Check all links and files attached.

Questions/Goals for this reading and reflection upon the text:

1- How did the legislative and executive branches of the federal government develop the power of immigration legislation?

2- What implications does the plenary power over immigration have on law and policy today?

Required Reading:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/opinion/travel-…

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/130/…

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/149/69…

Recommended Reading:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/timeline-t…

and the attachment.

______

: An illustration from Harper's Weekly in 1870 depicts two Chinese threatening to attack an oblivious shoe cobbler (St. Crispin as the patron saint of leather workers) with "cheap labor."

As mentioned before, the excerpts for this module are dense, particularly if you are not familiar with legal discourse from the late-19th century. Understand that these majority opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States helped establish the current plenary power doctrine of immigration and the regulation of immigration.

This brings us to the module's discussion forum. Clearly opposed to the travel ban, University of California, Irvine law professor Leah Litman argues in her New York Times opinion piece that:

"The racial — and racist — origins of the plenary-power doctrine are there for everyone to see. Those words appear in the pages of Supreme Court opinions. Yet despite the history of the plenary-power doctrine, the court still relies on it when giving the political branches such sweeping authority over immigration."

For this response, consider how the Chinese are racially characterized in both Chae Chan Ping and Fong Yue Ting — does race seem to be a fixed, biological identity or one that is fluid and defined socially? Why might it be significant that they use those specific kinds of racial characterizations in these opinions?

More importantly, based on your readings of these opinions and other assigned readings, including references to the debate that transpired around Trump v. Hawaii (2018), what do you think we can learn from these past cases of immigration exclusion and the Court's upholding of their constitutionality? Does the deportation of an non-citizen, even though that person had been a legal resident, constitute a "cruel and unusual punishment"? Are these relevant concerns? Why or why not?