No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Immigration, Naturalization and the Constitution
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 May 2020
Extract
Nothing is more important to the existence of a human community than the definition of its membership. Who is permitted to enter the community's territory and who is kept out? Who is entitled to the rights and benefits of membership and who is excluded? What are the differences in this respect between citizens and aliens? The answers to these questions are of vital importance in the making of nation-states since they shaped cultural as well as political character. For the United States, the country par excellence of immigration, these issues have been particularly salient. To be or to become an American has often been a matter of choice. Choice on the part of both the immigrant and the host society.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1986
References
Notes
1 On membership and community see Walzer, Michael, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality (New York: Basic Books, 1983), 31–63.Google Scholar
2 The basic studies upon which this essay draws are the classic works by Knovitz, Milton R., The Alien and the Asiatic in American Law(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1946)Google Scholar and Civil Rights in Immigration(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1953), and the recent monographs by Hull, Elizabeth, Without Justice for All: The Constitutional Rights of Aliens(Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985)Google Scholar and Weissbrodt, David, Immigration Law and Procedure(St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1984).Google Scholar See also the essay by Dinnerstein, Leonard, “The Supreme Court and the Rights of Aliens,” this Constitution, n. 8 (Fall 1985): 24–35.Google Scholar
3 The history of immigration legislation can best be followed in Hutchinson, E.P., Legislative History of American Immigration Policy, 1798-1965 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also Bennett, Marion T., American Immigration Policies: A History(Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1963)Google Scholar and Bernard, William S., “Immigration: History of U.S. Policy,” in Harvard Encycopedia of American Ethnic Groups(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), 486–495.Google Scholar
4 Hendersonv. Mayor of New York,92 U.S. 259 (1875). Earlier was Passenger Cases 48 U.S. 283(1849).
5 Head Money Cases, 1 12 U.S. 580 (1884).
6 Nishimura Ekiuv. U.S.,142 U.S. 651 (1892).
7 Chae Chan Ping v. U.S.,130 U.S. 581 (1889); aka The Chinese Exclusion Case.
8 Higham, John, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925(New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1955Google Scholar, and subsequent editions) remains the basic study; see also George M. Frederickson and Dale T. Knobel, “Prejudice and Discrimination, History of,” in Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups,829-847; Daniels, Roger, The Politics of Prejudice: The Anti-Japanese Movement in California and the Struggle for Japanese Exclusion(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962)Google Scholar; Miller, Stuart C., The Unwelcome Immigrant: The American Image of the Chinese, 1785-1882(Berkeley: University of California, 1969).Google Scholar
9 U.S. ex rei. Turner ν. Williams,194 U.S. 279 (1904).
10 Higham, Strangers in the Land; Preston, William Jr., Aliens and Dissenters: Federal Supression of Radicals, 1903-1933(New York: Harper & Row, 1966)Google Scholar; Murphy, Paul L., World War I and the Origin of Civil Liberties in the United States(New York: W. W. Norton, 1979)Google Scholar; Steinberg, Peter L., The Great “Red Menace“: United States Prosecution of American Communists, 1947-1952(Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1984).Google Scholar
11 U.S. ex rei. Knauff v. Shaughnessy,338 U.S. 537 (1950); Shaughnessy v. Mezei,345 U.S. 206 (1953). See also the discussion of these cases in Konvitz, Civil Rights in Immigration,46- 51, and Hull, Without Justice for All,54-58.
12 Daniels, Roger, “American Refugee Policy in Historical Perspective,” in Jackman, J. C. and Borden, Carla, eds.. The Muses Flee Hitler: Cultural Transfer And Adaptation, 1930-1945(Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1983), 61–77Google Scholar; Elles, Baroness, International Provisions Protecting the Human Rights of Non-Citizens(New York: United Nations, 1980)Google Scholar; Lillich, Richard B., The Human Rights of Aliens in Contemporary International Law(Dover, NH: Manchester University Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Hull, Without Justice for All,115-122.
13 Immigration and Naturalization Servicev. Stevic,v. 12, n. 45 (1984): 33-34, 41. (1984); Migration Today,104 S. Ct. 2489.
14 Stepick, Alex, “Haitian Boat People: A Study in the Conflicting Forces Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy,” Law and Contemporary Problems, 45 (Spring 1982): 163–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reimers, David M., Still the Golden Door: The Third World Comes to America(New York: Columbia University Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Hull, Without Justice for All,127-142.
15 Haitian Refugee Centerv. Civiletti,503 F.Supp. 442 (1980). Although on appeal to the Circuit Court, Judge King's findings that the Haitians had been victims of discrimination on the basis of national origin and thus denied equal protection were declared too sweeping, the upper court did affirm King's conclusion that the INS accelerated program of processing Haitian asylum and deportation cases deprived them of due process of law. Haitian Refugee Centerν Smith,676F.2d 1023(1982).
