econintersect.com
       
  

FREE NEWSLETTER: Econintersect sends a nightly newsletter highlighting news events of the day, and providing a summary of new articles posted on the website. Econintersect will not sell or pass your email address to others per our privacy policy. You can cancel this subscription at any time by selecting the unsubscribing link in the footer of each email.



posted on 01 February 2017

The Rights That Trump's Travel Ban Takes Away From Us All

from The Conversation

-- this post authored by Francesca Strumia, University of Sheffield

In October 1888 Chae Chan Ping, a Chinese national, was detained on the steamship Belgic in the port of San Francisco. The detainee, who had lived in the US for 12 years, was trying to re-enter the US after a trip back to China. He had a certificate allowing him to return. However, during his absence, an Act of Congress had introduced new restrictions to the immigration of Chinese laborers into the US. As a result, Chae Chan Ping’s certificate of re-entry had been voided.

A federal district court - and ultimately the Supreme Court - ruled that Chae Chan Ping had no right to enter the US and that he was not unlawfully detained. The incident has become one of the most famous cases of US immigration law - the Chinese Exclusion Case. The Supreme Court was clear in its judgment: “The power of exclusion of foreigners being an incident of sovereignty." Any licence to enter the country was “held at the will of the government, revocable at any time at its pleasure".

Over the weekend, several foreign nationals were detained at airports across the United States as an immediate effect of Donald Trump’s executive order imposing a temporary ban on immigration from seven countries.

A federal district court judge issued an emergency order restraining the Trump administration from removing anyone from the seven countries if they had been legally authorised to enter the US. The order aimed to safeguard the entrants’ rights to equal protection and due process under the US constitution.

So what changed between the Chinese Exclusion Case and the events that unfolded in the first week of Trump’s presidency? From one perspective, not much. The words of the Supreme Court in the Chinese Exclusion Case are still valid:

“That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy."

Trump’s executive order is in many ways an expression of that longstanding government power. There are few obstacles in the way of this power: aliens at the border, who have not yet been admitted, have few, if any, rights under the US constitution.

Nevertheless, a few important things have changed since the days of Chae Chan Ping. Admitted and resident aliens (as opposed to aliens at the borders) have increasingly been brought under the umbrella of the US constitution. Several cases throughout the 20th century have confirmed that states (and to some extent even the federal government) cannot discriminate against resident aliens. They are entitled to due process and equal protection under the constitution. That’s in part why the district court order could temporarily halt removals under Trump’s.

States also now have obligations towards foreigners under international law. These limit the unfettered sovereignty to exclude aliens that the Supreme Court upheld in Chae Chan Ping’s case. Under the 1951 Geneva Convention, for instance, state parties, including the US, have pledged to not send back people escaping persecution.

And under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, any person has the right to enter “their own country". The UN Human Rights Committee ruled that “one’s own country" is a broader concept than “country of nationality". One’s own country can be the country where a person has close personal and family ties, as well as an intention to remain. This is a further constraint on a state’s power to exclude (although the US has not signed up to all elements of this covenant).

State and individual

All of this is part of an important legal shift. Where states once had complete sovereignty in policing their borders to protect national interests, that sovereignty is now limited by a more complex set of individual rights. Those rights are a nuisance for governments. They constrain sovereign power and make independent nations a touch less independent. But, at the same time, they make their citizens more free. They shield individuals, to some extent, from the effects of discretionary powers that governments retain in managing their borders.

This trade-off between sovereignty and freedom is also being seen in the UK in debates about Brexit. British anxiety over controlling borders and the desire to vigorously reaffirm the interests of untrammelled sovereignty are driven by the same logic as Trump’s immigration restrictions. Both struggles score a victory for sovereignty at the expense of transnational lives.

This may seem a problem only for EU citizens living in the UK, or UK nationals living in Europe. Or for the unlucky people caught up in the current confusion in US airports. But it isn’t really.

Most people have transnational interests these days. They work across borders, or fall in love across borders. They might have family ties across borders or buy products across borders. They might even just look across borders out of curiosity. They might, one day, need to seek refuge across a border.

The unpredictable contingencies of human and natural history may prevent a person from one day to the next from calling a place home.

