Search

The United States ban on Immigration based on Political Affiliation.

A closer look at President Trump's attempt to Ban Ex-Communists from becoming U.S. Citizens


Originally Published by Illumination Curated on Medium



Photo by Jeremy Dorrough on Unsplash

American defense news published a report on October 5th, 2020, stating that President Donald Trump is considering the immigration reform that would prohibit offering naturalization to the ex-members of the Chinese Communist Party. That is amid an overwhelming surge in Chinese migration to the U.S. in recent years. The increasing tension between Beijing and Washington has ignited a worrying amount of a few in the intelligence community. This surge has conformed to the growing threats of spying across the U.S. government, industry, and academia.

Before we go further, let me emphasize by saying:

“Communism is wrong; it is a failure and is unsustainable.”

The Trump administration's new guideline intends to serve Chinese people from the communist party as they call totalitarian. That is justified under national security to make the selected Chinese-born immigrants unable to become permanent residents or citizens, only with a few exceptions. Such policy comes as no surprise to those familiar with the Immigration Act of 1918 (The Dillingham-Hardwick Act) that labeled communists, anarchists, and others as security threats. The Dillingham-Hardwick Act was bolstered during the Cold War with the Soviet Union when the Internal Security Act excluded foreign members of communist or totalitarian parties from becoming naturalized U.S. nationals.

Now then again, in October 2020, the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) have issued a policy alert asserting: unless otherwise excepted, any intending immigrant who is a member or affiliate of the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party, domestic or foreign, is inadmissible to the United States. The statement outlines that the affiliation with the Communist Party or any different totalitarian regime is inconsistent, hence incompatible with the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America, including swearing to support and defend the constitution laws of the United States.

There is no argument that communist ideology is authoritarian and contrary to the standards set forth by the United States Constitution. However, that does not eliminate the fact that the constitution also rejects meddling with free expression, free speech, freedom of assembly, and petitioning the government under the First amendment. Under the 15th, the structure also prohibits denying the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. It is also evident that the constitution merely applies to the lawful citizens of the united states. Therefore, what kind of liberty and law would it be if the people uphold double standards by suppressing ideologies outside the borders and still call ourselves a nation of the free world?

Undoubtedly, communist mentality and norms would not prevail in a free-minded realm, especially where the prevailing constitution rejects the tyrannic sentiments. It is also fair to say that acts of espionage and national security matters will always exist, as long as conflicts between nations endure. And by no means eliminating people's option to become citizens purely based on ideologies and affiliations (Be it intentional or unintentional) will solve the national security issues. It may potentially send the wrong kind of message to the world.

According to the declaration, the ground of immigration inadmissibility solely applies to Chinese aliens seeking immigrant status, i.e., to adjust the lawful permanent resident position, and does not affect tourists or visitors with visas. Then again, such an assumption excludes the notion that one person who may have acted mistakenly does not get a chance to change their political stance, which by itself can be considered dictatorial.

The late United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) guidance notwithstanding, allows exemptions if a party member can prove that they joined the communist party "to obtain employment, food rations, or other living essentials. But the question is, how can that serve a purpose, since, in corrupt states, it would not be hard to create such documents. Hence, it will be tough to convince the immigration officials of the legitimacy of such proofs. The other main question would be; Is there a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in existence or power today? — Or is it just a label we would like to use to halt Immigration (at least partially or temporarily) from china? Is it a nationalistic or populist move to overcome the barriers set forth by the constitution to prevent discrimination?

Before the guidance was published in July, the State Department had exacted a ban on various senior CCP officials, comprising a top Politburo member. The said official allegedly was responsible for human rights abuses against Muslims in China's Xinjiang Uygur sovereign state. That came across as a wise move by most administrations, particularly regarding human rights and what the U.S. constitution stands for. Nevertheless, that move seems far from just a coincidence—many atrocities worldwide have been intentional but ignored by the U.S. administration over the last few decades. A few to mention are the Khojaly genocide of 1992, the Rohingya genocide, and the most recent U.S.-backed Yemen genocide by the hands of Saudi Arabia. So, one can justifiably argue that the administration's intention is not purely based on logical freedom of expression and speech.

Of course, as pointed out in the report, the new rules may be feeble and may even serve Beijing's interests. The Chinese government has repeatedly prohibited its officials from holding U.S. permanent resident status, based on the assumption that "Under Communist Party statutes, citizens are forbidden from adopting dual citizenship in the first place.

The Communist Party-led system is, indeed, totalitarian. There may well be among its members or ex- affiliates who serve as the bad apples. But that doesn't eliminate the fact that people change, reform, and still have the right to think, just like senator Bernie Sanders, who actively promotes socialized doctrine and even runs for office. After all, communism is the far-left end of the socialist system.