16 Jean v. Nelson,727 F.2d 957 (1984).
17 Bridges v. Wixon,326 U.S. 135 (1945).
18 Between 1892-1954, of 5,416,313 aliens who have been expelled, only 443,210 were actually deported, the balance were “required to depart.” Bennett, American Immigration Policies,340.
19 Konvitz, The Alien and the Asiatic in American Law,46-78; Konvitz, Civil Rights in Immigration,93-131.
20 Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.,149 U.S. 698 (1893).
21 The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U.S. 86 (1903).
22 Preston, Aliens and Dissenters;Murphy, World War I and the Origins of Civil Liberties; Kate Holloday Claghorn, , The Immigrant's Day in Court (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1923), 305–468Google Scholar; Van Vleck, William C., The Administrative Control of Aliens(New York· The Commonwealth Fund, 1932), 3–22.Google Scholar
23 Mahler v. Eby,264 U.S. 32 (1924).
24 U.S. ex rei. Bilokumsky v. Tod,263 U.S. 149 (1923).
25 Claghorn, The Immigrant's Day in Court,466.
26 Kessler v. Strecker,307 U.S. 22 (1939).
27 Bridgesv. Wixon,326 U.S. 135 (1945). Konvitz has an extensive discussion of this case in Civil Rights in Immigration,114-122.
28 Carlsonv. Landon,342 U.S. 524(1952). On the impact of the Cold War on the Constitution, see Murphy, Paul L., The Constitution in Crisis Times, 1918-1969(New York: Harper & Row, 1972), 279–309.Google Scholar
29 Harisiadesv. Shaughnessy,342 U.S. 580 (1952).
30 The text of President Truman's veto is in Konvitz, Civil Rights in Immigration,159-171.
31 Galvan v. Press,342 U.S. 580 (1952).
32 Helbush, Terry Jane, “Aliens, Deportation and the Equal Protection Clause: A Critical Reappraisal,” Golden Gate University Law Review, 6 (Fall 1975): 27, 58. This (pp. 23–77)Google Scholar is an excellent analysis of deportation policy from which I have drawn liberally.
33 Hull, Without Justice for All,79-114; Weissbrodt, Immigration Law and Procedure,71-95; Rodolfo Acuna, , Occupied America: A History of Chicanos, 2d ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1981), 123–189Google Scholar; Balderama, Francisco E., In Defense of La Raza: The Los Angeles Mexican Consulate and the Mexican Community, 1919 to 1936(Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1982), 15–36.Google Scholar
34 U.S.v. Martinez-Fuerte,428 U.S. 543 (1976).
35 U.S.v. Brigoni-Ponce,422 U.S. 873 (1975).
36 INS*. Delgado,104 S. Ct. 1758 (1984).
37 Yick Wo v. Hopkins,118 U.S.356 (1886).
38 Konvitz, The Aliens and the Asiatic in American Law,148-211; Elizabeth Hull, “Resident Aliens and the Equal Protection Clause: The Burger Court's Retreat From Graham v. Richardson,” Brooklyn Law Review,47 (Fall 1980): 1-42; Jose A. Rivera, “Aliens Under the Law—A Legal Perspective,” Employee Relations Law Journal,3 (Summer 1977): 12-37; Simona F. Rosales, “Resident Aliens and the Right to Work: The Quest for Equal Protection,” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly,2 (Fall 1975): 1029-1064.
39 Rosales, “Resident Aliens and the Right to Work,” 1037.
40 Heimv. McCall,214 N.Y. 629 (1915), sustaining a New York law which prohibited the employment of aliens on public works; Patsonev. Pennsylvania,232 U.S. 138 (1914), sustaining a Pennsylvania law which limited the permission to hunt wildlife and to carry firearms to citizens; Ohio ex. rei. Clarkev. Deckebach,274 U.S. 392 (1927), sustaining a Cincinnati ordinance which prohibited the issuance of licenses to conduct poolrooms and billiard rooms to aliens.
41 Traux v. Raich,239 U.S. 33 (1915).
42 Hull, “Resident Aliens and the Equal Protection Clause,” 9.
43 Takahashiν. Fishand Game Commission, 334 U.S. 410 (1948).
44 Hauensteinv. Lynham,100 U.S. 483 (1879). Restrictions on landownership by aliens is dealt with by Konvitz, The Alien and the Asiatic in American Law,148-170; and Weissbrodt, Immigration Law and Procedure,266-269.
45 Terrace v. Thompson,263 U.S. 197 (1923).
46 Oyamav. California,332 U.S. 633 (1948). The relocation and internment of Japanese- Americans during World War II and the Supreme Court cases which ensued are not considered here because that policy was clearly based on race not alienage.
