Letting in your future rulers, the plenary power doctrine, and ideological restrictions on immigration

[Elizabeth Dale]

Sandy --
 
Far be it for me to defend the influence of Cuban immigrants on Florida (or
national) politics, but I have to say my ancestors would, and no doubt did,
make arguments similar to those you set out about the evil influence of
Irish Catholics on Chicago's governance, and in moments of stress would
probably have argued that their baneful influence was national (pro IRA
politicians), not merely local. 
 
There are surely those (again, some of whom pop up in my family tree) who
argue that we would not be in Iraq were it not for all the Zionists whose
ancestors we "mistakenly" let in at various points in the late nineteenth
and early to mid twentieth centuries. 
 
During Reconstruction folks argued that letting the freed people vote was
the cause of the corruption of the national Republican government and of
local politics.
 
One can go on and on and on in this vein. Give me a day or two, and I can
probably drum up a relative or two or three or more who would tell you that
it's been downhill in terms of immigration since 1631. Of course, such a
statement would pit one side of my family against the other (the other side
didn't get here until 1634), and there is the fascinating question of
whether the 1631 side of my family was more dangerous to the polity than the
1634 side (the latter helped the witch hunt, the former merely engaged in
what was deemed blasphemy) but that's the whole problem with this line of
reasoning. 
 
Florida would be an interesting and disturbing place to live even if we'd
kept out every refugee from Cuba, and I betcha that we'd be a bit wacky on
the subject of Castro regardless of our immigration policies. Consider our
policies and reactions to Haiti, from the 19th century on....
 
 
 

Elizabeth Dale 

Associate Professor, US Legal History, Department of History, 
Affiliate Professor of Legal History, Levin College of Law 

University of Florida 
PO Box 117320 
Gainesville, Florida 32611 

edale at history.ufl.edu 
http://plaza.ufl.edu/edale 
352-392-0271 ex 262 (phone) 
352-392-6927 (fax) 


 

  _____  

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 3:05 PM
To: Lynne Henderson; aleinikt at law.georgetown.edu
Cc: Volokh, Eugene; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Letting in your future rulers, the plenary power doctrine,and
ideological restrictions on immigration


I am generally sympathetic with Eugene's critics, but I confess I do find
myself thinking of Miami, whose politics have been transformed, not at all
for the better, by the arrival there of a critical mass of Cuban refugees in
the early 1960s who over the years have exhibited little appreciation for
what we'd like to think of as the American spirit of tolerance re one's
political adversaries.  I think this is dissipating as the children indeed
are becoming more socialized into the rough-and-tumble of American politics,
but we have (in part because of the idiocy of the Electoral College, to be
sure) paid an enormous price with regard to a counterproductive policy
vis-a-vis Cuba (that has, as likely as not, strengthened rather than
weakened the last remaining old-line Communist tyrant). 
 
 It may be that the Miami immigration is close to a unique event in our
history, inasmuch as most immigrants were relatively dispersed and/or, as
with Jews from the shtetl, not highly politicized in the old country.  The
Cuban imimigrants stayed together and, of course, were highly politicized
and, in many cases, well educated and well-off to boot.    
 
At the end of the day, I continue to support the post-war relaxation of
immigration policy and would oppose any inquiry into an immigrant's
"acculturation in a democratic perspective."  That being said, I think we
should recognize that such a policy has costs as well as benefits, which I
take it is one of Eugene's points.
 
sandy
 
 
 
 
 
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Lynne Henderson
Sent: Sun 2/19/2006 1:47 PM
To: aleinikt at law.georgetown.edu
Cc: Volokh, Eugene; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Letting in your future rulers, the plenary power doctrine,and
ideological restrictions on immigration



Wasn't  Eugene's point  also the argument against allowing Japanese
immigrants to become naturalized citizens? That they were just "too
different" and shouldn't be allowed to vote, because "they" didn't
share "our" values?  Indeed, doesn't some of this thinking underlie
"quotas" on immigrants even today?
I agree, how far do we push this without lapsing into bigotry and
stereotyping?
Lynne Henderson

On Feb 19, 2006, at 8:20 AM, Alex Aleinikoff wrote:

> Concerns about "future co-rulers" go back a long way in US history. 
> Catholic immigration in the 19th century was opposed on "anti-Papist"
> grounds:  the argument was that immigrants who became citizens would
> be more loyal to the Pope than to American notions of democracy. 
> Claims that non-citizens were not ready for American political
> institutions and traditions confronted southern and eastern European
> immigrants and were also used to argue that the Constitution didn't
> "follow the flag" in the Insular Cases.
>
> Birthright citizenship in the US means that non-citizens make citizens
> (co-rulers, when they reach the age of 18)--not the usual way that
> clubs, associations or communities (or law faculties) make membership
> decisions, but a membership rule that does not seem to have disserved
> the nation.  How far would Eugene press his point?
>
> Alex Aleinikoff
>
>
> Volokh, Eugene wrote:
>
>>      Unless I'm mistaken, many scholars have criticized the plenary
>> power doctrine in immigration law.  As I understand it, their
>> arguments
>> -- and I think there is much to these arguments -- are that otherwise
>> impermissible discrimination based on race, national origin, ideology,
>> religion, and the like should be no more permissible in immigration
>> decisions, including decisions about whom to let into the country (or
>> whom to give permanent resident status or citizenship to), than they
>> are
>> in other government decisions.
>>
>>      Non

_______________________________________________
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.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20060219/35e89606/attachment.htm