首页> 外文学位 >Inventing the Border: Law and Immigration in the United States: 1882- 1891.
【24h】

Inventing the Border: Law and Immigration in the United States: 1882- 1891.

机译:发明边界:美国的法律与移民:1882-1891年。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

This dissertation answers the following question: Why did the Supreme Court establish the Plenary Power Doctrine in decisions that affirmed legislation to exclude certain undesirable immigrants? This dissertation shows that the Court did so in order to eliminate institutional barriers to federal capacity to enforce these laws. I demonstrate this by combining legal process methodology in law and institution-focused methodologies in the social sciences, in a study of primary sources of the period from 1882 to 1891; including Court decisions, Congressional, and Executive Branch records.;The Supreme Court turned to the notion of powers inherent in sovereignty to justify New York State's control over immigration in the 1837 Miln decision. In the 1889 Chae decision, the Court found the same authority resided in the federal government. This change reflected an institutional transformation, not a doctrinal innovation. In historical terms, the distance between these two decisions was punctuated by dramatic institutional changes in the United States, most important among them the Civil War and its resolution, which created the opportunity for federal consolidation of state power. Government officials, elected and appointed, found themselves facing a novel and deeply contentious institutional landscape as they endeavored to create policy solutions that satisfied popular demand for exclusion of certain undesirable groups: Chinese immigrants and European contract laborers. Passing laws to exclude them was not going to be enough. In order to succeed, these laws had to be enforced; regularly, predictably, and in a manner that expressed, rather than subverted, Congressional intent to restrict immigration.;Members of Congress, Executive branch officials, the President, and Federal judges struggled with and against one another over the course of a decade (1882 -- 1891) to resolve institutional obstacles to enforcement. The Court's dominance during the 19th century meant that it would play a prominent role in resolving this institutional challenge, by expressing it as a doctrinal interpretation of the Constitution's scope in matters regarding alienage. The Plenary Power Doctrine in immigration law was the Supreme Court's solution to resolve institutional barriers to federal immigration enforcement.
机译:本文回答了以下问题:最高法院为什么在确认立法以排除某些不良移民的决定中建立全权主义?这篇论文表明,法院这样做是为了消除妨碍联邦政府执行这些法律的机构障碍。在研究1882年至1891年这一时期的主要资源时,我通过将法律中的法律程序方法学与社会科学中以机构为中心的方法学相结合来证明这一点。包括法院的决定,国会和行政部门的记录。最高法院转向主权固有的权力概念,以证明纽约州在1837年米尔恩(Miln)决定中对移民的控制权是正确的。在1889年蔡(Chae)的判决中,法院裁定联邦政府拥有同样的权力。这一变化反映了体制的转变,而不是教义上的创新。从历史上看,这两个决定之间的距离是由美国剧烈的制度变化所打断的,其中最重要的是内战及其解决方案,这为联邦巩固国家政权创造了机会。当选并任命的政府官员在努力制定政策解决方案时,面临着新颖而又引起激烈争议的制度环境,这些解决方案可以满足大众普遍排斥某些不良群体的需求:中国移民和欧洲合同工。通过法律将其排除在外是远远不够的。为了成功,必须执行这些法律。定期,可预测地并以表达而不是颠覆国会限制移民的意图的方式。国会议员,行政部门官员,总统和联邦法官在过去的十年中相互斗争和反对(1882年) -1891年)解决了执法上的体制性障碍。法院在19世纪的统治地位意味着它将在解决这一体制性挑战方面发挥重要作用,将其表达为对《宪法》在异议事项上范围的一种理论解释。移民法中的全权主义是最高法院解决解决联邦移民执法制度障碍的解决方案。

著录项

  • 作者

    Ponzer, Karin Anderson.;

  • 作者单位

    New School University.;

  • 授予单位 New School University.;
  • 学科 Political science.;American history.;Law.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2012
  • 页码 225 p.
  • 总页数 225
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号