47 Grahamv. Richardson,403 U.S. 365 (1971).
48 Sugarman v. Dougall,413 U.S. 634 (1973); In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717 (1973).
49 Hull, “Resident Aliens and the Equal Protection Clause;” Weissbrodt, Immigration Law and Procedure,226-239.
50 Foley v. Connelie,435 U.S. 291 (1978); Ambachv. Norwick,441 U.S. 68 (1979); Cabellν. Chavez-Salido,454 U.S. 432 (1982). The law at issue in the last case defined some seventy jobs, including toll service attendants and cemetery sextons as police officers.
51 Cabell v. Chavez-Salido.
52 Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong,426 U.S. 88 (1976).
53 Mathewsv. Diaz,426 U.S. 67 (1976).
54 Weissbrodt, Immigration Law and Procedure,257.
55 Rosales, “Resident Aliens and the Right to Work,” 1052-1064.
56 Hull, Without Justice for All,46-47; Rivera, “Aliens Under the Law,” 26-28.
57 Espinoza v. Farah Manufacturing Company,414 U.S. 86(1973).
58 Wong Wing v. U.S.,163 U.S. 228 (1896).
59 Mathewsν. Diaz.
60 Reimers, Still the Golden Door,230-231.
61 Plyler v. Doe,457 U.S. 202 (1982).
62 Schuck, Peter H., “The Transformation of Immigration Law,” Columbia Law Review, 84 (January 1984): 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
63 Walzer, Spheres of Justice,51-53, 60-63.
64 Kettner, James H., The Development of American Citizenship, 1608-18/0 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1978)Google Scholar, is excellent for its period; Arthur Mann, , The One and the Many: Reflections on the American Identity(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 79–96Google Scholar, a brief but insightful history of naturalization; also useful is Reed Ueda, “Naturalization and Citizenship,” in Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups,735-748, and Konvitz, The Alien and the Asiatic in American Law,79-116.
65 Terraceν. Thompson.
66 Mann, The One and the Many,72,80; on the ideological character of American identity, see also Philip Gleason, “American Identity and Americanization,” in Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups,31-58.
67 Kansas, Sidney, Citizenship of the United States of America(New York: Washington Publishing Co., 1936)Google Scholar, provides a detailed account of the development of naturalization law; see also Konvitz, Civil Rights in Immigration,132-158, and Weissbrodt, Immigration Law and Procedure,137-189.
68 U.S.v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649 (1898).
69 Ozawa v. U.S.,260 U.S. 178 (1922); U.S. v. Thind,261 U.S. 204 (1923).
70 The majority decision in Thindalso voiced this anti-intellectual comment: “What ethnologists, anthropologists and so-called scientists speculate and conjecture in respect to races and origins may interest the curious and convince the credulous, but is of no moment in arriving at the intent of Congress in the statute aforesaid.” Quoted in Kansas, Citizenship of the United States,30.
71 Toyota v. U.S., 268 U.S. 402 (1925).
72 The 1907 statute was upheld by the Supreme Court in Mackenziev. Hare,239 U S 299 (1915).
73 Kettner, The Development of American Citizenship,198, 236; Konvitz, Civil Rights in Immigration,150; Weissbrodt, Immigration Law and Procedure,200-202.
74 On the ideological test for naturalization, Konvitz, Civil Rights in Immigration,139-149; Konvitz, The Alien and the Asiatic in American Law,97-107; Preston, Aliens and Dissenters,65-68, 86.
75 U.S. v. Schwimmer,279 U.S. 644 (1929).
76 U.S.v. Macintosh,283 U.S. 605 (1931)
77 Girouard v. U.S.,328 U.S. 61 (1946).
78 Konvitz, , Civil Rights in Immigration,139-154; Murphy, The Constitution in Crisis Times 217,290–292.Google Scholar
79 Trujillo-Hernandezv. Farrell,503 F.2d 954 (1974).
80 Johannessen v. U.S.,225 U.S. 227 (1912).
81 Claghorn, The Immigrant's Day in Court,318-322; Konvitz, The Alien and the Asiatic in American Law,117-119; Preston, Aliens and Dissenters,267-271.
82 Schneidermanv. U.S., 320 U.S. 118 (1943).
83 Baumgartner v. U.S.,322 U.S. 665 (1944).
84 Knauer v. U.S.,328 U.S. 654 (1946).
85 Konvitz, Civil Rights in Immigration,110-113.
86 Fedorenkov. U.S., 449 U.S. 490 (1981); New York Times,December 21, 1984.
87 Perezv. Brownell,356 U.S. 44 (1958).
88 Kennedy \/. Mendoza-Martinez,372 U.S. 144 (1963).
89 Schneider v. Rusk,377 U.S. 163 (1964).
90 Afroyimv. Rusk,387 U.S. 253 (1967).