We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 March 2012
Given the burgeoning literature on the devaluation of national citizenship and the effects of globalization, the sources and beneficiaries of individual legal rights assume increased importance. This Article seeks to distinguish those legal rights that states should confine to their own citizens from those that flow from residence, immigration status, territorial presence, or simply personhood. Section I examines the very reasons for states to distribute citizenship in the first place. These reasons relate to participatory democracy, immigration privileges, other rights and disabilities, personal emotional fulfillment, building community, continuity over time, sovereignty, and the world order. It finds unconvincing those reasons that rest on the municipal interests of states but, given the present world order, finds those reasons that are rooted in international relations more compelling. Building on those conclusions, Section II considers a second normative question: What are the key variables that should determine whether a given legal right should be confined to citizens rather than made more generally available to all persons or at least selected classes of noncitizens? Section III then illustrates how one country—the United States—parcels out legal rights and examines whether its decisions comport with the demands of international human rights law.
I thank Hebrew University's Minerva Center for Human Rights, and the participants at its Jerusalem conference on Human Rights and Justice in Immigration, for their thoughtful feedback on the first draft of this Article
1 See infra Part III(C).
2 The terms “citizen” and “national” have multiple meanings. International law generally uses the word “nationals” to refer to the same people that the municipal laws of several states call “citizens”—i.e., individuals who owe permanent allegiance to the particular state. See, e.g., Kelsen, Hans, General Theory of Law and State 237 (3d ed. 2009)Google Scholar. In some states, however, the domestic law distinguishes citizens from noncitizen nationals. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22); Narvaez-Hasfura, Carlos, Immigration in Mexico and America: Constitutional Reciprocity Within a Plenary Power (1995) (unpublished JSD dissertation, Washington University)Google Scholar.
3 Martin, David A., Due Process and Membership in rhe National Community: Political Asylum and Beyond, 44 Univ. Pitt. L. Rev. 165, 208–19 (1983)Google Scholar.
4 Id. at 231.
5 Aleinikoff, T. Alexander, Aliens, Due Process, and “Community Ties”: A Response to David Martin, 44 Univ. Pitt. L. Rev. 237, 244–45 (1983)Google Scholar.
6 See generally Neuman, Gerald L., Whose Constitution?, 100 Yale L.J. 909 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 See, e.g., Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws, art. 1, 2, Apr. 12, 1930, 179 L.N.T.S. 101; Convention on the Reduction of Cases of Multiple Nationality and on Military Obligations in Cases of Multiple Nationality, June 5, 1963, E.T.S. No. 043; European Convention on Nationality, Nov. 6 1997, E.T.S. No. 166.
8 See U.S. Office of Personnel Management Investigations Service, Citizenship Laws of the World, IS-1 (Mar. 2001), available at www.opm.gov/extra/investigate/IS-01.pdf (last visited Apr. 22,2010).
9 Id.
10 Legomsky, Stephen H., Immigration Law and Policy 126 (1st ed. 1992)Google Scholar.
11 Id.
12 Shachar, Ayelet, The Birthright Lottery: Citizenship and Global Inequality (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13 Legomsky, Immigration Law and Policy, supra note 10, at 1027.
14 See generally Legomsky, Stephen H., Why Citizenship?, 35 Va. J. Int'l L. 279 (1994)Google Scholar.
15 See, e.g., Neuman, Gerald L., Justifying U.S. Naturalization Policies, 35 Va. J. Int'l L. 237, 240–41 (1994)Google Scholar; Schuck, Peter H., The Re-Evaluation of American Citizenship, 12 Geo. Immigration L.J. 1 (1997)Google Scholar; Schuck, Peter H., Membership in the Liberal Polity: The Devaluation of American Citizenship, 3 Geo. Immigration L.J. 1 (1989)Google Scholar [hereinafter Schuck, Membership in the Liberal Polity].
16 In the United States, see, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (only “aliens” may be denied admission), 1227(a) (only “aliens” may be found deportable and “removed”).
17 See infra Part IV(C).
18 See Legomsky, Stephen H. & Rodríguez, Cristina M., Immigration and Refugee Law and Policy 1374–77 (5th ed. 2009)Google Scholar.
19 See, e.g., Schauer, Frederick, Community, Citizenship, and the Search for National Identity, 84 Mich. L. Rev. 1504, 1504–06 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Walzer, Michael, The Distribution of Membership, in Boundaries—National Autonomy and its Limits 1–35 (Brown, Peter G. & Shue, Henry eds., 1981)Google Scholar.
