Clathrate gun hypothesis (now effectively disproved)

From https://doomsdaydebunked.miraheze.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis?fbclid=IwAR2cWB8gPurcMuN1HfkNhMXo_8TxpoKNKOgg1gu8UKOtvDQ43OU0Tvq0_pE

 

The theoretical scenario of the clathrate gun hypothesis. Arctic methane emissions lead to warming and in turn to more dissociation.

 

The clathrate gun hypothesis or Methane time bomb (now effectively disproved) is the name given to the idea that as sea temperatures rise in the Arctic, this can trigger a strong positive feedback effect on climate. The hypothesis was that this warming would cause a sudden release of methane from methane clathrate compounds buried in seabeds and seabed permafrost, and then, because methane itself is a powerful greenhouse gas, temperatures rise further, and the cycle repeats. The original idea was that this runaway process, once started, could be as irreversible as the firing of a gun. It originates from a paper by Kennett et al published in 2003, which proposed that the "clathrate gun" could cause abrupt runaway warming on a time scale less than a human lifetime. 

"Gun" suggests an exothermic reaction like an explosion. The clathrate decomposition is endothermic - if some of the clathrates are released they cool down the rest of the deposits. This means that the only way it can happen explosively is by a feedback with Earth's climate rapidly warming up the oceans.

The clathrates are not only kept stable by the low temperatures at the sea bed. They are also kept stable by pressure of the depth of sea above the deposits. The clathrates can slowly decompose as the result of lowering sea levels during ice ages, or by the sea floor rising along continental shelves when the ice resting on the land melts. This needs to be distinguished from clathrate dissociation due to a warming sea, which is needed for the clathrate gun hypothesis.

In December 2016, a major literature review by the 2107 USGS Hydrates project concluded that evidence is lacking for the original hypothesis. In 2017, the Royal Society review came to a similar conclusion that there is a relatively limited role for climate feedback from dissociation of the methane clathrates. 

The 2018 Annual Review of Environment and Resources on Methane and Global Environmental Change concluded that "Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that catastrophic, widespread dissociation of marine clathrates will be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2◦C per decade) during the twenty-first century". In 2018, the CAGE research group (Centre for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Environment and Climate) came to a much stronger conclusion when they published evidence that the methane clathrates formed over 6 million years ago and have been slowly releasing methane for 2 million years independent of warm or cold climate, rather than releasing methane only recently as had previously been thought

.

At one time this hypothesis was thought to be responsible for warming events in and at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum around 26,500 years ago, but this is now also thought to be unlikely.

At one point it was thought that a much slower runaway methane clathrate breakdown might have acted over longer timescales of tens of thousands of years during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum 56 million years ago, and the Permian–Triassic extinction event, 252 million years ago. However, this is now thought unlikely.

To hear what an expert says about the topic, see #Video interview with Carolyn Ruppel (USGS Gas Hydrates Project) below.

Methane clathrates

Tetrakaidecahedral Methane clathrate hydrate I, methane molecule consisting of one carbon atom attached to four hydrogen atoms shown in the center surrounded by a cage formed of water molecules

 

Methane clathrate, also known commonly as methane hydrate, is a form of water ice that contains a large amount of methane within its crystal structure, which is stable under pressure, and remains stable under higher temperatures than ice, up to a few degrees above 0 °C depending on the pressure. .

The methane forms a structure I hydrate, trapped in dodecahedral cages made up of water molecules which are kept stable by a methane molecule inside each one. These are then each surrounded by tetrahedra to form part of a larger lattice with tetrakeidecahedral cavities which also contain methane molecules. Potentially large deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of the Earth.

Methane is much more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, although it has a short atmospheric lifetime of around 12 years. Shindell et al(2009) calculated that it has a global warming potential, the ratio of its warming potential to that of CO₂. of between 79 and 105 over 20 years, and between 25 and 40 over 100 years, after accounting for aerosol interactions.

How the clathrates dissociate

Gas-hydrate deposits by sector. Only those in sector 2 are likely to release methane that reaches the atmosphere

 

As the oceans warm then methane can be released as the methane dissociates. The deposits extend to a depth of many meters and how much of an effect this is depends on how far down into the deposits the dissociation proceeds. The reaction absorbs heat rather than generating it, so as the reaction proceeds it cools surrounding sediments rather than warming them.

The 2017 and 2018 studies have suggested only the topmost layers would be affected, while the original hypothesis was based on the supposition that deep layers would dissociate. The amount of the effect also depends on what happens to the methane as it rises in the water column above it after it is released from the clathrates. If the deposit is more than a hundred meters below the surface then most of the methane in the bubbles dissolves into the sea before it reaches the surface, since the sea is undersaturated in methane. 

At a density of around 0.9 g/cm³, methane hydrate will float to the surface of the sea or of a lake unless it is bound in place by being formed in or anchored to sediment. So the clathrate deposits all consist of clathrates firmly bound within the ocean sediments.

USGS and Royal Society metastudies (2016 and 2017)

A USGS metastudy first published December 2016 by the USGS Gas Hydrates Project concluded:

"“Our review is the culmination of nearly a decade of original research by the USGS, my coauthor Professor John Kessler at the University of Rochester, and many other groups in the community,” said USGS geophysicist Carolyn Ruppel, who is the paper’s lead author and oversees the USGS Gas Hydrates Project. “After so many years spent determining where gas hydrates are breaking down and measuring methane flux at the sea-air interface, we suggest that conclusive evidence for release of hydrate-related methane to the atmosphere is lacking.”

