移民法视角下的行政法

2区 法学 Q1 Social Sciences Administrative Law Review Pub Date : 2012-02-23 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2009436
Jill E. Family
{"title":"移民法视角下的行政法","authors":"Jill E. Family","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2009436","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Immigration law does lag behind in the advancement of public law, but not in all respects. While immigration law is idiosyncratic in many ways, this article finds immigration law in the administrative law mainstream when it comes to its troubles with nonlegislative rules (sometimes called guidance documents). There are concerns throughout administrative law that agencies use such rules to bind regulated parties practically, even if not legally, without the procedural protections of notice and comment. This article analyzes immigration troubles with nonlegislative rules and makes three main contributions. First, it casts new light on the negative effects of guidance documents by viewing administrative law through the lens of immigration law. In immigration law, the cons of guidance documents play out in the context of some of life’s most fundamental questions: where and with whom to live and to work. Second, by showing how administrative law manifests in immigration law, this article concludes that immigration law’s troubles cannot be divorced from the mainstream administrative law debate over nonlegislative rules. Third, this article also evaluates a procedure new to immigration law: the draft memorandum for comment. Through the draft memorandum for comment procedure, the public may comment on draft guidance documents, but is not afforded the full protections of notice and comment rulemaking. While the new procedure is a pragmatic and positive step for immigration law, this article highlights that nonlegislative rules are not the only administrative tool available and argues for greater priority for notice and comment rulemaking in immigration law.","PeriodicalId":51730,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Law Review","volume":"64 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2009436","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Administrative Law Through the Lens of Immigration Law\",\"authors\":\"Jill E. Family\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2009436\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Immigration law does lag behind in the advancement of public law, but not in all respects. While immigration law is idiosyncratic in many ways, this article finds immigration law in the administrative law mainstream when it comes to its troubles with nonlegislative rules (sometimes called guidance documents). There are concerns throughout administrative law that agencies use such rules to bind regulated parties practically, even if not legally, without the procedural protections of notice and comment. This article analyzes immigration troubles with nonlegislative rules and makes three main contributions. First, it casts new light on the negative effects of guidance documents by viewing administrative law through the lens of immigration law. In immigration law, the cons of guidance documents play out in the context of some of life’s most fundamental questions: where and with whom to live and to work. Second, by showing how administrative law manifests in immigration law, this article concludes that immigration law’s troubles cannot be divorced from the mainstream administrative law debate over nonlegislative rules. Third, this article also evaluates a procedure new to immigration law: the draft memorandum for comment. Through the draft memorandum for comment procedure, the public may comment on draft guidance documents, but is not afforded the full protections of notice and comment rulemaking. While the new procedure is a pragmatic and positive step for immigration law, this article highlights that nonlegislative rules are not the only administrative tool available and argues for greater priority for notice and comment rulemaking in immigration law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51730,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Administrative Law Review\",\"volume\":\"64 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-02-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2009436\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Administrative Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2009436\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"法学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administrative Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2009436","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

移民法确实落后于公法的进步,但并非在所有方面。虽然移民法在很多方面都是独特的,但本文发现,当涉及到非立法规则(有时被称为指导文件)的麻烦时,移民法是行政法的主流。在整个行政法中都存在这样的担忧,即机构在没有通知和评论的程序保护的情况下,即使不是在法律上,也会利用这些规则来实际约束受监管的各方。本文分析了非立法规则带来的移民问题,主要有三点贡献。首先,通过移民法的视角审视行政法,对指导性文件的负面影响有了新的认识。在移民法中,指导文件的缺点体现在一些最基本的人生问题的背景下:在哪里和谁一起生活和工作。其次,通过行政法在移民法中的体现,本文得出结论:移民法的困境离不开主流行政法对非立法规则的争论。第三,本文还评估了移民法的一个新程序:征求意见备忘录草案。通过征求意见备忘录草案程序,公众可以对指导性文件草案提出意见,但没有得到通知和意见规则制定的充分保障。虽然新程序是移民法的一个务实和积极的步骤,但本文强调,非立法规则不是唯一可用的行政工具,并主张在移民法中更优先考虑通知和评论规则制定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Administrative Law Through the Lens of Immigration Law
Immigration law does lag behind in the advancement of public law, but not in all respects. While immigration law is idiosyncratic in many ways, this article finds immigration law in the administrative law mainstream when it comes to its troubles with nonlegislative rules (sometimes called guidance documents). There are concerns throughout administrative law that agencies use such rules to bind regulated parties practically, even if not legally, without the procedural protections of notice and comment. This article analyzes immigration troubles with nonlegislative rules and makes three main contributions. First, it casts new light on the negative effects of guidance documents by viewing administrative law through the lens of immigration law. In immigration law, the cons of guidance documents play out in the context of some of life’s most fundamental questions: where and with whom to live and to work. Second, by showing how administrative law manifests in immigration law, this article concludes that immigration law’s troubles cannot be divorced from the mainstream administrative law debate over nonlegislative rules. Third, this article also evaluates a procedure new to immigration law: the draft memorandum for comment. Through the draft memorandum for comment procedure, the public may comment on draft guidance documents, but is not afforded the full protections of notice and comment rulemaking. While the new procedure is a pragmatic and positive step for immigration law, this article highlights that nonlegislative rules are not the only administrative tool available and argues for greater priority for notice and comment rulemaking in immigration law.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Approach of the Administrative Court of Justice regarding to Extension of the Effect of Annulment of Regulations to the Time of Approval Analysis of the Effect of Whistleblowing on the Fiscal Discipline of Govermental companies Investigating the Requirements of the Decentralization System in the Social Security Organization Legislative policy of Iran Customs Law and its damages Investigating the violation of individuals' rights; An independent and neglected direction in the judicial supervision of the General Assembly of the Court of Administrative Justice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1