20 See, e.g., Schauer, supra note 19; Schuck, Membership in the Liberal Polity, supra note 15, at 14.
21 In the United States, see, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1423.
22 See, e.g., Kelsen, supra note 2, at 237 (observing that citizens owe allegiance to the state and that, in return, the state has the power, though not the obligation, to provide protection. Cf. Williams, Glanville L., The Correlation of Allegiance and Protection, 10 Cambridge L.J. 54 (1948)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (making similar suggestions about English domestic law).
23 Borchard, Edwin M., Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad 11 (1915)Google Scholar.
24 Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 587 (1952).
25 See generally Roh, Charles E. & Upham, Frank K., The Status of Aliens under United States Draft Laws, 13 Harv. Int'l L.J. 501 (1972)Google Scholar.
26 Borchard, supra note 23, at 11.
27 Aleinikoff, T. Alexander, Citizens, Aliens. Membership and the Constitution, 7 Const. Commentary 9, 14 (1990)Google Scholar.
28 That is in fact the position taken by Aleinikoff, id.
29 Lee, Luke T., Consular Law and Practice 200-03 (2d ed. 1991)Google Scholar (observing that passport is prima facie evidence of nationality).
30 Lillich, Richard B., The Human Rights of Aliens in Contemporary International Law 8–17 (1984)Google Scholar.
31 Again, I credit Alex Aleinikoff for elaborating this thesis. See Aleinikoff, Citizens, Aliens, Membership and the Constitution, supra note 27.
32 In the United States, this has been evident at least since Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581 (1889). At the same time, modern international law withholds carte blanche; there are limitations on what sovereign states may do even to noncitizens. Some of those limitations are noted at various points of this section.
33 Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 64 (1958).
34 For arguments along these lines, see, e.g., Carens, Joseph H., Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders, 49 Rev. Politics 251 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Johnson, Kevin R., Opening the Floodgates: Why America Needs to Eliminate Its Borders and Rethink Immigration Law (2007)Google Scholar; Juss, Satvinder Singh, International Migration and Global Justice (2006)Google Scholar; Nett, Roger, The Civil Right We Are Not Ready For: The Right of Free Movement of people on the Face of the Earth, 81 Ethics 212 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shachar, supra note 12; Wright, R. George, Federal Immigration Law and the Case for Open Entry, 27 Loyola L.A. L. Rev. 1265 (1994)Google Scholar.
35 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, art. 33, July 28, 1951, 1989 U.N.T.S. 137, accepted by U.N. Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons, signed at Geneva, as modified by United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, 606 U.N.T.S. 267.
36 See, e.g., the contrasting views on temporary safe haven expressed in Hailbronner, Kay, Non-Refoulemant and the “Humanitarian” Refugees: Customary International Law or Wishful Legal Thinking?, 26 Va. J. Int'l L. 857 (1986)Google Scholar and Perluss, Deborah & Hartman, Joan F., Temporary Refuge: Emergence of a Customary Norm, 26 Va. J. Int'l L. 551 (1986)Google Scholar.
37 8 U.S.C. & 1182(a) (inadmissibility), 1227(a) (deportability).
38 Legomsky, Stephen H., The John C. Paulus Lecture: Immigrants, Minorities, and Pluralism: What Kind of Society Do We Really Want?, 6 Willamette J. Int'l L. & Dispute Resolution 153 (1998)Google Scholar.
39 The principal refugee agreement is the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as modified by the 1967 U.N. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (see supra note 35).
40 See Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Basic Law) art. 16a.
41 See, e.g., Hammar, Tomas, Democracy and the Nation State ch. 5–7 (1990)Google Scholar; Spiro, Peter J., Dual Nationality and the Meaning of Citizenship, 46 Emory L.J. 1411, 1413 (1997)Google Scholar.
42 U.S. Const, art. I, § 2, cl. 2 (Representatives); art. I, § 3, cl. 3 (Senators); art. II, § 1, cl. 5 (President).
43 See, respectively, U.S. Const. amends. XIV, XIX, XXIV, XXVI.
44 See U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (emphasis added S.L.). Although the Fourteenth Amendment directly restricts only the states, the Fifth Amendment due process clause has been interpreted to impose an analogous equal protection obligation on the federal government. See Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499 (1954).
45 Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982); see discussion infra IV(D)(8).
46 See Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 241 (1896).
47 See, e.g., Russian Volunteer Fleet v. United States, 282 U.S. 481 (1931); United States v. Tiede, 86 F.R.D. 227 (U.S. Court for Berlin, 1979).
48 United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259. 264-275 (1990); see generally Neuman, Whose Constitution?, supra note 6.