From the Royal Society report:

"Clathrates: Some economic assessments continue to emphasize the potential damage from very strong and rapid methane hydrate release, although AR5 did not consider this likely. Recent measurements of methane fluxes from the Siberian Shelf Seas are much lower than those inferred previously. A range of other studies have suggested a much smaller influence of clathrate release on the Arctic atmosphere than had been suggested.

…. A recent modeling study joined earlier papers in assigning a relatively limited role to dissociation of methane hydrates as a climate feedback. Methane concentrations are rising globally, raising interesting questions (see section on methane) about what the cause is, finally new measurements of the 14C content of methane across the warming out of the last glacial period show that the release of old carbon reservoirs (including methane hydrates) played only a small role in the methane concentration increase that occurred then."

Timeline with original hypothesis, and later developments

This is a timeline of clathrates research with some of the milestones.

2007 - Most deposits are too deep, focus is on shallow deposits

Gas hydrate breakdown due to warming from ocean water

 

Most deposits of methane clathrate are in sediments too deep to respond rapidly, and modeling by Archer (2007) suggests the methane forcing should remain a minor component of the overall greenhouse effect. Clathrate deposits destabilize from the deepest part of their stability zone, which is typically hundreds of meters below the seabed. A sustained increase in sea temperature will warm its way through the sediment eventually, and cause the shallowest, most marginal clathrate to start to break down; but it will typically take on the order of a thousand years or more for the temperature signal to get through.

Subsea permafrost occurs beneath the seabed and exists in the continental shelves of the polar regions. This source of methane is different from methane clathrates, but contributes to the overall outcome and feedbacks.

From sonar measurements in recent years researchers quantified the density of bubbles emanating from subsea permafrost into the ocean (a process called ebullition), and found that 100–630 mg methane per square meter is emitted daily along the East Siberian Shelf, into the water column. They also found that during storms, when wind accelerates air-sea gas exchange, methane levels in the water column drop dramatically. Observations suggest that methane release from seabed permafrost will progress slowly, rather than abruptly. However, Arctic cyclones, fueled by global warming, and further accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could contribute to more rapid methane release from this source.

2008 - Original hypothesis, idea of a fast release of 50 gigatons of methane

Research carried out in 2008 in the Siberian Arctic showed millions of tons of methane being released, apparently through perforations in the seabed permafrost, with concentrations in some regions reaching up to 100 times normal levels. The excess methane has been detected in localized hotspots in the outfall of the Lena River and the border between the Laptev Sea and the East Siberian Sea. At the time, some of the melting was thought to be the result of geological heating, but more thawing was believed to be due to the greatly increased volumes of meltwater being discharged from the Siberian rivers flowing north. The current methane release had previously been estimated at 0.5 megatonnes per year. Shakhova et al. (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 gigatons of carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5–10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks. They conclude that "release of up to 50 gigatonnes of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve, equivalent in greenhouse effect to a doubling in the current level of CO₂. 

This is what lead to the original Clathrate gun hypothesis, and in 2008 the United States Department of Energy National Laboratory system and the United States Geological Survey's Climate Change Science Program both identified potential clathrate destabilization in the Arctic as one of four most serious scenarios for abrupt climate change, which have been singled out for priority research. The USCCSP released a report in late December 2008 estimating the gravity of this risk.

2010 - Taliks or pongos could lead to gas migration pathways

There is a possibility for the formation of gas migration pathways within fault zones in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, through the process of talik formation, or pingo-like features.

2012 - Possible abrupt release of clathrates stabilized by low temperatures or after landslips

A 2012 assessment of the literature identifies methane hydrates on the Shelf of East Arctic Seas as a potential trigger.

The Arctic ocean clathrates can exist in shallower water than elsewhere, stabilized by lower temperatures rather than higher pressures; these may potentially be marginally stable much closer to the surface of the sea-bed, stabilized by a frozen 'lid' of permafrost preventing methane escape. 

The so-called self-preservation phenomenon has been studied by Russian geologists starting in the late 1980s. This metastable clathrate state can be a basis for release events of methane excursions, such as during the interval of the Last Glacial Maximum. A study from 2010 concluded with the possibility for a trigger of abrupt climate warming based on metastable methane clathrates in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) region.

Profile illustrating the continental shelf, slope and rise

 

A trapped gas deposit on the continental slope off Canada in the Beaufort Sea, located in an area of small conical hills on the ocean floor is just 290 meters below sea level and considered the shallowest known deposit of methane hydrate.

Seismic observation (in 2012) of destabilizing methane hydrate along the continental slope of the eastern United States, following the intrusion of warmer ocean currents, suggests that underwater landslides could release methane. The estimated amount of methane hydrate in this slope is 2.5 gigatonnes (about 0.2% of the amount required to cause the PETM), and it is unclear if the methane could reach the atmosphere. However, the authors of the study caution: "It is unlikely that the western North Atlantic margin is the only area experiencing changing ocean currents; our estimate of 2.5 gigatonnes of destabilizing methane hydrate may therefore represent only a fraction of the methane hydrate currently destabilizing globally." 