The problem with the Dillingham-Hardwick Act

The United States Immigration Act of 1918, the Dillingham-Hardwick Act, was enacted to correct President Woodrow Wilson's administration's deficiencies in prior laws. It provided the government with the power to deport unwanted aliens, including anarchists, communists, labor organizers, and similar activists. The enactment was superficially attractive, particularly to monopolizing the immigration system, but had its flaws. It was passed to ease the justice department's burden during the Great War in an attempt to crush anarchist activity because they were unable to obtain convictions of anarchists under the prevailing legislation. The Wilson administration determined their best opportunity to detain and remove foreign-born anarchists, antiwar protesters, and members of fundamentalist labor unions such as the Industrial Workers of the World from the United States. He established the Department of Immigration's authority to deport individuals under a "comprehensive delineation of anarchism." They could use administrative procedures that did not require a due process in courts of law. As the paradox to the later enactment, the phenomenon coined by U.S. sociologist Vincent Parrillo Dillingham Flaw was born. It merely refers to the faulty logic when nativists distort and negatively react to immigrants' ubiquity in their center. Parrillo adopted the name from a special commission founded by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1907. He did that at the time to look into the existing "immigration problem." Unfortunately, the latter opinion was flawed in its interpretation, as the Commission blundered in its use of simplistic categories such as equating old and new immigrants for diverse immigrant groups. Later on, they realized that the underlying intention to limit Immigration was not necessarily national security and upholding the constitution. It was about monopolizing the economy in favor of those who immigrated earlier. Parrillo argued that this erroneous thinking could occur in assessments of the past, present, or future. Even today, selective Immigration strongly assumes that enactments like the Dillingham-Hardwick Act have saved the country from various downfalls. In response to that stance, one must also understand that fighting for liberty starts with the Golden rule, not at the cost of freedom.

Discriminatory Policies have dictated U.S. Immigration Policies.

Looking back in the history of U.S. immigration policies, the country has had many enactments that were utterly prejudiced and often unconstitutional. They have been, in the majority of cases, legitimized under homeland security. The Anarchist Exclusion Act of 1903 banned perceived anarchists and the "people with epilepsy, and beggars. President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Naturalization Act of 1906. It placed learning the English language as an eligibility requirement for U.S. citizenship. President Roosevelt signed another immigration act into law that outlawed immigrants with disabilities and several different diseases, giving medical examiners and commissioners a more significant buff to turn away immigrants they alleged to be ill to be admitted to the United States. The Emergency Quota Act of 1921 limited immigrants to 3% of the residents already in the United States for each respective country. That ensured that a particular ethnicity would not dominate the already established group of people.

In 1922, the Married Women's Act designated any female U.S. citizen who married an immigrant ineligible for citizenship would lose her citizenship.

In 1965 the Immigration and Nationality Act capped all immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere at 170,000 a year and could not exceed more than 20,000 annually per country. In the same year, homosexuals were banned from being eligible to immigrate to the United States.

Obama Administration deported more migrants between 2009–2017 than any other administration, a total of over 5 million people. Trump also signed executive orders on border security and interior enforcement. He also signed an executive order at the Pentagon on refugees and visa holders from favored nations.

The United States Immigration Policy is Liberating to all Citizens

The open policy and establishment of opportunity are the essence of American life. It is meant to be non-discriminatory and welcoming. But that should not be without accountability and transparency. Overzealous and unilateral restraints on Immigration constitute an infringement of immigrants and other property owners' rights and compound a threat to individual liberty. The poor existing conditions of state-imposed migration barriers do not give a license to oppose open Immigration. We should advocate those policies that accord directly with non-aggression teaching.

We all have the right to associate with others as we see fit and engage in economic transactions with them accordingly. These rights are restrained through indiscriminate or discriminatory state commissions. Hence it is inequitable for states to infringe on individual rights even to bring about socially beneficial outcomes. States unquestionably can't meddle our rights as citizens so they can protect "some of us" from economic competition or shield our cultures from change. That is why immigration restrictions are wrong because when they restrict them, they stop you from associating with foreigners and engaging in many mutually beneficial economic exchanges.

Restricting Immigration using pretenses such as Nationalism, Racism, Populism, or Anarchism

Politics is; and will always be about the battle between justifications and reality. Bureaucrats have always strived to legitimize their actions and intentions by emphasizing rhetoric. To line up the populace behind them, they have consistently manufactured a common national enemy. In this case, they pass specific laws, although they seem to fight the common enemy; however, they are to fulfill alternate missions. One typical example is national-anarchism, when radical right-wing nationalist ideology promotes racial separatism and white racial purity, reinforces neo-tribal ethnic nationalism with philosophical anarchism. Since the concept of anarchism innately discusses profiling based on race and ethnicity, they can ensure the dominance of one nationality or race over the rest by creating a false sense of insecurity among the country's citizens.

Trump's banning of Immigration is based on political affiliation to the extreme anarchist populist. Although it may sound as if the intention is to protect liberty from the left-wing counterparts but in reality, it is everything but!

Trump's anti-immigration playbook was written 100 years ago in Boston, as we covered some scenarios earlier in this piece. More so, the Trump administration sends contradictory messages to the world by condemning Chinese tyranny on their sovereign Muslim population. The first thing he did was to declare a ban on admitting asylum seekers from Muslim countries.

We seem to be facing the predicament of the Normalization of Anarchism in an Age of Populism and nationalism.

“The walkway of free speech and free expression is reedy”

White supremacists, anarchists, communists, and whomever we disagree with have the right to speak their minds and coexist. The problem arises when one group or philosophy embarks to dominate the others thru suppression and monopoly.

Without a doubt, the interests of the individuals must always be protected and public safety satisfied. That is attained through proper security measures that are transparent and accountable. But across the board, the ban of certain political affiliates from immigrating based on history is unethical, discriminatory, and, hence, unconstitutional.

#politics #immigration #forignpolicy #trump #USA #communism

1 view0 comments

Recent Posts

See All