49 See Hart, Henry M., The Power of Congress to Limit the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts: An Exercise in Dialectic, 66 Harv. L. Rev. 1362, 1389–90 (1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
50 This theme dates back at least to the Passenger Cases: Smith v. Turner; Norris v. Boston, 48 U.S. 283 (1849).
51 See Legomsky, Stephen H., Immigration Law and the Principle of Plenary Congressional Power, Supreme Ct. Rev. (1984) 255Google Scholar [hereinafter Legomsky, Immigration Law and the Principle of Plenary Congressional Power].
52 Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953).
53 Id. at 212, citing Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U. S. 544; Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651, 142 U. S. 660 (1892).
54 Legomsky, Stephen H., Immigration and the Judiciary — Law and Politics in Britain and America ch. 3 (1987)Google Scholar; Legomsky, Immigration Law and the Principle of Plenary Congressional Power, supra note 51; Legomsky, Stephen H., Ten More Years of Plenary Power: Immigration, Congress, and the Courts, 22 Hastings Const. L.Q. 925 (1995)Google Scholar.
55 Legomsky, Immigration Law and the Principle of Plenary Congressional Power, supra note 51, at 260-77.
56 See, e.g., Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976); Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960).
57 But cf. Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 (1976), in which the Court struck down a Civil Service Commission regulation (not a statute) that disqualified all noncitizens from the competitive Civil Service. The Court held the Commission's action to be ultra vires the statute.
58 See, e.g., Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1 (1982); Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). But see DeCanas v. Bica 424 U.S. 351 (1976) (approving state penalties on employers of undocumented noncitizens).
59 On this point, see Bosniak, Linda S., Membership, Equality, and the Difference that Alienage Makes, 69 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1047 (1994)Google Scholar; Scaperlanda, Michael, Partial Membership: Aliens and the Constitutional Community, 81 Iowa L. Rev. 707 (1996)Google Scholar; Taylor, Margaret H., Detained Aliens Challenging Conditions of Confinement and the Porous Border of the Plenary Power Doctrine, 22 Hastings Const. L.Q. 1087 (1995)Google Scholar.
60 Supreme Court decisions striking down state attempts to disqualify noncitizens from government employment, professional licenses, or welfare benefits include Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 216 (1984) (notary public); Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1 (1977) (educational assistance funds); Examining Board of Engineers, Architects and Surveyors v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572 (1976) (engineers); In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717 (1973) (lawyers); Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 (1973) (state civil service employment); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) (welfare benefits).
61 Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), discussed infra Part IV(D)(8).
62 See infra Part IV(D)(6).
63 Foley v. Connelie, 435 U.S. 291 (1978).
64 Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68 (1979).
65 Cabell v. Chavez-Salido, 454 U.S. 432 (1982).
66 Foley v. Connelie, supra note 63, at 296.
67 See, e.g., Carliner, David et al. , The Rights of Aliens and Refugees (2d ed. 1990)Google Scholar; Weissbrodt, David & Danielson, Laura, Immigration Law and Procedure in a Nutshell ch. 13 (5th ed. 2005)Google Scholar.
68 See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a), 1227(a).
69 Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581 (1889) (noncitizens may be excluded); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893) (noncitizens may be deported).
70 G.A. Res. 217 A(III), U.N. Doc. A/810 at 71 (Dec. 10, 1948) [hereinafter UDHR].
71 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 [hereinafter ICCPR].
72 American Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 22, 1969, O.A.S. Treaty Series No. 36 at 1, OEA/Ser.L.V/II.23 doc. rev. 2 [hereinafter ACHR].
73 3 Gordon, Charles et al. , Immigration Law and Procedure chs. 36–38 (Bender, Matthew ed., 2009)Google Scholar; Legomsky & Rodríguez, supra note 18, at 251–304.
74 Legomsky & Rodríguez, supra note 18, at 457–61.
75 U.S. Department of State, Visa Bulletin (July 2009).
76 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i).
77 U.S. Department of State, Visa Bulletin (Apr. 2009). This waiting period applies only to spousal relationships formed, and children born, after the principal immigrant's admission for permanent residence. Preexisting spouses and children may usually accompany or follow the principal immigrant to the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(d).
78 This remedy is called “cancellation of removal.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b).
79 See, e.g., Newton v. INS, 736 F.2d 336, 342–43 (6th. Cir. June 7, 1984); Acosta v. Gaffney, 558 F.2d 1153, 1157-58 (3rd. Cir. July 6 1977).