2015 - Model based on the hypothesis suggests an extra 6 °C rise within 80 years

A study of the effects for the original hypothesis, based on a coupled climate–carbon cycle model (GCM) assessed a 1000-fold (from <1 1000="" 25="" 6="" 80="" a="" amount="" and="" atmospheric="" based="" biosphere="" by="" carbon="" concluded="" critical="" decrease="" ecosystems="" especially="" estimates="" farming="" for="" from="" further="" gtc="" hydrates="" in="" increase="" it="" land="" less="" methane="" more="" nbsp="" on="" p="" petm="" ppmv="" pulse="" single="" situation="" stored="" suggesting="" temperatures="" than="" the="" to="" tropics.="" with="" within="" would="" years.="">

2016 Methane in upper continental slope clathrates doesn't get to surface

Some of the shallow methane clathrates are indeed decomposing and there are higher concentrations of methane near the sea floor that do indeed come from the clathates. But it is taken up by the sea water and from the measurements made by many scientists, almost none reaches the surface of the sea. Methane in the upper layers of the sea do not come from the sea floor and there aren't any significant atmospheric additions. This is also the date of publication of the USGS metastudy

2017 - Fertilizing effect of methane at continental margins may lead to net CO₂ sink

One paper published in 2017 found from measurements on the Svalbard margin that CO₂ sequestration due to the fertilizing effect of the methane on surface microbes lead to a net negative effect on radiative forcing, 231 times greater than the effect of the methane emissions: 

Continuous sea−air gas flux data collected over a shallow ebullitive methane seep field on the Svalbard margin reveal atmospheric CO₂ uptake rates (−33,300±7,900 μmol m−2·d−1) twice that ofsurrounding waters and ∼1,900 times greater than the diffusive sea−air methane efflux (17.3±4.8μmol m−2·d−1). The negative radiative forcing expected from this CO2 uptake is up to 231 times greater than the positive radiative forcing from the methane emissions

2017 - Methane clathrates only decompose to a depth of 1.6 meters

However, later research cast doubt on this picture. Hong et al (2017) studied the seepage from large mounds of hydrates in the shallow arctic seas at Storfjordrenna, in the Barents Sea close to Svalbard. They showed that though the temperature of the sea bed has fluctuated seasonally over the last century, between 1.8 and 4.8 °C, it has only affected release of methane to a depth of about 1.6 meters. The areas that do destabilize do so only very slowly (centuries) because they are only warmed sufficiently for less than half the year, from April to August - and this doesn’t seem to be enough for fast destabilizing. 

Hydrates can be stable through the top 60 meters of the sediments and the current rapid releases came from deeper below the sea floor. They concluded that the increase in flux started hundreds to thousands of years ago well before the onset of warming that others speculated as its cause, and that these seepages are not increasing due to momentary warming. Summarizing his research, Hong stated:

"The results of our study indicate that the immense seeping found in this area is a result of natural state of the system. Understanding how methane interacts with other important geological, chemical and biological processes in the Earth system is essential and should be the emphasis of our scientific community,"

Further research by Klaus Wallmann et al (2018) found that the hydrate release is due to the rebound of the sea bed after the ice melted. The methane dissociation began around 8,000 years ago when the land began to rise faster than the sea level, and the water as a result started to get shallower with less hydrostatic pressure. This dissociation therefore was a result of the uplift of the sea bed rather than anthropogenic warming. The amount of methane released by the hydrate dissociation was small. They found that the methane seeps originate not from the hydrates but from deep geological gas reservoirs (seepage from these formed the hydrates originally). They concluded that the hydrates acted as a dynamic seal regulating the methane emissions from the deep geological gas reservoirs and when they were dissociated 8,000 years ago, weakening the seal, this led to the higher methane release still observed today.

This is also the date of publication of the Royal Society metastudy

2018 - CAGE group findings, the methane has been escaping at the same rate for millions of years

Research by the CAGE group in 2018 showed that the methane there has been escaping at the same rate for millions of years:

Recent observations of extensive methane release from the seafloor into the ocean and atmosphere cause concern as to whether increasing air temperatures across the Arctic are causing rapid melting of natural methane hydrates. Other studies, however, indicate that methane flares released in the Arctic today were created by processes that began way back in time – during the last Ice Age.

Newest research from the Center for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Climate and Environment (CAGE) shows that methane has been leaking in the Arctic for millions of years, independent of warm or cold climate. Methane has been forming in organic carbon rich sediments below the leakage spots off the coast of western Svalbard for a period of about 6 million years (since the late Miocene). According to our models, methane flares occurred at the seafloor for the first time at around 2 million years ago; at the exact time when ice sheets started to expand in the Arctic.

The acceleration of leakage occurred when the ice sheets were big enough to erode and deliver huge amounts of sediments towards the continental slope. Methane leakage was promoted due to formation of natural gas in organic-rich sediments under heavy loads of glacial sediments. Faults and fractures opened within the Earth’s crust as a consequence of growth and decay of the massive ice masses. This brought up the gases from deeper sediments higher up towards the seafloor. These gases then fueled the gas hydrate system off the Svalbard coast for the past 2 million years. It is, to this day, controlling the leakage of methane from the seabed.

So, the methane deposits formed in the late Miocene starting 6 million years ago, and the methane leaks have been going on for two million years through multiple ice ages.

Also published in 2018, the Review of Environment and Resources on Methane and Global Environmental Change concluded that

"Although the clathrate gun hypothesis remains controversial (21), a good understanding of how environmental change affects natural CH4 sources is vital in terms of robustly projecting future fluxes under a changing climate."

Then later:

"Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that catastrophic, widespread dissociation of marine clathrates will be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2◦C per decade) during the twenty-first century"

They did however urge caution about extraction of methane clathrates as a fuel, as this could lead to leaks of methane.

