“Centuries of Suppression”: Jeanelle D. Horcasitas on Julia Rose Kraut’s *Threat of Dissent: A History of Ideological Exclusion and Deportation in the United States*

Julia Rose Kraut’s Threat of Dissent: A History of Ideological Exclusion and Deportation in the United States, unpacks centuries of legislative statutes and political actions to ideologically exclude and deport immigrants, foreigners, and noncitizens as a way to suppress dissent and eliminate or censor freedom of expression. Kraut’s work offers a comprehensive analysis from the eighteenth century, World War I and World War II, to the twenty-first century and the War on Terror. Each chapter builds upon the other, focusing on the legislative response to political or social unrest of the time, and how these laws are repeatedly used as tools for power and repression over anyone deemed a threat. In addition, Kraut illustrates the various figures, communities, and organizations opposed to these laws, and how they challenged, failed, or succeeded in effecting change especially for immigrants, foreigners, and noncitizens. Threat of Dissent is at the intersection of a wealth of scholarship on immigration and deportation, and Kraut’s work is an excellent contribution and close reading of the underpinnings of these laws and the persistent harm they’ve had for generations on those who differ in ethnicity, country, and ideology.

Kraut’s analysis begins by tracing readers all the way back to the late eighteenth century, where she focuses on a law that would change the course of history for immigrants, foreigners, and noncitizens for years to come. This law was the Alien Friends Act of 1798, which enacted one of the first “implicit ideological deportation law(s)” that gave “absolute power” to the president to deport any person(s) they perceived as a threat to the U.S.^[1] Other laws passed by Congress, such as the Sedition Act in 1798, were more explicit in denouncing dissent by punishing anyone who wrote, printed, or published anything malicious or false about the U.S., or any other of the government branches. Then, almost a century later, laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act^[2], the Immigration Act of 1882^[3], and the plenary power doctrine^[4], were enforced to discriminate against people with different backgrounds and statuses, especially immigrants who were often the scapegoats during economic depression. Overall, Kraut cites these laws as the foundation for the legal recourse needed to propel the suppression, deportation, and exclusion of foreigners, noncitizens, and citizens who identified as anarchists and Communists throughout the 20th century.

In the early 1900’s, the War on Anarchy was a campaign to eliminate the perceived threat of physical violence that anarchy (specifically from noncitizens or foreigners) could generate among and expose U.S. citizens to, and therefore, any individuals or groups with anarchist ideologies were targeted as prime suspects.^[5] Kraut explains that laws such as The Alien Immigration Act of 1903 were vague in that they did not distinguish between the difference between anarchy that was physically violent or simply an ideological threat—thus, leaving many foreigners and noncitizens fair game for interrogation.^[6] As a result, new organizations emerged in response, such as the Free Speech League, who made it their mission to protect the constitutional rights of  freedom of speech and expression. Unfortunately, Congress would fight back by building on existing laws to denaturalize and revoke one’s citizenship if “fraud, misrepresentation, or deception” was found.^[7]

During World War I, more laws were passed, such as the Anarchist Exclusion Act to suppress anarchist ideology, and the Passport Act in 1926 as a way to authorize and validate passports only through the discretion of the secretary of state, by way of the president—which worked together to exclude and deport more foreigners, immigrants, and noncitizens deemed a threat.^[8] Moreover, the Red Scare fueled other tactics like the Palmer Raiders to infiltrate places that “radicals” were supposed to be. However, despite these attacks on radical thought and activism, Kraut highlights organizations that united together to fight back, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who was mainly concerned with protecting freedom of political and economic speech. Kraut explains that even though these laws were broadly made to suppress anarchists, they eventually evolved and then shifted into targeting Communists.

Then, during the Great Depression, a new agency called the Immigration Naturalization Service (INS) worked to deport and denaturalize as many people as they could with these laws.^[9] Kraut explains that in response, the American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born (ACPFB) was created to help foreign-born citizens and noncitizens who were facing these discriminatory laws of denaturalization and deportation.^[10] Unfortunately, with the rise of anti-Communism, Congress continued to revise laws or enact new ones to continue deporting immigrants.^[11] Kraut even compares the type of revisionist laws enacted, such as the Smith Act, or Alien Registration Act, which similar to the Anarchist Exclusion Act, was a way to “restrict and close any loopholes standing in the way of implementing ideological deportation” so that the  government could monitor foreigners coming in and their political affiliations.^[12] Laws became even more stringent when the U.S. entered into World War II,^[13]. However, organizations continued to fight back and even though the ACPFB found some success with preventing deportations—the second half of the 20th century was still a tumultuous journey for noncitizens, immigrants, and foreigners.

In particular, Kraut illuminates how the McCarran-Walter Act  “combined all previous immigration and naturalization laws into one statute” and “represented the culmination of ideological exclusion and deportation.”^[14] Moreover it gave the attorney general power to “arrest, detain, and deport noncitizens from the United States.”^[15] During this time, the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee (ECLC) was founded to provide legal defense for those being persecuted by the McCarran Act. However, things began to change when President John F. Kennedy came into office, in hopes of creating a more “open” society. Unfortunately, Kraut depicts these small victories as being short-lived when entering into the 1970’s under President M. Nixon, when there was a strong return to McCarranism and the reinforcement of ideological exclusion and suppressing dissent.

