Congressional Authority over Immigration and Naturalization

[Earl Maltz]

I misread the first post; though that it applied to immigration.  Duh.  But 
in any event, Nguyen explicitly refused to reach the question of whether 
the plenary power doctrine applied; it said that it didn't have to reach 
that question because the statute passed intermediate scrutiny in any event.

At 01:28 PM 10/25/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>Well, I think applying intermediate scrutiny to a gender
>based distinction would be inconsistent with the Chinese
>Exclusion doctrine isn't it?  Further, the doctrine doesn't
>really apply to the naturalization issue, because Chae Chan
>Ping deals with the power to exclude not to the power to
>naturalize.
>
>----- Original Message Follows -----
>From: Earl Maltz <emaltz at camden.rutgers.edu>
>To: medina at loyno.edu
>Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>Subject: Re: Congressional Authority over Immigration and
>Naturalization
>Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:53:12 -0400
>
> > Certainly, many commentators have made such an argument,
> > but I'm not aware  of any case law that expressly
> > questions the Chinese Exclusion rule.  Am I  mistaken?
> >
> > At 12:39 PM 10/25/2005 -0500, you wrote:
> > >Actually, isn't there a strong argument available that an
> > >expressly racial or gender based distinction may in fact
> > not >be sustained today?  Assuming one had standing to
> > raise the >claim?
> > >
> > >Isabel Medina
> > >Loyola New Orleans
> > >
> > >----- Original Message Follows -----
> > >From: Earl Maltz <emaltz at camden.rutgers.edu>
> > >To: JMHACLJ at aol.com
> > >Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > >Subject: Re: Congressional Authority over Immigration and
> > >Naturalization
> > >Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:26:41 -0400
> > >
> > > > The answer to all of these questions is "yes" under
> > > > the much-criticized  rule (that I happen to agree
> > > > with) enunciated in the Chinese Exclusion Cases.
> > > >
> > > > At 11:45 AM 10/25/2005 -0400, you wrote:
> > > > >What are the constitutional dimensions of the plenary
> > > > authority of  >Congress over immigration and
> > > > naturalization?  How does the Fourteenth  >Amendment
> > > > play into the definition of those dimensions? >
> > > > >Could Congress, assuming veto proof majorities or
> > > > approval by the  >President, pass a law imposing ANY
> > > > conditions whatever on naturalization? >
> > > > >For example, taking and passing a civics exam in the
> > > > English language? >
> > > > >Or, for example, could Congress limit naturalization
> > > > to (1) an age group,  >for example, persons aged 21 or
> > > > older, (2) a single gender (pretend we're  >Australia
> > > > and we have too many men and not enough women), (3) a
> > > > category  >of races or national origins that included
> > > > some and excluded others? >
> > > > >Jim Henderson
> > > > >Senior Counsel
> > > > >ACLJ
> > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > >To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > > > >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get
> > > > password, see
> > > >
> > > > >
> > >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> > > > >Please note that messages sent to this large list
> > > > cannot be viewed as  >private.  Anyone can subscribe
> > to the list and read messages that are  >posted; people
> > > > can read the Web archives; and list members can
> > > > (rightly or >wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get
> > > > password , see
> > > >
> > >
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> > > > > Please note that messages sent to this large list
> > > > cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to
> > > > the list and read messages that are posted; people can
> > > > read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
> > > > or wrongly) forward the messages to others.