As discussed previously(Section 4.1), the stability of CH4 clathrate deposits may already be at risk from climate change.Accidental or deliberate disturbance, due to fossil fuel extraction, has the potential for extremelyhigh fugitive CH4 losses to the atmosphere

Past mass extinction events

At one point it was thought that runaway methane clathrate breakdown might also have acted over longer timescales of tens of thousands of years during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum 56 million years ago, and most notably the Permian–Triassic extinction event, when up to 96% of all marine species became extinct, 252 million years ago. It was thought to have caused drastic alteration of the ocean environment (such as ocean acidification and ocean stratification) and of the atmosphere.

However, the pattern of isotope shifts expected to result from a massive release of methane does not match the patterns seen there. First, the isotope shift is too large for this hypothesis, as it would require five times as much methane as is postulated for the PETM, and then, it would have to be reburied at an unrealistically high rate to account for the rapid increases in the ¹³C/¹²C ratio throughout the early Triassic before it was released again several times.

One of the hypotheses being considered in its place is that the temperature increase of the PETM was due to the roasting of carbonate sediments such as coal beds by volcanism. Potentially this may have released more than 3 trillion tons of carbon.

Effects thousands of years into our future

Although significant effects are effectively ruled out at present, the oceans would continue to warm by several degrees under the "Business as usual" scenario. This would lead to the clathrates warming and eventually dissociating, and some of this could contribute to the long tail of CO2, helping to keep CO2 levels in the atmosphere higher for longer, as it gradually is removed from the atmosphere by natural processes. David Archer, author of many papers on gas hydrates, put it like this:

On the other hand, the deep ocean could ultimately (after a thousand years or so) warm up by several degrees in a business-as-usual scenario, which would make it warmer than it has been in millions of years. Since it takes millions of years to grow the hydrates, they have had time to grow in response to Earth’s relative cold of the past 10 million years or so. Also, the climate forcing from CO2 release is stronger now than it was millions of years ago when CO2 levels were higher, because of the band saturation effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. In short, if there was ever a good time to provoke a hydrate meltdown it would be now. But “now” in a geological sense, over thousands of years in the future, not really “now” in a human sense. The methane hydrates in the ocean, in cahoots with permafrost peats (which never get enough respect), could be a significant multiplier of the long tail of the CO2, but will probably not be a huge player in climate change in the coming century.

Deportation of Americans from the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Deportation of Americans from the United States refers to the involuntary removal of U.S. citizens or nationals who have been convicted of a common crime in the United States. Such deportation entitles Americans to seek damages, which may include immigration benefits and/or money, in the form of injunctive relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. Some Americans have been placed in immigration detention centers to be deported but were later released. "Recent data suggests that in 2010 well over 4,000 U.S. citizens were detained or deported as aliens[.]"

History

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1952, states that an alien is a person who cannot qualify as a national of the United States. "The term 'national of the United States' means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States."

According to Congress, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States is not a foreign national. Longtime LPRs, especially those that immigrated as refugees under 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c), may at any time apply for a "U.S. non-citizen national" status. This process requires taking the oath of allegiance in front of any U.S. immigration officer, officially making an LPR American. This legal finding "is consistent with one of the most basic interpretive canons, that a statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant."

According to the INA, the terms "inadmissible aliens" and "deportable aliens" are synonymous. An LPR who is not "removable" from the United States is plainly and unambiguously neither deportable from, nor inadmissible to, the United States. Anything to the contrary will make deportation from the United States a paid international vacation for some and a "cruel and unusual punishment" for others. For example, some deportees could successfully make the U.S. government pay them hundreds of thousands (or possibly millions) of dollars while others could end up committing suicide. In this regard, Congress has warned all government officials by stating the following:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be subject to specified criminal penalties.

Expansion of the definition of "nationals but not citizens of the United States"

In 1986, less than a year before the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT) became effective, Congress expressly and intentionally expanded the definition of "nationals but not citizens of the United States" by adding paragraph (4) to 8 U.S.C. § 1408, which plainly states that:

the following shall be nationals, but not citizens, of the United States at birth: .... (4) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a national, but not a citizen, of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than seven years in any continuous period of ten years—(A) during which the national parent was not outside the United States or its outlying possessions for a continuous period of more than one year, and (B) at least five years of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

The natural reading of § 1408(4) demonstrates that it was not exclusively written for the 55,000 American Samoans but for all people who statutorily and manifestly qualify as "nationals but not citizens of the United States." This means that any person who can show by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she meets (or at any time has met) the requirements of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1408(4) and 1436 is plainly and unambiguously a "national but not a citizen of the United States." Such person must never be labelled or treated as an alien, especially after demonstrating that he or she has continuously resided in the United States for at least 10 years without committing in such years any offense that triggers removability. "Deprivation of [nationality]—particularly American [nationality], which is one of the most valuable rights in the world today—has grave practical consequences."

Consequences of an "aggravated felony" conviction

In 1988, Congress introduced the term "aggravated felony" by defining it under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a). As of September 30, 1996, an "aggravated felony" only applies to a person whose "term of imprisonment was completed within the previous 15 years." And, as stated above, if a person is not "removable" from the United States then he or she is plainly and unambiguously not inadmissible to the country. After such "15 years" successfully elapse (and without sustaining another aggravated felony conviction), a longtime LPR automatically becomes entitled to both cancellation of removal and a waiver of inadmissibility. He or she may (at any time and from anywhere in the world) request these immigration benefits depending on whichever is more applicable or easiest to obtain.

