The History of Deporting Migrants Out of the USA and Its Conflict with Human Rights Treaties
Introduction:
The United States has a long and complex history of deporting migrants, a practice that has often sparked significant controversy and raised questions about its compliance with international human rights standards. From the early 20th century to the present day, U.S. deportation policies have evolved in response to shifting political, economic, and social landscapes. However, many of these policies have conflicted with human rights treaties, particularly those addressing the rights of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. This article explores the history of deportations in the U.S. and examines how these actions have often clashed with international human rights obligations.
Early Deportation Practices (18th and 19th Centuries)
The origins of deportation in the United States can be traced back to the late 18th century. The Naturalization Act of 1798, part of the Alien and Sedition Acts, allowed the federal government to deport non-citizens deemed “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.” This early legislation was primarily aimed at political dissidents and reflected the young nation’s anxieties about foreign influence. While these early laws were primarily aimed at political dissidents, they set a precedent for using deportation as a tool of control.
During the 19th century, deportation was not a widespread practice, as the country’s open immigration policies encouraged the arrival of millions of Europeans to support industrialization and westward expansion. However, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 marked a significant turning point. This law, the first to restrict immigration based on nationality, prohibited Chinese laborers from entering the country and allowed for the deportation of those who arrived illegally. It set a precedent for using deportation as a means of enforcing racially discriminatory immigration policies.
Early 20th Century: The Foundations of U.S. Deportation Policy
The U.S. government began formalizing deportation policies in the early 20th century, largely in response to growing nativist sentiment and economic pressures. The Immigration Act of 1917 expanded the categories of deportable offenses, including crimes of “moral turpitude” and violations of immigration laws.
During World War II, the U.S. faced labor shortages and established the Bracero Program in 1942, which allowed Mexican laborers to work temporarily in the United States. However, the program coexisted with heightened immigration enforcement. In 1954, the federal government launched Operation Wetback, a massive deportation campaign targeting undocumented Mexican immigrants. Over a million people were deported, often under harsh and inhumane conditions. While the operation was framed as a response to illegal immigration, it also reflected broader racial and economic tensions. This policy violated fundamental human rights principles, such as the right to nationality and protection from arbitrary expulsion, which would later be codified in international treaties.
Mid-20th Century: The Cold War and Ideological Deportations
During the Cold War, deportation policies were often used as a tool to suppress political dissent. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter Act) allowed the government to deport non-citizens based on their political beliefs or associations, targeting suspected communists and other leftist activists. These deportations frequently violated the right to freedom of thought and association, as outlined in Article 19 and 20 of the UDHR and later in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the U.S. ratified in 1992.
Late 20th Century: The Rise of Detention and Mass Deportations
The 1980s and 1990s saw a significant increase in deportations, driven by stricter immigration laws and the growing use of detention centers. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) legalized some undocumented immigrants but also intensified enforcement measures. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) expanded the categories of deportable offenses and made it easier to deport non-citizens, including long-term residents with minor criminal records. These policies often resulted in the separation of families and the deportation of individuals to countries where they faced persecution, violating the principle of non-refoulement under the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, which the U.S. ratified in 1968.
21st Century: The Expansion of Deportation Under ICE
The creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in 2003 marked a new era of aggressive immigration enforcement. Under the Obama administration, a record 3 million people were deported between 2009 and 2016, earning him the nickname “Deporter-in-Chief.” The Trump administration continued Obama’s practices and implementing new policies like “zero tolerance,” which led to the separation of thousands of migrant children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border. These actions drew widespread condemnation for violating international human rights standards, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which protects children from arbitrary separation from their families. Although the U.S. has not ratified the CRC, the policy conflicts with widely accepted norms of child welfare and family unity.
Human Rights Violations in Deportation Practices
Deportation remains a highly contentious issue in the U.S., as government actions frequently clash with human rights commitments. Deporting individuals back to countries where they face harm is not just a legal violation but a profound ethical concern. Furthermore, the U.S. has often ignored or circumvented international human rights obligations in its pursuit of stricter immigration control. Internationally, deportations have long been seen as a violation of the right to asylum, which is a fundamental human right under both international law and various human rights conventions, including the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Asylum seekers are entitled to a fair process before deportation, and removal to a country where they face danger undermines the core principle of non-refoulement—the prohibition against sending individuals to countries where they may face persecution. Some of the concerns where deportation practices may conflict with human rights norms or legal protection are explicitly connected to treaties and conventions, most of which the US government signed without reservations.
Right to Due Process: Many deportations have been carried out without adequate legal representation or fair hearings, violating Article 14 of the ICCPR, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. For example, expedited removal procedures often deny migrants the opportunity to present their cases fully.
Non-Refoulement: The deportation of individuals to countries where they face torture, persecution, or other serious harm violates the principle of non-refoulement under the Refugee Convention and the Convention Against Torture (CAT), which the U.S. ratified in 1994. For instance, the deportation of Central American asylum seekers to countries with high levels of gang violence has raised serious concerns.
Family Unity: The separation of families during deportation processes conflicts with the right to family life under the UDHR and ICCPR. The Trump administration’s family separation policy is a stark example of this violation.
Protection of Children: The detention and deportation of migrant children often fail to prioritize their best interests, as required by the CRC. The use of detention centers and the lack of adequate care for unaccompanied minors have been widely criticized.
Summary:
If we accept that human rights are fundamental claims to which every person is entitled simply by being human, it follows that no nation-state should establish legal regimes or practices that violate these rights. The United States, as a dominant global power, has long leveraged its position to gain advantages on the world stage. Its rhetoric about promoting human rights and condemning violations in other countries has further bolstered its influence.
However, adopting narratives and practices that threaten migrants undermines this image and poses significant risks. Such actions not only erode the United States’ moral authority but also jeopardize progress in the global promotion of human rights. Continued violations or disregard for these principles will likely diminish the nation’s standing and credibility in international affairs.