Historical Context of Immigration Law

American immigration law shifted from state to federal control after the 1875 Supreme Court decision in Henderson v. Mayor of New York. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 marked Congress's first major restriction on immigration.

Subsequent acts like the Immigration Act of 1917 and 1924 National Origins Act further tightened controls. Post-WWII, policies like the 1948 Displaced Persons Act and 1953 Refugee Relief Act showed more openness, especially to those fleeing communism.

The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act eliminated national origin quotas, reshaping America's demographic makeup. Court decisions like Plyler v. Doe in 1982 established certain rights for undocumented immigrants.

More recently, programs like DACA in 2012 have attempted to address the status of undocumented individuals brought to the U.S. as children, though its future remains uncertain.

Constitutional Provisions and Immigration

The Constitution provides several key provisions related to immigration:

• Commerce Clause: Gives Congress power to regulate immigration as it relates to foreign commerce.
• Naturalization Clause: Allows Congress to set uniform citizenship rules.
• Due Process Clause: Ensures certain rights for all persons in the U.S., regardless of immigration status.

These provisions enable federal control of immigration policy while also protecting individual rights. The Supreme Court has used them to strike down state attempts to regulate immigration, as in Arizona v. United States (2012).

Judicial Review and Immigration

The Supreme Court has shaped immigration law through several key decisions:

• Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889): Established Congress's plenary power over immigration.
• Korematsu v. United States (1944): While not strictly an immigration case, set a controversial precedent for racial profiling in the name of national security.
• Zadvydas v. Davis (2001): Limited indefinite detention of immigrants, emphasizing due process rights.
• Trump v. Hawaii (2018): Upheld broad executive authority in immigration matters, particularly regarding national security.

These rulings demonstrate the Court's role in balancing federal control with individual rights in immigration policy.

Federal vs. State Powers in Immigration

Federal supremacy in immigration has been reinforced through cases like Arizona v. United States (2012) and United States v. Alabama (2011), which struck down state attempts to enforce their own immigration laws.

Sanctuary cities have emerged as a point of contention, with local jurisdictions limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Cases like City and County of San Francisco v. Trump (2017) have upheld cities' rights to determine their level of cooperation, based on the anti-commandeering doctrine.

This ongoing tension between federal and state powers continues to shape immigration policy and enforcement.

Modern Constitutional Challenges

Recent challenges include:

• Executive Orders: Trump v. Hawaii (2018) upheld the travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries, while challenges to Biden's attempts to reverse Trump-era policies highlight ongoing executive power debates.
• Sanctuary Cities: Continue to test the limits of federal vs. local control over immigration enforcement.
• DACA: Its legality remains uncertain despite the Supreme Court's ruling in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (2020).
• Rights of Undocumented Immigrants: Debates persist over the extent of rights afforded to non-citizens, stemming from cases like Plyler v. Doe (1982).
• Birthright Citizenship: Challenges to the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause for children of undocumented immigrants represent ongoing ideological battles over national identity and sovereignty.

The Constitution continues to guide American immigration law, balancing federal authority with individual rights as the nation grapples with evolving immigration challenges.

1. Motomura H. Immigration Law after a Century of Plenary Power: Phantom Constitutional Norms and Statutory Interpretation. Yale Law J. 1990;100(3):545-613.
2. Neuman GL. The Lost Century of American Immigration Law (1776-1875). Columbia Law Rev. 1993;93(8):1833-1901.
3. Chacón JM. Immigration and the Bully Pulpit. Harv Law Rev Forum. 2017;130(7):243-268.
4. Martin DA. Why Immigration's Plenary Power Doctrine Endures. Okla Law Rev. 2015;68(1):29-56.