Hidetaka Hirota. Expelling the Poor

In the field of law, the standard account is that modern U.S. immigration law jurisprudence formed largely through legal challenges to the response by western states and the federal government to the perceived problem posed by Chinese immigration in the nineteenth century. In this account, populist politicians, labor leaders, and newspapers led the charge in portraying Chinese immigrant laborers as posing a threat to the prosperity of deserving “Americans” and in advocating for various restrictions with regard to the entry of laborers from China. Though early restriction efforts took place at the state and local level, successful legal challenges by Chinese litigants required a shift to the federal level. Once Congress enacted legislation, the game was up, at least for those who would challenge such legislation. The Supreme Court in a series of cases put into place what has become known as the plenary power doctrine, whereby the actions of Congress and the Executive with regard to immigration policy are largely beyond the purview of the courts. In today’s parlance, in the context of the legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s two executive orders and his proclamation banning refugees and travel from certain countries, under the plenary power doctrine his actions are, as the Department of Justice has argued, unreviewable.

Doctrine · Immigration · Immigration law · Immigration policy · Jurisprudence · Legislation · Political science · Prosperity · Supreme court · Historical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis · Law · Vietnamese History and Culture Studies