Home Home Home Home Home
HomeContentSubmissionsMembershipGeneral
Currently in Print:
Vol. 99, June 2013, Issue 4
Constitutional Privileging
by Michael Coenen
A Constitutional Theory of Habeas Power
by Lee B. Kovarsky
The Science of Exclusion: Race and Social Capital in Housing Policy
by Stephanie M. Stern
The Principal Problem: Towards a More Limited Role for Fiduciary Law in the Nonprofit Sector
by Natalie Brown
In Brief:
Recently Published Items
Noel Canning v. NLRB - Enforcing Basic Constitutional Limits On Presidential Power
Essay by Noel J. Francisco and James M. Burnham

Unequal Treatment of Religious Exercises Under RFRA: Explaining the Outliers in the HHS Mandate Cases
Essay by Mark Rienzi

Protecting Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty
Essay by Douglas Laycock and Thomas C. Berg

[More]
Announcements
Virginia Law Review Announces Centennial Campaign

May Notes Pool Announcement

Notes Accepted from the March 2013 Notes Pool

[More]

Email Updates
Join Our Mailing List
Quick Links
Submit to In Brief

Forthcoming

Archive

Subscriptions

Advertisements

Customer Service

Short-Article Policy

Masthead

Contact Information
Virginia Law Review Association
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903-1789

Phone: 434-924-3079
Fax: 434-982-2818
E-Mail: lawrev@virginia.edu

Contact Valerie Listorti

April 2010, Volume 96, Issue 2

Reclaiming the Immigration Constitution of the Early Republic: Prospectivity, Uniformity, and Transparency
by James Pfander and Theresa Wardon
96 Va. L. Rev. 359 (2010)   View PDF

First, the paper offers the first considered examination of the immigration constitution of the early Republic. We find, both in the text of the Naturalization Clause and in its early application, a strong commitment to norms of prospectivity, uniformity and transparency. These norms rule out retrospective changes in the law and foreclose the practice of case-by-case private legislation in the naturalization field.

Second, the paper shows that the framers perceived the rules of naturalization as tantamount to rules of immigration law. This identity followed from the close association of citizenship and the right to own land. In a pre-industrial economy, where travel to the new world was relatively expensive and almost invariably permanent, easy rules of naturalization translated into a liberal immigration policy. One finds recognition of the essential identity of naturalization and immigration in such varying sources as the naturalization grievance of the Declaration of Independence and the comments of James Madison on the nation’s first naturalization bill. This identity, in turn, suggests that limits on congressional power in the naturalization arena can readily apply to immigration law.

Third, we apply these norms of uniformity, prospectivity, and transparency to a range of problems in modern immigration and naturalization law. For example, we argue against the plenary power doctrine, particularly as it purports to authorize Congress to change the rules of immigration midstream and apply them to individuals who have already arrived in this country. We also argue against Congress’s practice of adopting private legislation. These claims, in turn, provide the foundation for a criticism of the so-called public rights doctrine and its use to justify restrictions on the judicial role.


Click on an icon below to access the full text of this article*

Westlaw Westlaw   |  LexisNexis LexisNexis   |  HeinOnline HeinOnline   |  SSRN SSRN   |  Bloomberg Bloomberg   

* These are third-party content providers; they may require a separate subscription or charge a fee for access.