost midnight when suddenly I caught the sound of approaching footsteps. 'Look out someone's coming!' Ethel whispered. I snatched up my papers and letters and hid them under my pillow. Then we threw ourselves on our beds, covered up, and pretended to be asleep.

The steps halted at our room. There came the rattling of keys; the door was unlocked and noisily thrown open. Two guards and a matron entered. 'Get up now,' they commanded, 'get your things ready!'...

Deep snow lay on the ground; the air was cut by a biting wind. A row of armed civilians and soldiers stood along the road to the bank. Dimly the outlines of a barge were visible through the morning mist. One by one the deportees marched, flanked on each side by the uniformed men, curses and threats accompanying the thud of their feet on the frozen ground. When the last man had crossed the gangplank, the girls and I were ordered to follow, officers in front and in back of us. . . .

I looked at my watch. It was 4:20 A.M. on the day of our Lord, December 21, 1919. On the deck above us I could hear the men tramping up and down in the wintry blast. I felt dizzy, visioning a transport of politicals doomed to Siberia, the étape of former Russian days. Russia of the past rose before me and I saw the revolutionary martyrs being driven into exile. But no, it was New York, it was America, the land of liberty! Through the port­hole I could see the great city receding into the distance, its sky­line of buildings traceable by their rearing heads. It was my beloved city, the metropolis of the New World. It was America, indeed, America repeating the terrible scenes of tsarist Russia! I glanced up at ­­the Statue of Liberty!"