Plenary Power Doctrine of the Supreme Court
Research by way of Google the Plenary Power Doctrine of the Supreme Court. Afterwards, write a paragraph summarizing what you found out.
Diversity, Intersectionality, Otherness
First-Year Seminar in Critical Inquiry
Plenary power or authority is defined as “the separate identification, definition, and complete vesting of a power or powers or authority in a governing body or individual, to choose to act (or not to act) on a particular subject matter or area.” The Pienary Power Doctrine gives Congress all the power in designing an immigration policy but also allows them the authority not to do so. This system does not exactly seem like it allows for checks and balances. According to the article I read, it gives the nation a right “to define its own borders” metaphorically, but this seems that Congress gets to decide what to do with illegal immigrants and how to integrate “criminal immigrants” back into society after serving jail time. Although “the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a hands-off approach when asked to review the political branches’ immigration decisions and policy-making.” so the Supreme Court doesn’t want to have any involvement in the immigration process or authority because it seems like it hasn’t done so well with the laws in the past. The courts don’t like to get involved with immigration matters though, because of “national security concerns” and facing a lot of controversy. It’s almost like Congress and the Courts simply decide whether to implement things or do nothing based on how the public views them for it. It seems like if they decided to do nothing and had a government shut down that they would try to get their act together, but they are simply allowed to do nothing which doesn’t seem like it allows the government to have some wiggle room, the way that people have the Fifth Amendment in the Constitution. They can choose to get involved or not get involved, whether what they would do would benefit the nation as a whole is another matter to consider, but it is hard to know what pleases the most people. The government not getting involved in important matters because of whatever reason, just makes immigration a grey area for people in general, especially for immigrants, illegal or not, who just want to be able to come to America and be treated with the same respect as any other person.
In the decades after the ratification of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court took on the role of determining how the immigration power would be assigned between the three branches of government. Ultimately, the Supreme Court gave “plenary power”, a complete power without limitations, over immigration to Congress and the Executive branch in a judicially-created doctrine known as the plenary power doctrine. The plenary power doctrine gave congress the capability to make immigration laws that were discriminatory and otherwise unfair. The plenary power doctrine is traditionally traced to the Chae Chang Ping vs. United States Supreme Court case decision, also known as The Chinese Exclusion Case. The doctrine is based on the concept that immigration is a question of national sovereignty, relating to a nation’s right to define its own borders. Federal policy on immigration has therefore been founded on the “plenary power doctrine”. Ever since immigration became a major issue of political significance, the political branches have been able to exclude and deport aliens or deny certain benefits according to political, social, economic, or other considerations, without being criticized or questioned by the judicial branch. The plenary power doctrine protects the federal government from claims that it is violating an individual’s constitutional right to equal protection when it imposes discriminatory hardships on non-US citizens. This doctrine is justified on the logic that the constitution provides congress and the executive with primacy over foreign policy and national security.
The plenary power doctrine is a federal policy on immigration that states that the legislative and executive branches have sole power to regulate immigration. The problem with this set up is that people want to get rid of the political-branch control over immigration based on the idea that foreigners have the “right” to immigrate. There is no real direction to which branch of government handles specifically immigration, the closest thing to it would be congresses duties towards naturalization. Giving the political branches all the power to regulate immigration can exclude aliens and deny certain benefits according to political or social or economical standards without any repercussions from the judicial branch. The courts have outlined several reasons why plenary power is justifiably restricted to only the political branches, these reasons including but not limited to: political question of the doctrine, uniformity, and history. Political question of the plenary power doctrine calls into question the accountability of our elected officials. If we take away this doctrine from the political branch it looks as though they are incapable of the matter where in reality elected officials are more likely to understand the decisions made on immigration. Keeping uniformity in regards to the plenary power doctrine is important because if lower courts become too involved there is more of a likelihood of inconsistency and then immigration is more of a problem than it is already. The history behind stare decisis holds that the plenary power doctrine cannot easily just be forgotten. Even through the movement to amend the plenary power doctrine, it has been affirmed many times and is the federal policy on immigration.
The Plenary Power Doctrine of the Supreme Court is a federal policy on immigration. This doctrine declares that the Supreme court (executive or legislative) has the “sole power to regulate all aspects of immigration as a basic attribute of sovereignty.” So crossing the border into the U.S. necessarily seen as a right other people have. There are many different views on the doctrine, and many want to dissolve it. The U.S. has no specific branch dedicated to immigration, so this is the doctrine they have to address the issues. Usually, the U.S. Supreme Court is never involved with policymaking and reviewing other “branches’ immigration decisions.” Congress and the executive branch are able to regulate immigration without intervention, and this is called the “plenary power.” So it has been very easy for the government to deport aliens or deny them rights without being “second-guessed by the judicial branch.” This is the unfortunate power the doctrine has. Without this doctrine, the judicial branch would be more in control of the immigration system. The government has many justifications for keeping immigration regulation within the branches. For example, federal courts will not hear cases that could be “resolved by elected officials.” The idea is that elected officials are closer to the public. Throughout history, there are cases that helped make the plenary power not as dominate. For example, Zadvydas vs. Davis case, which had a powerful effect on the Plenary Power Doctrine. When deporting aliens, sometimes other countries won’t accept them, so the immigrants are in detention endlessly. With Zadvydas vs. Davis, the court agreed that it was “unconstitutional to subject these immigrants” to detention for an endless amount of time. The Plenary Power Doctrine of the Supreme Court is a very complicated doctrine that needs to be modernized because of the immigration injustices facing America today.
The Plenary Power Doctrine of the Supreme Court is the political branches, the legislative and the executive, have the power to regulate all aspects of immigration as a basic element of independence. However, the courts have stated that they didn’t agree with the plenary power doctrine countless times since the 19th century. There is a movement to get rid of political-branch control over immigration in favor of a judge-controlled system based on the idea that foreigners have a “right” to immigrate. The United States Constitution doesn’t delegate a power to a specific branch to handle immigration, but it does talk about the process of being “naturalized”. The doctrine can’t be easily taken away which is from a concept called Stare Decisis. Attempts to weaken the plenary power doctrine and undermine the role of Congress and the executive branch in the realm of immigration regulation have been happening for years.