National sovereignty certainly protects worthwhile collective interests, such as security. However, in its populist 21st-century version, it tends to come hand-in-hand with an illusory promise of closure and protection. While purportedly protecting “the people’s" interests, it erodes their individual rights. It sacrifices these individual rights to the agendas of national interests that may prove volatile or anachronistic.

Rights are fragile, particularly the ones that cut across borders. That’s clear in the stories of a Chinese immigrant and of the unlucky US-bound travellers who, a century later, have fallen into the same trap.

Those rights deserve to be protected, even if feeble safeguards is all we can offer. They are part of our freedom.

The ConversationFrancesca Strumia, Lecturer in Law, University of Sheffield

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

>>>>> Scroll down to view and make comments <<<<<<

Click here for Historical Opinion Post Listing










Make a Comment

Econintersect wants your comments, data and opinion on the articles posted.  As the internet is a "war zone" of trolls, hackers and spammers - Econintersect must balance its defences against ease of commenting.  We have joined with Livefyre to manage our comment streams.

To comment, using Livefyre just click the "Sign In" button at the top-left corner of the comment box below. You can create a commenting account using your favorite social network such as Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn or Open ID - or open a Livefyre account using your email address.



You can also comment using Facebook directly using he comment block below.





Econintersect Opinion


search_box

Print this page or create a PDF file of this page
Print Friendly and PDF


The growing use of ad blocking software is creating a shortfall in covering our fixed expenses. Please consider a donation to Econintersect to allow continuing output of quality and balanced financial and economic news and analysis.


Take a look at what is going on inside of Econintersect.com
Main Home
Analysis Blog
Democratic Development Lowers the Cost of Credit
Is Growing Household Debt An Economic Counter-Dynamic?
News Blog
Most Read Articles Last Week Ending 25 February
How British Businesses Helped The Confederacy Fight The American Civil War
Where You Can Surf A Lot For A Little In The EU
'I Can Live With Either One': Palestine, Israel And The Two-state Solution
Where Snapchat's Users Come From
What We Read Today 26 February 2017
INAUGURATION DAY: A Bad Lip Reading Of Donald Trump's Inauguration
Did The Dodd-Frank Act Make The Financial System Safer?
A Close Look At The Decline Of Homeownership - Part Five Of Five
Do Institutional Investors Chase Returns?
Infographic Of The Day: How To Survive A Deadly Snake Bite
Early Headlines: Global Mfg 1970-2010, No Refugee Spike, GOP Health Proposal Leak, GOP Town Halls, Trump's Debt Decrease, Macron Gains, China's $9 Trn Moral Hazard, Americans Oppose Wall And More
Premium Seats At Premium Events Equal Premium Prices
Investing Blog
The Week Ahead: Reality And Stock Prices
Snapchat Still Has Some Growing Up To Do
Opinion Blog
What Do You Call A Lie Constructed From Other Lies?
Why Winning The French Presidential Election Could Be A Poisoned Chalice
Precious Metals Blog
Deflation And Gold: A Contrarian View
Live Markets
24Feb2017 Market Close: Wall Street Rose From Session Lows To Close In The Green Near The Unchanged Line, Short-Term Indicators And Analysts Questioning Continuing Bull Run
Amazon Books & More






.... and keep up with economic news using our dynamic economic newspapers with the largest international coverage on the internet
Asia / Pacific
Europe
Middle East / Africa
Americas
USA Government





























 navigate econintersect.com

Blogs

Analysis Blog
News Blog
Investing Blog
Opinion Blog
Precious Metals Blog
Markets Blog
Video of the Day
Weather

Newspapers

Asia / Pacific
Europe
Middle East / Africa
Americas
USA Government
     

RSS Feeds / Social Media

Combined Econintersect Feed
Google+
Facebook
Twitter
Digg

Free Newsletter

Marketplace - Books & More

Economic Forecast

Content Contribution

Contact

About

  Top Economics Site

Investing.com Contributor TalkMarkets Contributor Finance Blogs Free PageRank Checker Active Search Results Google+

This Web Page by Steven Hansen ---- Copyright 2010 - 2017 Econintersect LLC - all rights reserved