The phrase "term of imprisonment" in the INA expressly excludes all probationary periods. Only a court-imposed suspended sentence (i.e., suspended term of imprisonment) is included, which must be added to the above 15 years. And it makes no difference if the aggravated felony was sustained in Afghanistan, American Samoa, Australia, Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, the United States, or in any other country or place in the world.

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act

In February 1995, U.S. President Bill Clinton issued an important directive in which he expressly stated the following:

Our efforts to combat illegal immigration must not violate the privacy and civil rights of legal immigrants and U.S. citizens. Therefore, I direct the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and other relevant Administration officials to vigorously protect our citizens and legal immigrants from immigration-related instances of discrimination and harassment. All illegal immigration enforcement measures shall be taken with due regard for the basic human rights of individuals and in accordance with our obligations under applicable international agreements. (emphasis added).

Sample of a permanent resident card (green card), which lawfully permits its holder to live and work in the United States similar to that of all other Americans. Before any legal immigrant is naturalized as a U.S. citizen, he or she must be a green card holder for at least 5 years and satisfy all other U.S. citizenship requirements. Many green card holders are actually Americans without them knowing, and are thus not removable from the United States.

 

On September 30, 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which is particularly aimed at combating illegal immigration to the United States. But despite what President Clinton said in the above directive, some plainly incompetent immigration officers began deporting longtime LPRs (i.e., potential Americans), who have permanent resident cards, Social Security numbers, driver's licenses, state ID cards, bank accounts, credit cards, insurances, etc. These people own homes, businesses, vehicles and other valuable properties in the United States under their names. The ones admitted as refugees under 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c), statutorily and manifestly qualify as "nationals but not citizens of the United States" after continuously residing in the country for at least 10 years without committing (in said years) any offense that triggers removability. This appears to be the reason why the permanent resident card (green card) is valid for 10 years. It was expected that these legal immigrants would equally obtain U.S. citizenship within 10 years from the date of their "lawful entry" into the United States, but if that was unachievable then they would statutorily become "nationals but not citizens of the United States" after such continuous 10 years successfully elapse. Anything to the contrary will result in "deprivation of rights under color of law," which is a federal crime that entails, inter alia, capital punishment for the perpetrator(s).

The above refugees have already "been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States" by the U.S. Attorney General, which becomes a federally protected right, but decades later the plainly incompetent immigration officers wrongfully turned these firmly resettled Americans into refugees again. These refugees have absolutely no safe country of permanent residence other than the United States, and they obviously owe permanent allegiance solely to the United States. This makes them nothing but a distinct class of persecuted Americans. They are indisputably Americans with no legal connection to any other country but the United States. The ones that cannot become U.S. citizens are statutorily allowed by Congress to live in the United States with their American families for the rest of their life. Deporting such Americans not only shocks the conscience but also constitutes a grave international crime.

"Only aliens are subject to removal." It is common knowledge that these aliens mainly refer to the INA violators among the 75 million foreign nationals who are admitted each year as guests, the 12 million or so illegal aliens, and the INA violators among the 400,000 or so foreign nationals who possess the temporary protected status (TPS). These aliens obviously do not have any legal right to U.S. nationality or permanent residency. Moreover, Congress made clear in 1996 that the aliens who were admitted to the United States as lawful permanent residents in accordance with Form I-130, Form I-140, Diversity Immigrant Visa, etc., be treated differently then those who were admitted as refugees.

An LPR can either be a national of the United States (American) or an alien, which requires a case-by-case analysis and depends mainly on the number of continuous years he or she has physically spent in the United States as a green card holder. The INA makes clear that any alien or any "national but not a citizen of the United States" who has been convicted of any aggravated felony, whether the aggravated felony was committed inside or outside the United States, is ineligible for citizenship of the United States.

However, unlike a "national but not a citizen of the United States," an alien convicted of any aggravated felony is removable from the United States as an aggravated felon, but only if his or her "term of imprisonment was completed within the previous 15 years." This 15-year statute of limitations equally applies to every alien, especially to a longtime LPR. Such alien or LPR cannot:

• be admitted to the United States prior to being granted a waiver of inadmissibility or cancellation of removal by any authorized U.S. immigration official, or "a full and unconditional pardon by the President of the United States or by the Governor of any of the several States."
• have his or her removal proceedings terminated without a written legal order issued by any immigration judge or a member of the BIA, or an injunction issued by any authorized federal judge.
• obtain asylum in the United States unless he or she was previously admitted to the United States as a refugee, or his or her aggravated felony was shown not to be a particularly serious crime. An alien convicted of a particularly serious crime may still receive asylum, so long as he or she is not "a danger to the community of the United States," or at minimum deferral of removal under the CAT. It must be added that granting the CAT is not a discretionary act but statutory and mandatory.
• obtain adjustment of status unless he or she was previously admitted to the United States as a refugee.
• obtain voluntary departure.

Challenging an aggravated felony charge

Any person (or class of people) may take his or her deportation-related case to the U.S. Supreme Court by invoking 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(1) and 1252(f).

