Trump Advocates for Deportation of Non-citizens through an Obscure Proviso; Legislation Aims to Abolish It
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952, also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, has been a subject of debate for many years, particularly due to a provision that allows the U.S. government to deport noncitizens based on perceived threats to foreign policy interests. This provision, which has been used sparingly throughout history, has recently come under renewed scrutiny.
Historically, this foreign policy deportation authority was most prominently exercised during the Cold War, targeting ideological and political grounds such as alleged Communist affiliations. Notable cases include that of Harry Bridges, an Australian-born labor leader, who fought multiple deportation attempts due to alleged Communist ties, and Carlos Marcello, an alleged Mafia boss, who was deported in 1961 under the auspices of foreign policy considerations.
In more recent decades, the foreign policy deportation provision has remained controversial. For example, a case involving a person identified as Massieu exposed the provision’s potential for arbitrary use: the Secretary of State's unchallengeable discretion to deport noncitizens based on vague foreign policy grounds led to judicial appeals that ultimately circumvented meaningful constitutional review, forcing deportation despite credible death threats upon return to their country. This highlights ongoing issues with the provision's lack of transparency and due process safeguards.
In a recent development, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been cited as saying that there might be more than 300 cases where he has taken away the visas of foreign students who express pro-Palestinian views. This has led to concerns about the potential misuse of this provision and the stifling of free speech.
In response, House Democrats have introduced a bill called the Land of the Free Act. This bill aims to repeal the controversial provision in the INA of 1952 that allows for noncitizens to be deported if the secretary of state believes their presence in the U.S. is a foreign policy threat. The bill's co-sponsors include Democratic Reps. Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Mary Gay Scanlon (Penn.), Lateefah Simon (Calif.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) and Summer Lee (Penn.).
The provision in question was struck down as unconstitutional by Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, sister of the current president, in 1996, due to its vague language and unrestricted power given to the secretary of state. However, an appeals court eventually vacated her ruling. The bill introduced by Reps. Deborah Ross (D-N.C.) and Becca Balint (D-Vt.) seeks to address these issues and make it harder for the Trump administration to weaponize someone's immigration status to stifle political speech.
The controversy surrounding this provision reflects a broader historical pattern in U.S. immigration law of balancing national security/foreign policy concerns against individual rights, often erring towards expansive executive deportation authority during politically charged periods. However, the Land of the Free Act aims to strike a balance that respects both national security interests and the constitutional rights of individuals.
[^1]: Harry Bridges [^2]: Carlos Marcello
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952's foreign policy deportation authority, as seen in the historic cases of Harry Bridges and Carlos Marcello, has a history of being used for ideological and political grounds during the Cold War, sparking debates about politics, policy-and-legislation, and general news. Current concerns center around the potential misuse of this authority, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio taking away visas from foreign students expressing pro-Palestinian views, leading to scrutiny and proposed reform, like the Land of the Free Act, aiming to repeal the controversial provision and uphold due process and individual rights.
In response to controversies surrounding the foreign policy deportation provision's arbitrariness and potential for abuses in national security and political contexts, House Democrats have proposed the Land of the Free Act, aiming to strike a balance between national security concerns and the constitutional rights of individuals, ensuring the protection of free speech and individual rights while maintaining appropriate foreign policy interests.
