美国移民政策:契约法还是人权法?

V. C. Romero
{"title":"美国移民政策:契约法还是人权法?","authors":"V. C. Romero","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.977758","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The current immigration debate often reflects a tension between affirming the individual rights of migrants against the power of a nation to control its borders. An examination of U.S. Supreme Court precedent reveals that, from our earliest immigration history to the present time, our immigration policy has functioned more like contract law than human rights law, with the Court deferring to the power of Congress to define the terms of that contract at the expense of the immigrant's freedom. (This essay is a version of a chapter from my forthcoming book, Everyday Law for Immigrants and Foreign Nationals, part of Paradigm Publishers \"Everyday Law\" series, which is edited by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic.)","PeriodicalId":82201,"journal":{"name":"Nova law review","volume":"85 1","pages":"309-326"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"U.S. Immigration Policy: Contract or Human Rights Law?\",\"authors\":\"V. C. Romero\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.977758\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The current immigration debate often reflects a tension between affirming the individual rights of migrants against the power of a nation to control its borders. An examination of U.S. Supreme Court precedent reveals that, from our earliest immigration history to the present time, our immigration policy has functioned more like contract law than human rights law, with the Court deferring to the power of Congress to define the terms of that contract at the expense of the immigrant's freedom. (This essay is a version of a chapter from my forthcoming book, Everyday Law for Immigrants and Foreign Nationals, part of Paradigm Publishers \\\"Everyday Law\\\" series, which is edited by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic.)\",\"PeriodicalId\":82201,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nova law review\",\"volume\":\"85 1\",\"pages\":\"309-326\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nova law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.977758\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nova law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.977758","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当前关于移民问题的辩论往往反映出一种紧张关系,一方面是肯定移民的个人权利,另一方面是一个国家控制其边界的权力。对美国最高法院判例的研究表明,从我们最早的移民历史到现在,我们的移民政策更像是合同法,而不是人权法,法院服从国会的权力,以牺牲移民的自由为代价来定义合同条款。(本文摘自我即将出版的新书《移民和外国人的日常法律》中的一章,该书是范式出版社“日常法律”系列的一部分,由理查德·德尔加多和吉恩·斯蒂芬奇编辑。)
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
U.S. Immigration Policy: Contract or Human Rights Law?
The current immigration debate often reflects a tension between affirming the individual rights of migrants against the power of a nation to control its borders. An examination of U.S. Supreme Court precedent reveals that, from our earliest immigration history to the present time, our immigration policy has functioned more like contract law than human rights law, with the Court deferring to the power of Congress to define the terms of that contract at the expense of the immigrant's freedom. (This essay is a version of a chapter from my forthcoming book, Everyday Law for Immigrants and Foreign Nationals, part of Paradigm Publishers "Everyday Law" series, which is edited by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic.)
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Florida Family Law Bounds of Advocacy: A Mandate for Collaborative Practice Control Over Blockchain Network First Amendment Fora Revisited: How Many Categories Are There? Copyright As Charity Intuition, Morals, and the Legal Conversation About Gay Rights
×
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