80 At this writing, the United States has not ratified the ACHR. Nonetheless the United States is arguably bound by its provisions, either on the theory that the Convention is an authoritative interpretation of the OAS Charter (to which the United States is clearly bound) or on the theory that particular Convention provisions are customary international law. See Henkin, Louis et al. , Human Rights 343 (1999)Google Scholar.
81 Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 34, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3.
82 Excellent general sources on refugee law include Anker, Deborah E., Law of Asylum in the United States (3d ed., 1999)Google Scholar; Goodwin-Gill, Guy S. & McAdam, Jane, The Refugee in International Law (3d ed. 2007)Google Scholar; Hathaway, James C., The Rights of Refugees under International Law (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Martin, David A. et al. , Forced Migration—Law and Policy (2007)Google Scholar; Musalo, Karen et al. , 4 Refugee Law and Policy—A Comparative and International Approach (3d ed. 2007)Google Scholar.
83 Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155 (1993).
84 See supra note 35.
85 See Legomsky, Stephen H., The USA and the Caribbean Interdiction Program, 18 Int'l J. Refugee L. 677, 686–92 (2006)Google Scholar.
86 U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Responds to U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, 32 I.L.M. 1215 (1993)Google Scholar.
87 Henkin et al., supra note 80, at 426.
88 INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 424 (1984).
89 INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992).
90 Compare 8 U.S.C. § 1251(b)(3)(B) with United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, as modified by the 1967 U.N. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, supra note 35, art. 33.2.
91 G.A. Res. 39/46, 39 U.N. G.A.O.R. Supp. (No. 51) at 197, U.N. Doc.A/39/51 (Dec. 10, 1984).
92 101st Cong., 2d Sess., 136 Cong. Rec. S17491-92 (27 Oct. 1990). The implementing legislation is the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-277, Div. G, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681 (Oct. 21, 1998).
93 See Legomsky & Rodríguez, supra note 18, at 1107, item 7; for additional examples, see id. at 1095-114; Rosati, Kristen B., Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture: A Powerful Tool to Prevent Removal Just Became More Powerful, 4 Bender's Immigration Bulletin 137 (Feb. 15, 1999)Google Scholar.
94 See, e.g., Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972); Harisiades v. Shaugnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952); United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279 (1904).
95 Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-649, §§ 601, 602, 104 Stat. 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990).
96 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(D).
97 Id. at § 1424.
98 Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 488-89 n.10 (1999).
99 See, e.g., ICCPR, supra note 71, art. 19 (3); ACHR, supra note 72, art. 30; UDHR, supra note 71, art. 29(3).
100 Weissbrodt & Danielson, supra note 67, at 520.
101 Skafte v. Rorex, 191 Col. 399, 553 P.2d 830 (1976), appeal dism'd, 430 U.S. 961 (1977). But see Rosberg, Gerald M., Aliens and Equal Protection: Why Not the Right to Vote?, 75 Mich. L. Rev. 1092 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (arguing for allowing resident noncitizens to vote).
102 See supra Part III(A).
103 See Weissbrodt & Danielson, supra note 67, at 529–30.
104 See, respectively, The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, PRWORA, Pub. L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (Aug. 22, 1996); Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009, Div. C (30 Sept. 1996).
105 8 U.S.C. §§ 1612(a)(1), 1612(a)(2)(B).
106 Id. at §§ 1612(a)(2)(A,C), 1612(a)(2)(D,E,F,H).
107 Id. at §§ 1612(b), 1622.
108 Id. at § 1621.
109 See id. at § 1601 (Congress's stated rationales); Legomsky, Stephen H., Immigration, Federalism, and the Welfare State, 42 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 1453, 1462–70 (1995)Google Scholar.
110 Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976).
111 Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971).
112 G.A. Res. 2200A(XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 49, U.N. Doc.A/6316, 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (Jan. 3, 1976).
113 Convention on the Rights of the Child, supra note 81.
114 O.A.S. Res. XXX, adopted by Ninth International Conference of American States, Bogota (1948), Novena Conferencia International Americana, 6 Actas y Documentos 297–302 (1953).
115 Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
116 For the full text, see League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson, 908 F. Supp. 755, 787–91 (C.D. Cal. 1995).
117 LULAC v. Wilson, 997 F. Supp. 1244 (C.D. Cal. 1997), affirmed in unpublished mediated settlement (9th Cir., July 29, 1999).
118 See McDonnell, Patrick J., Davis Won't Appeal Proposition 187 Ruling, Ending Court Battles, L.A. Times, July 29, 1999Google Scholar.
119 See, e.g., the collection of symposium articles in 42 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. (1995).
