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

Econintersect Opinion


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
Main Home
Analysis Blog
Men Without Work
Slow Economic Growth Will Be Around For A Long Time
News Blog
Crumbling Comet? The Great Debate About Whether Rosetta Rock 67P Is Breaking Apart
ISIS: Income Has More Than Halved Since 2014
What We Read Today 29 March 2017
The Best Hilarious Prank Ideas For April Fools' Day
February 2017 Pending Home Sales Index Improves?
The Need For Very Low Interest Rates In An Era Of Subdued Investment Spending
America's Missing Workers Are Primarily Middle Educated
The Share Of American Women In The Labor Force Is Slipping Even As It Rises In The Rest Of The Developed World
Infographic Of The Day: Which Countries Are Going In The Right Direction
Early Headlines: Asia Stocks Mixed, Dollar, Oil Up, Gold Down, Article 50 Day, Westinghouse Files Ch. 11, Trump Wants $1B To Start Wall, Russian Protests, China's $8T Shaky Debt, And More
Thirty Plus Terror Suspects And Convicts Not A Rare Occurrence In UK
The Winners And Losers In Trump's Proposed Budget
God and America (Version 3)
Investing Blog Technical Summary 28 March 2017
The Dollar's Coming Impact On Markets
Opinion Blog
Free Immigration Is The Moderate, Common-Sense Position
Macron May Lead But Le Pen Remains The Big Story
Precious Metals Blog
These Gold Stocks Will Produce Much Bigger Gains Than Gold Itself
Live Markets
29Mar2017 Market Close: DOW Closes Down 42 Points, SP 500 Up At Close, Nasdaq Clearly The Winner Closing Up 0.4 Percent, Wall Street Investors Happy
Amazon Books & More

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



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


Asia / Pacific
Middle East / Africa
USA Government

RSS Feeds / Social Media

Combined Econintersect Feed

Free Newsletter

Marketplace - Books & More

Economic Forecast

Content Contribution



  Top Economics Site 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