Mendoza 7:28One of the first immigration laws we passed, was in 1875, called the Page Act. What we wanted was we wanted labor, we wanted labor that was vulnerable. But after the Civil War, you can't have slaves anymore. So they went for what was called quote unquote coolie labor. This has a whole long history, that trace that goes all the way back to the Opium Wars with with China, we basically cut up China into four different quadrants. And one of the deals was the British could export quote unquote, coollie Labor from China, to the United States. And so this was you started seeing an increase in that labor, especially in places like San Francisco, you had a gold rush. You had people from China coming and doing the work. What folks didn't want was to have these folks as part of the nation. So one way you keep folks from being part of the nation is you prevent their women from coming. Now, you could just absolutely say, well, we don't want women to come. Or you could say, look, we don't want women because they're prostitutes. So if you trace the origin of exclusions, they actually tend to be very gendered. And they tend to focus on morality, and they tend to use things like well, these these women would not come to the United States for any other reason than to be prostitutes. And so you just want the men. That's all you want. Turns out, that wasn't enough. You had the men come and even keeping the women out some of the men were staying. So we passed the Chinese Exclusion Act for for speaking in the 1800s 1880s. These acts though had to be constantly renewed So not only were you excluding folks, but you had to renew them like every 5-6-7-8-9-10 years and they would add things every time they renew them. The first version of these acts gave you a kind of voucher, which said, Look, if you're already lawfully admitted to first really took away people citizenship made them legal, permanent residents, and then they said, Look, we'll give you a voucher. If you want to go and visit your family in China and come back. You've got this like, exit come in voucher. This guy Chao Che Ping was literally on a boat back from China to the United States. With his voucher. They changed the rules on him. He gets to San Francisco and this guy's like detained for weeks in a Port of San Francisco cannot be administratively disembarked This case goes all the way to the Supreme Court. It seems like a pretty clear cut case. You can't just change the rules on you. And then you know, ex post facto, what the court argued was that immigration is different. It's a different kind of power that the Federal Government has. It's a power that it has unconditionally, and cannot be reviewed judiciously by the judicial branch. It can exercise it in any way it sees fit. And so just because they changed the rules of the game, that was no big deal, because he had no real Chou Che Ping had no real standing in court. You can't sue the federal government to change its immigration policy. The policy is made by the legislative branch and the executive branch and the judicial branch stays out of this. This is going to be important for crimmigration because what that means is that immigration courts, this is going to be weird. immigration courts are not part of the judicial branch. immigration courts are part of the executive branch. And in this way, when it comes to immigration, the federal government is judge, jury and executer of this of this rule. Now, this is an insane amount of power. It's called the Plenary Power doctrine. It's been upheld, it's still upheld. So we've taken away the racist provisions. But that's been Congress did it. But the actual justification is still on the books. So plenary power can trace itself back to this racist immigration case. Lots of other cases went before went after they all kept failing. This guy Geary with I think has a street named after him in San Francisco passed an amendment to the Chinese Exclusion cases. In 1892, it's 1892 passes an amendment, it just puts all these gross things into the Chinese Exclusion Cases. It says that if you are Chinese, you cannot serve as a witness to court to to witness for trial cases. So you have cases where the only witnesses to a murder are people of Chinese descent. They come and say this person did it. And that's inadmissible because you cannot be a witness. In these cases. They add an amendment that says if you are illegal permanent resident of Chinese descent, you must carry with you proof that you are here lawfully. It's the first \"show me your papers\" amendments in the United States. Wong Wing is caught without his papers.