 

An "order of deportation" may be reviewed at any time by any immigration judge or any BIA member and finally by any authorized federal judge. Particular cases, especially those that were adjudicated in any U.S. district court prior to the enactment of the Real ID Act of 2005, can be reopened under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The review of the order does not require the alien (or the American) to remain in the United States. It can be requested from anywhere in the world via mail (e.g., Canada Post, DHL, FedEx, UPS, etc.) and/or electronic court filing (ECF), and the case can be filed in any court the alien (or the American) finds appropriate. In other words, if one court refuses help then the alien (or the American) can simply move on to any or all of the other courts.

Every United States nationality claim, illegal deportation claim, and CAT or asylum claim is adjudicated under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(4), 1252(b)(4), 1252(b)(5) and 1252(f)(2). When these specific provisions are invoked, all other contrary provisions of law, especially § 1252(b)(1) and Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995) (case obviously decided prior to IIRIRA of 1996, which materially changed the old "judicial review provisions of the INA"), must be disregarded because the three aforementioned claims manifestly constitute exceptional circumstances. The Supreme Court has pointed out in April 2009 that "the context surrounding IIRIRA's enactment suggests that § 1252(f)(2) was an important—not a superfluous—statutory provision." In October 2009, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 249 ("Hate crime acts"), which warns all government officials and the public by expressly stating the following:

Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person ... because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and (B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—(i) death results from the offense; or (ii) the offense includes kidnapping....

According to § 1252(f)(1), "no court (other than the Supreme Court)" is authorized to determine which two or more people in removal proceedings should be recognized as Americans. This includes parents and children or relatives. The remaining courts, however, are empowered pursuant to §§ 1252(b)(5) and 1252(f)(2) to, inter alia, issue an injunction to terminate any person's removal proceedings; return any previously removed person to the United States; and/or to confer United States nationality upon any person (but only using a case-by-case analysis). In addition to that, under 8 C.F.R. 239.2, any immigration official mentioned in 8 C.F.R. 239.1 may at any time move to: (1) terminate the removal proceedings of any person who turns out to be an American; or (2) cancel the removal proceedings of anyone who is clearly not "removable" under the INA.

Americans physically removed from the United States

A number of Americans have been placed in immigration detention centers to be deported but were later released. The following is an incomplete list of Americans who have actually experienced deportation from the United States:

• Pedro Guzman, born in the State of California, was physically deported from the United States in 2007 but returned several months later by crossing the border. He was finally compensated in 2010 by receiving $350,000 from the government.
• Mark Daniel Lyttle, born in the State of North Carolina, was physically deported from the United States but later returned and filed a money damages lawsuit in federal court, which he ultimately won.
• Andres Robles Gonzalez, derived U.S. citizenship through his American father before being deported. He was returned to the United States and filed a money damages lawsuit in federal court, which he ultimately won.
• Emilio Blas Olivo, born in Weslaco, Texas.

United States non-interventionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Non-interventionism is the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense, has had a long history among government and popular opinion in the United States. At times, the degree and nature of this policy was better known as isolationism, such as the period between the world wars.

Background

Robert Walpole, Britain's first Whig Prime Minister, proclaimed in 1723: "My politics are to keep free from all engagements as long as we possibly can." He emphasized economic advantage and rejected the idea of intervening in European affairs to maintain a balance of power. Walpole's position was known to Americans. However, during the American Revolution, the Second Continental Congress debated about forming an alliance with France. It rejected non-interventionism when it was apparent that the American Revolutionary War could be won in no other manner than a military alliance with France, which Benjamin Franklin successfully negotiated in 1778.

After Britain and France went to war in 1792, George Washington declared neutrality, with unanimous support of his cabinet, after deciding that the treaty with France of 1778 did not apply.^[3] Washington's Farewell Address of 1796 explicitly announced the policy of American non-interventionism:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

No entangling alliances (19th century)

President Thomas Jefferson extended Washington's ideas about foreign policy in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address. Jefferson said that one of the "essential principles of our government" is that of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." He also stated that "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be" the motto of the United States.

In 1823, President James Monroe articulated what would come to be known as the Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent: "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense." It was applied to Hawaii in 1842 in support of eventual annexation there, and to support U.S. expansion on the North American continent. 

After Tsar Alexander II put down the 1863 January Uprising in Poland, French Emperor Napoleon III asked the United States to "join in a protest to the Tsar." Secretary of State William H. Seward declined, "defending 'our policy of non-intervention—straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations,'" and insisted that "[t]he American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference."

President Ulysses S. Grant attempted to Annex the Dominican Republic in 1870, but failed to get the support of the Radical Republicans in the Senate.^[8] The United States' policy of non-intervention was wholly abandoned with the Spanish–American War, followed by the Philippine–American War from 1899–1902.

20th century non-interventionism

Wake Up, America! Civilization Calls, poster by James Montgomery Flagg, 1917

 

Theodore Roosevelt's administration is credited with inciting the Panamanian Revolt against Colombia in order to secure construction rights for the Panama Canal (begun in 1904). 

The President of the United States Woodrow Wilson, after winning reelection with the slogan "He kept us out of war," was able to navigate neutrality in World War I for about three years. Early on, their historic shunning of foreign entanglements, and the presence in the US of immigrants with divided loyalties in the conflict helped maintain neutrality. Various causes compelled American entry into World War I, and Congress would vote to declare war on Germany; this would involve the nation on the side of the Triple Entente, but only as an "associated power" fighting the same enemy, not one officially allied with them. A few months after the declaration of War, Wilson gave a speech to congress outlining his aims to end the conflict, labeled the Fourteen Points. While this American proclamation was less triumphalist than the aims of some of its allies, it did propose in the final point, that a general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike. After the war, Wilson traveled to Europe and stayed for months to labor on the post-war treaty; no president had previously enjoined such sojourn outside of the country. In that Treaty of Versailles, Wilson's association was formulated as the League of Nations. 