Kraut describes Nixon’s time in office as an “abuse of power and use of retaliation to stifle critical, punish perceived enemies,” and these actions were primarily exhibited  through the use of the McCarran-Walter Act.^[16] In fact, the U.S. District Court Judge at the time, John Dooling Jr. stated that in the Ernest Mandel case, that even foreigners had First Amendment protections and criticized the attorney general for “unchecked discretion [that] had turned him into a censor.”^[17] However,  Justice Blackmum’s rebuttal to these claims were that the attorney general’s exercise of power was valid for a “facially legitimate and bona fide reason.”^[18]  Kraut argues, however, that this reason was never explained, and because of the plenary power doctrine in place, the attorney general could justify this exclusion.

Later on, however, with President Jimmy Carter, the Helsinki Final Act was enacted as an attempt to combat ideological exclusion by the McCarran-Walter Act. Then, in 1987, there was some hope with the passing of the Moynihan-Frank Amendment, which effectively prohibited the deportation or exclusion of foreigners based on their beliefs, as this is a protected constitutional right. This was truly a victory for stopping ideological exclusions and deportations related to anarchism and Communism, but it was not the end and these same laws persisted with the War on Terror.

The 1990’s reinvigorated the government’s justification for exclusions and deportations with laws like the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 was passed, which “left tremendous power and discretion in the hands of the secretary of state to designate a group a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO)” and determine if they were involved in any terrorist activity.^[19] Kraut illustrates that this meant if an FTO were found to have membership in or “material support” they would be excluded or deported—thus, re-introducing suppression and ideological exclusion into the new millennia. More fuel was added to the fire with the terrifying terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. As a result, many people from the Middle East or South Asian communities were targeted as possible suspects because of their descent, and the USA PATRIOT Act exacerbated this discrimination by allowing for the surveillance and investigation of website history, wiretaps, and even “sneak peek” warrants of both citizens and noncitizens.^[20] These laws demonstrated that the government’s access to so much information about citizens and noncitizens could transpire into their free expression or ideologies being used against them.

During the Trump administration, restrictions, exclusions, and deportations continued to be a focus for the government. In fact, the travel ban (Executive Order 13769), was a tactic for “extreme vetting” to protect the U.S. from foreign terrorists, which directly cited back to the McCarran-Walter Act as justification. However, this was met with resistance, such as Congressman Judy Chu and others who introduced the NO BAN Act, which sought to repeal the travel ban and not allow for discrimination based on religion, as well as limit the executive branch’s power to make these restrictions and proclamations.^[21] Unfortunately, thousands of immigrants were still deported, and foreigners were excluded, demonstrating that even in this day and age, the government continues to repeat the past, almost always to the detriment of those who have little to no ability to advocate or protect themselves in the U.S.

In conclusion, Kraut’s Threat of Dissent is a thoughtful historical and legal analysis of the legacy of suppression on political or ideological expression in the U.S., and how these laws were created and enacted at the discretion of those political characters in power, and the threats they perceived in the U.S. and abroad. This work reckons with the difficult truth: even though these laws pose a direct threat to First Amendment and constitutional rights, no one is truly protected, but especially not immigrants, noncitizens, or foreigners. Instead, many lawmakers and those in power choose to re-animate and re-invent ways to suppress and exclude these communities over and over, becoming more monstrous each time. While Kraut recognizes many of the individuals and organizations that have worked together to fight back, she warns that until Congress and the Supreme Court can implement the appropriate safeguards or oversight for unchecked power and effect true change, then perhaps we can prevent the discriminatory exclusions and deportations that will likely continue to unravel and censor our freedoms in the future.

^[1] Kraut, 13.

^[2] This law prevented Chinese immigrants from coming into the U.S. to work and from becoming citizens.

^[3] This law excluded people who were deemed a “convict, lunatic, idiot” or incapable of taking care of themself (Kraut, 32).

^[4] This doctrine served as a way for Congress to enact restrictions or laws that discriminated against people with various backgrounds and status, but especially poor immigrants and non-citizens.

^[5] For example, Emma Goldman, who spoke publicly and was eventually leader of communist anarchism, was charged for various crimes and jailed, and even spied upon, in hopes that there could be a reason to deport her.

^[6] In the United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams case, John Turner was the first foreign anarchist to be impacted by this act. Even though Turner’s appointed defense, Clarence Darrow, challenged the arguments of this act by explaining Turner’s anarchism as philosophical/ideological, and not a true threat, and that his exclusion would place censorship on the right to freedom of speech and belief, he was unsuccessful (Kraut 53).

^[7] Kraut, 59.

^[8] Kraut, 65, 69.

^[9] For example, the Johnson-Reed Act, the process to enter the U.S. became even more complicated with first obtaining a visa from an American consulate (Kraut, 89). Moreover, during this time, “400,000 to one million Mexicans and Mexican Americans left the United States” and “103, 295 were deported or left ‘voluntarily’” in the 1930s, which at the time exceeded the number of those immigrating to the U.S.  (Kraut 92, 93).

^[10] Kraut, 95.

^[11] For example, the Dies Bill, which required that immigrants had to “declare their intention to become citizens within one year after entry and to become citizens after six years, or face deportation.” Moreover, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was created in 1938 to investigate any “un-American” type of speech and propaganda both in the U.S. and abroad (Kraut, 100, 101).

^[12] Kraut, 108.

^[13] For example, during this time 120,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans that were incarcerated in internment camps (Kraut, 110).

^[14] Kraut, 129

^[15] Kraut, 133.

^[16] Kraut, 155.

^[17] Kraut, 172.

^[18] Kraut, 177.

^[19] Kraut, 214.

^[20] Kraut, 220.

^[21] Kraut, 245.