Joseph Sabino Mistick: Revisiting the ‘Palmer Raids’ in the Trump era |

Joseph Sabino Mistick: Revisiting the ‘Palmer Raids’ in the Trump era

In 1920, federal law enforcement officers arrested and began deporting tens of thousands of southern and eastern European immigrants, without regard for any real facts and with no attention paid to even the most fundamental protections under the U.S. Constitution.

The “Palmer Raids” got their name from Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, who hoped that his get-tough policy toward immigrant labor union supporters would land him in the White House. At Palmer’s side was J. Edgar Hoover, a young Justice Department lawyer who was too eager to please.

It was easy enough for Palmer to target immigrants. The froth of political currents at the time included anarchist bombings, traumatic remnants of the Great War and daily headlines about the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. That made it easy for nativists to create a “Red Scare.”

So, instead of chasing down those who were responsible for actual crimes, Palmer rode the populist wave. Mass round-ups trapped thousands of innocent Italians and Russians and Eastern Europeans, and a name ending in a vowel became probable cause to make an arrest.

In short order, the raids were recognized as debacles, based on faulty intelligence with no regard for civil rights. And Palmer’s political career tanked.

In a 2007 article posted on the FBI website, Palmer’s tactics are described as “overzealous domestic security efforts.” In the Bureau’s own words, the raids were a failure of American virtue.

“The “Palmer Raids” were certainly not a bright spot for the young Bureau. But it did gain valuable experience in terrorism investigations and intelligence work and learn important lessons about the need to protect civil liberties and constitutional rights.”

But even some hard-earned lessons are quickly forgotten.

As part of the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy toward refugees, 3,000 families were separated at the southern border, and innocent children were stripped from their parents and housed in detention centers. This was the latest over-zealous domestic security effort, even more poorly planned than the “Palmer Raids.”

While the public has moved on, drawn to each day’s new crisis, the children have not moved on. Hundreds of children remain trapped in government detention centers. And, as the administration attempts to comply with court orders to undo the damage, the cruel incompetence of its policy is apparent.

“The reality is that for every parent who is not located, there will be a permanent orphaned child, and that is 100 percent the responsibility of the administration,” according to Judge Dana M. Sabraw, a federal judge in Southern California, who has ordered the government to restore these families.

This family separation policy was no less than a terrorist act, because it was sure to have an impact far beyond its immediate targets. A government that would so casually tear children from their mothers’ arms seems capable of anything.

And that is enough to give pause to any American citizen with roots in Central and South America. None could be blamed for staying inside, withdrawing from community activities and putting friendships on hold. They may even decide that it is too risky to go to the polls to vote, which could explain a lot.

Joseph Sabino Mistick is a Pittsburgh lawyer. Reach him at [email protected]

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.