Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

Do Immigrants Have the Rights to Have Rights?

7/22/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Natalie Behrends
Natalie Behrends is a rising senior majoring in History at New York University. 

In a news cycle that seems to be characterized by the unthinkable and the unexpected, it comes as a surprise how consistently immigration comes up as a topic for debate and legislation. Recent months have seen immigration and immigration law crop up in debates over DACA, the DREAM Act, refugee bans, border walls, the isolation and detention of migrant children, and countless discussions over American identity in an age of uncertainty. Often, these stories throw into stark relief the vulnerable positions of those outside the US’s definition of citizenship.
 
In his 1958 dissent from Perez v. Brownell, former Chief Justice Earl Warren famously summed up citizenship as “man’s basic right, for it is nothing less than the right to have rights [1].” Warren was, perhaps unintentionally, borrowing a phrase from philosopher Hannah Arendt, who coined the term “right to have rights” in relation to citizenship in her 1949 article, “The Rights of Man: What Are They?” Arendt and others would go on to explore this idea of citizenship as the “right to have rights” in more depth throughout the next half-century, expanding our understanding of what citizenship is, and how it operates [2]. 

Crucial to Arendt’s understanding of “the right to have rights” was the idea that it was a “lost right,” something that only became apparent when it was gone [3]. Only after someone’s citizenship rights have been violated is it possible, according to Arendt, to begin discussing what those rights were. Does this mean that we have to wait until some horrific event jars us into changing what it means to be a noncitizen in the US? An example from the early twentieth century suggests that there may be another kind of opportunity to talk about “the right to have rights,” and it is one with which Americans today are all too familiar—a debate over immigration law.
 
In the summer of 1924, amid nationwide debates over labor, nationalism, far-right radical groups, and the rights of women, Congress turned its eye towards immigration. The 1924 National Origins Act has gone down in history as the beginning of the infamous “quota system,” which restricted immigration into the United States based on an immigrant’s country of origin. Almost every country in the world had a set number of possible immigrants into the United States, calculated by taking twenty percent of the number of immigrants from that country already living in the United States according to the 1890 census. In fact, quotas were only a part of a system of control and selection established by the National Origins Act. Some immigrants were entirely exempt from the quota system. Professors, ministers and, ironically, any immigrants coming from Latin America were considered non-quota immigrants. Immigrants “skilled in agriculture” and the wives and children of current citizens were given preference within quotas. Students could only become exempt from quotas through personal approval by the Department of Labor. Asians were barred entirely, as they had been since the Chinese Exclusion Act. The Act’s systems of restriction and privilege proposed to shape the face of US citizens for decades to come.
 
During the House debate over the Act, it became clear that what the men of the 68th Congress were particularly interested in was what kind of people ought to be able to become citizens. A key part of the debate focused on the idea that every immigrant who came into the United States would eventually become a citizen. Representative Benjamin Rosenbloom of West Virginia suggested an amendment to the Act that would mandate that “an alien admitted to this country must become an American citizen within a specified period or return to the land from which he came [4].” “We do not welcome perpetual boarders whose interests may be elsewhere,” said Rosenbloom, and though his amendment was defeated, many in the Congress shared his understanding of the relationship between immigration and eventual citizenship. New York’s Benjamin Fairchild suggested instead that the Act “should admit no one into this country who...is ineligible to citizenship, [5]” and his suggestion was followed. Besides convicted criminals, the destitute, and Asians, the Act refused entry to any immigrant who for whatever reason would never be eligible for US citizenship. Congress fully intended for the immigrants who came into the United States under the National Origins Act to become citizens, and they used the Act to tailor the kind of people they thought ought to become citizens of the US. By bringing citizenship explicitly into the discussion, lawmakers inadvertently raised that exact question that Hannah Arendt believed was impossible to discuss outside of a humanitarian crisis. The debate over the National Origins Act was, at its core, a debate over who Congress believed should have “the right to have rights.”
 
In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Arendt wrote: “We become aware of the existence of a right to have rights...only when millions of people emerge who had lost and could not regain these rights because of the new global political situation [6]”. But the National Origins Act demonstrates that this “lost right” also appears when large groups begin not to lose rights, but to claim them. The debate over the National Origins Act in the summer of 1924 was a rare opportunity for American lawmakers to re-examine who in the United States should have the “right to have rights.” The solution may be to extend citizenship rights to immigrants in the United States, or it may involve a more complex re-structuring of the role of “noncitizen,” so that rights are not something only for citizens. This question is at the heart of every immigration law debate, and it means that for us, now, debates over DACA and the DREAM Act are a chance to discuss not simply stays of deportation or amnesties, but the very definition of what it means to have rights in the United States.
 
[1] Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958)
[2] Christoph Menke, Birgit Kaiser, and Kathrin Thiele, “The ‘Aporias of Human Rights’ and the ‘One Human Right’: Regarding the Coherence of Hannah Arendt’s Argument.” Social Research 74, no. 3 (2007), 741.
[3] Stephanie DeGooyer, Alastair Hunt, Lida Maxwell, and Samuel Moyn, The Right to Have Rights. New York: Verso, 2018, 22.
[4] National Origins Act of 1924, HR 7995, 68th Cong., 1st sess., Congressional Record 65, pt. 6, 6232-6233.
[5] 65 Cong. Rec. 6227 (1924)
[6] Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch, 1951, 296.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons: Mstyslav Chernov 

The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.
 
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​