The other thing they added though, was not just that you will be deported if they would give you a year hard labor. So not only would you be deported, but they would give you what's essentially a criminal punishment. Now this is where it gets interesting. So this goes before the Supreme Court. Wong Wing says you can't do this to me without a trial by jury. You're doing you're gonna deport me and you're going to have me serve a year of hard labor. I should have a jury of my peers or a jury in general convict me. Supreme Court agreed with him half the way he still gets deported. But they don't give them the one year hard labor because this is the interesting point. They said well, the heart one year hard labor that is a criminal punishment, and the only way the federal government is allowed to exercise so much control over this one particular area, namely immigration is because immigration itself is not a crime. So being present unlawfully is not a criminal offense, and you cannot use it. But here's the other Flipside. They can't give you a one year. hard labor, hard labor, but being removed is not considered punishment. It's called it's just an administrative procedure. So there is a weird balance here, which is in the area where the federal government has this much absolute power. It can't therefore exercise these kinds of criminal punishments and where it can exercise, criminal punishments I give to your hard labor or put you in jail, then you're entitled to the the amendments, that you have a right to a jury, right to an attorney, or you're supposed to be a nice little bounce. You have this much power. You can't do this to folks, if you can do this to folks, then you'd have protections in these ways. Crimmmigration messes this up. And we've allowed it to slowly creep in. It's got three aspects. And typically they're not seen as coming. When you see each of these by themselves. You're kind of like what's kind of weird, but if you see them functioning as a system, it's actually very scary. in one respect crimmigration is when these criminal convictions you're convicted of a crime, then have immigration consequences. The second one is kind of the opposite where immigration violations come to have criminal punishments. And the third aspect is when tactics that are allowed to be used for either law enforcement or for immigration get muddled together, and so you can use one for the other. You can, for example, if you if you are part of a part of one of these secure community programs, and you're a police officer, you can stop someone on suspected immigration violations. And then if you find something else on them that then you can use it for criminal prosecution. You see, this creates this kind of way of circumventing a lot of your protections. You said, Well, here I'm act, I'm acting as a proxy as a kind of deputized immigration enforcement agent. And in these duties where I have these rights to stop anyone asking for their papers, I found this other thing, which I would have not been able to find if I was just acting as a regular police officer. A couple things really quickly. Here's some of the troubling statistics about that first aspect, criminal convictions having immigration consequences. Well, the first hundred years between 1875 pay jacked up until 1980, you had only 70,000 immigrants deported for criminal offenses. In 2013. Alone, you had over 200,000. Now what why is the case because the laws have been changing the rely on really vague terms such as crimes involving moral turpitude What do you think that means Whatever each of you think it means. That's what different judges thinks there is no real defined definition. aggravated felony. It sounds terrible. But it could be it turns out to be very much anything else. And the worst part is it started getting used retroactively. So you had folks who would not have been who there was, there was a case of a man who was a Cambodian refugee from Cambodia. Come to United States at the age of one or two. Does something stupid, hangs out with the wrong folks, finds himself in a shopping mall. He's about to get jumped by a rival gang. He takes his gun shoots it in the air doesn't shoot anybody just shoots like a warning shot to get people away from him. That was stupid. Does six months of prison pays you know pays his dues to society at the age of 34 applies to become a US citizen because he hadn't done that yet applies become a US citizen. This law been passed in 96 He goes, he applies. I said, Well, you know what, 15 years ago, you did something really stupid. You are now removable. This this man who left Cambodia at the age of two gets deported back to Cambodia.
Mendoza 30:07As you I was putting this thing together, I promised to do three slides and quickly morphed into something else. One of the slides that got removed was the was gonna be a third case that's going to look at Wong Kim Ark, it does come up, what was decided was you cannot lose your birthright citizenship. So naturalization has its own deal. What so we, if I'm not mistaken, the Constitution got ratified in 1789. Every state had finally signed or it migh have been -79. Either way, the very first act that gets the very the very first act gets passed after that is a Naturalization Act. The question is, well, who's going to get to count as as as as a naturalized citizen So we've got everyone who's here now you get it. And what they said then, and this was an effect until the 1940s, and it's only because of world war two and the Nazis have this change. Because people were pointing to us and say, aren't you like Nazis, up until the 1940s. To be a naturalized US citizen, you had to be a white person in good standing to be naturalized, but you could still be a natural born citizen. So that's why they got that's how people got retroactively lost their citizenship was they said, well, you're not you're not a white person in good standing. You were born in China, you can't be a citizen. But people who were born the United States kept their citizenship and this was this was especially important for the Japanese community, who would put a lot of their land in the name of their children. But then we quickly found out in 1944, that didn't matter because the federal government just coming you know, this was still this is the moment the most ironic things so when the Supreme Court said that the the Trump's Muslim ban was legal. One of the things that they finally retro actively did away with was the Karamatsu case, which was the Japanese internment Case it's kind of a weird sort of, it's ironic with the think of it so Karamatsu is now off the books. But up until about a year ago, it was still in the books. So, now I'm just kind of ranting, but yes, the citizenship issue came up, and the 14th amendment holds up. But but that holds up only if you're born in that is born to US parents. So for a lot of these folks, They were neither they neither had US parents, nor were they born in the US, but their children got citizenship and the Wong Kim Ark, that's when the government tried to take away Walmart citizenship, wonky Mark got to keep his citizenship. And that's that's I'm not gonna make any more predictions because my predictions have not been well with last year's I find it hard. I noticed they'll talk about I find it hard for them to go back on it, but Stranger things right. Also, the Karamatsu case was so Karamatsu was a US citizen. Born your natural born US citizen was put into an internment camp during World War Two sued and said you could not have done this to me. And Supreme Court said yes we could. And so that's that that case stood so what so even though presidents have apologized, Japanese community said lay what we did was kind of messed up. Turns out it was messed up. It was awful, but it was not illegal. And when in and justice just to kind of throw it in, when they when they ruled on Trump's Muslim ban, they explicitly they explicitly explicitly renounced the Karamatsu case. So now it's it's been overturned, which tends to happen. So like, like Plessy versus Ferguson, justified, separate but equal, it's not so you get the Brown decision that overturns that decision. Similar, Karamatsu. Karamatsu was was the law of the land, but it'd be hard to intern people now politically you would think but the the the recent case overturned that 59ce067264