Protest march to prevent American involvement in World War II before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Isolationism Between the World Wars

In the wake of the First World War, the non-interventionist tendencies gained ascendancy. The Treaty of Versailles, and thus, United States' participation in the League of Nations, even with reservations, was rejected by the Senate in the final months of Wilson's presidency. Republican Senate leader Henry Cabot Lodge supported the Treaty with reservations to be sure Congress had final authority on sending the U.S. into war. Wilson and his Democratic supporters rejected the Lodge Reservations. 

The strongest opposition to American entry into the League of Nations cam from the Senate where a tight-knit faction known as the Irreconcilables, led by William Borah and George Norris, had great objections regarding the clauses of the treaty which compelled America to come to the defense of other nations. Senator William Borah, of Idaho, declared that it would "purchase peace at the cost of any part of our [American] independence." Senator Hiram Johnson, of California, denounced the League of Nations as a "gigantic war trust." While some of the sentiment was grounded in adherence to Constitutional principles, most of the sentiment bore a reassertion of nativist and inward-looking policy.

The United States acted independently to become a major player in the 1920s in international negotiations and treaties. The Harding Administration achieved naval disarmament among the major powers through the Washington Naval Conference in 1921-22. The Dawes Plan refinanced war debts and helped restore prosperity to Germany, In August 1928, fifteen nations signed the Kellogg–Briand Pact, brainchild of American Secretary of State Frank Kellogg and French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand. This pact that was said to have outlawed war and showed the United States commitment to international peace had its semantic flaws. For example, it did not hold the United States to the conditions of any existing treaties, it still allowed European nations the right to self-defense, and it stated that if one nation broke the Pact, it would be up to the other signatories to enforce it. The Kellogg–Briand Pact was more of a sign of good intentions on the part of the US, rather than a legitimate step towards the sustenance of world peace. 

The economic depression that ensued after the Crash of 1929, also continued to abet non-intervention. The attention of the country focused mostly on addressing the problems of the national economy. The rise of aggressive expansionism policies by Fascist Italy and the Empire of Japan led to conflicts such as the Italian conquest of Ethiopia and the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. These events led to ineffectual condemnations by the League of Nations. Official American response was muted. America also did not take sides in the brutal Spanish Civil War.

Non-interventionism before entering World War II

As Europe moved closer to war in the late 1930s, the United States Congress continued to demand American neutrality. Between 1936 and 1937, much to the dismay of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congress passed the Neutrality Acts. For example, in the final Neutrality Act, Americans could not sail on ships flying the flag of a belligerent nation or trade arms with warring nations. Such activities had played a role in American entrance into World War I. 

On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland; Britain and France subsequently declared war on Germany, marking the start of World War II. In an address to the American People two days later, President Roosevelt assured the nation that he would do all he could to keep them out of war. However, his words showed his true goals. "When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger," Roosevelt said. Even though he was intent on neutrality as the official policy of the United States, he still echoed the dangers of staying out of this war. He also cautioned the American people to not let their wish to avoid war at all costs supersede the security of the nation.

The war in Europe split the American people into two camps: non-interventionists and interventionists. The two sides argued over America's involvement in this World War II. The basic principle of the interventionist argument was fear of German invasion. By the summer of 1940, France suffered a stunning defeat by Germans, and Britain was the only democratic enemy of Germany. In a 1940 speech, Roosevelt argued, "Some, indeed, still hold to the now somewhat obvious delusion that we … can safely permit the United States to become a lone island … in a world dominated by the philosophy of force." A national survey found that in the summer of 1940, 67% of Americans believed that a German-Italian victory would endanger the United States, that if such an event occurred 88% supported "arm[ing] to the teeth at any expense to be prepared for any trouble", and that 71% favored "the immediate adoption of compulsory military training for all young men".

Ultimately, the ideological rift between the ideals of the United States and the goals of the fascist powers empowered the interventionist argument. Writer Archibald MacLeish asked, "How could we sit back as spectators of a war against ourselves?" In an address to the American people on December 29, 1940, President Roosevelt said, "the Axis not merely admits but proclaims that there can be no ultimate peace between their philosophy of government and our philosophy of government."

However, there were still many who held on to non-interventionism. Although a minority, they were well organized, and had a powerful presence in Congress. Pro-German or anti-British opinion contributed to non-interventionism. Roosevelt's national share of the 1940 presidential vote declined by seven percentage points from 1936. Of the 20 counties in which his share declined by 35 points or more, 19 were largely German-speaking. Of the 35 counties in which his share declined by 25 to 34 points, German was the largest or second-largest original nationality in 31. Non-interventionists rooted a significant portion of their arguments in historical precedent, citing events such as Washington's farewell address and the failure of World War I. "If we have strong defenses and understand and believe in what we are defending, we need fear nobody in this world," Robert Maynard Hutchins, President of the University of Chicago, wrote in a 1940 essay. Isolationists believed that the safety of the nation was more important than any foreign war.

As 1940 became 1941, the actions of the Roosevelt administration made it more and more clear that the United States was on a course to war. This policy shift, driven by the President, came in two phases. The first came in 1939 with the passage of the Fourth Neutrality Act, which permitted the United States to trade arms with belligerent nations, as long as these nations came to America to retrieve the arms, and pay for them in cash. This policy was quickly dubbed, 'Cash and Carry.' The second phase was the Lend-Lease Act of early 1941. This act allowed the President "to lend, lease, sell, or barter arms, ammunition, food, or any 'defense article' or any 'defense information' to 'the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.'" American public opinion supported Roosevelt's actions. As United States involvement in the Battle of the Atlantic grew with incidents such as the sinking of the USS Reuben James (DD-245), by late 1941 72% of Americans agreed that "the biggest job facing this country today is to help defeat the Nazi Government", and 70% thought that defeating Germany was more important than staying out of the war.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor caused America to enter the war in December 1941, isolationists such as Charles Lindbergh's America First Committee and Herbert Hoover announced their support of the war effort. Isolationist families' sons fought in the war as much as others.

Non-interventionism after World War II

Ohio Senator Robert A Taft was a leading opponent of interventionism after 1945, although it always played a secondary role to his deep interest in domestic affairs. Historian George Fujii, citing the Taft papers, argues:

Taft fought a mostly losing battle to reduce government expenditures and to curtail or prevent foreign aid measures such as the British loan of 1945 and the Marshall Plan. He feared that these measures would "destroy the freedom of the individual, freedom of States and local communities, freedom of the farmer to run his own farm and the workman to do his own job" (p. 375), thereby threatening the foundations of American prosperity and leading to a "totalitarian state" (p. 377).

In 1951, in the midst of bitter partisan debate over the Korean War, Taft increasingly spoke out on foreign policy issues. According to his biographer James T. Patterson:

Two basic beliefs continued to form a fairly consistent core of Taft's thinking on foreign policy. First, he insisted on limiting America's overseas commitments. [Taft said] "Nobody today can be an isolationist.... The only question is the degree to which we shall take action throughout the entire world." America had obligations that it had to honor – such as NATO – and it could not turn a blind eye to such countries as Formosa or Israel. But the United States had limited funds and problems at home and must therefore curb its commitments....This fear of overcommitment was rooted in Taft's even deeper faith in liberty, which made him shrink from a foreign policy that would cost large sums of money, increase the power of the military, and transform American society into what he called a garrison state.

Norman A. Graebner argues:

Differences over collective security in the G.O.P. were real in 1952, but Taft tried during his pre-convention campaign to moderate his image as a "go-it-aloner" in foreign policy. His whole effort proved unsuccessful, largely because by spring the internationalist camp had a formidable candidate of its own in Dwight D. Eisenhower. As the personification of post-1945 American commitment to collective security, particularly in Europe, General Eisenhower had decided to run because he feared, apparently, that Taft's election would lead to repudiation of the whole collective security effort, including NATO.

Eisenhower won the nomination and secured Taft's support by promising Taft a dominant voice in domestic policies, while Eisenhower's internationalism would set the foreign-policy agenda. Graebner argues that Eisenhower succeeded in moving the conservative Republicans away from their traditional attacks on foreign aid and reciprocal trade policies, and collective security arrangements, to support for those policies. By 1964 the Republican conservatives rallied behind Barry Goldwater who was an aggressive advocate of an anti-communist internationalist foreign policy. Goldwater wanted to roll back Communism and win the Cold War, asking "Why Not Victory?"

Non-interventionism in the 21st century

During the presidency of Barack Obama, some members of the United States federal government, including President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, considered intervening militarily in the Syrian Civil War. A poll from late April 2013 found that 62% of Americans thought that the "United States has no responsibility to do something about the fighting in Syria between government forces and antigovernment groups," with only twenty-five percent disagreeing with that statement. A writer for The New York Times referred to this as "an isolationist streak," a characterization international relations scholar Stephen Walt strongly objected to, calling the description "sloppy journalism." According to Walt, "the overwhelming majority of people who have doubts about the wisdom of deeper involvement in Syria—including yours truly—are not 'isolationist.' They are merely sensible people who recognize that we may not have vital interests there, that deeper involvement may not lead to a better outcome and could make things worse, and who believe that the last thing the United States needs to do is to get dragged into yet another nasty sectarian fight in the Arab/Islamic world."

In December 2013, the Pew Research Center reported that their newest poll, "American's Place in the World 2013," had revealed that 52 percent of respondents in the national poll said that the United States "should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own." This was the most people to answer that question this way in the history of the question, one which pollsters began asking in 1964. Only about a third of respondents felt this way a decade ago.

A July 2014 poll of "battleground voters" across the United States found "77 percent in favor of full withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2016; only 15 percent and 17 percent interested in more involvement in Syria and Ukraine, respectively; and 67 percent agreeing with the statement that, 'U.S. military actions should be limited to direct threats to our national security.'"

Conservative policies

Rathbun (2008) compares three separate themes in conservative policies since the 1980s: conservatism, neoconservatism, and isolationism. These approaches are similar in that they all invoked the mantle of "realism" and pursued foreign policy goals designed to promote national interests. Conservatives, however, were the only group that was "realist" in the academic sense in that they defined the national interest narrowly, strove for balances of power internationally, viewed international relations as amoral, and especially valued sovereignty. By contrast, neoconservatives based their foreign policy on nationalism, and isolationists sought to minimize any involvement in foreign affairs and raise new barriers to immigration. Former Republican Congressman Ron Paul favored a return to the non-interventionist policies of Thomas Jefferson and frequently opposed military intervention in countries like Iran and Iraq.