Doctoral Dissertation Research: Deportation, Asylum and the Politics of Becoming "Legal": Judicial Review of Removal Decisions in Two Legal Traditions

博士论文研究摘要：驱逐、庇护和成为合法的政治：两个法律传统中驱逐决定的司法审查主要调查者：Christine Harrington Co-Pi：Leila Kawa全球不平等加剧，吸引到富裕国家的移民数量远远超过可供合法移民使用的名额数量，产生了越来越多的非法移民人口，并提出了一个有争议的问题，即居住在国家社区内的人是否应该能够使他们的身份合法化，从而成为合法移民。在过去的二十五年里，由于一场跨越国界的移民倡导运动的诉讼努力，法院以其审查行政行动的能力越来越多地参与了关于驱逐政策的政治斗争。移民倡导者扩大了非法移民居民提出的索赔范围，并与立法者和行政人员进行了诉讼的猫捉老鼠游戏，他们采取行动加强驱逐法规的执行，简化行政审查程序，并利用法律修正案使人们更难使其在驱逐过程中的地位正规化，并降低对行政决定的司法审查的数量和质量。该项目旨在确定大陆法系和普通法传统中的法院如何处理其作为国家权力仲裁者的新角色，以驱逐其非公民居民。选择法国和美国可以分析这两个典型不同的行政法传统的核心特征，如法院与行政部门的自治程度、法律专业的组织以及司法和立法机构之间的关系，这些特征如何影响法院对行政长官的尊重、辩护人利用诉讼的方式以及法官对限制其管辖权的立法企图的反应方式。这项研究将两个法律传统的法院的详细文本分析与机构分析并列在一起，以构建一幅完整的法律政治图景，在此期间，两国关于遣送决定的诉讼呈指数级增长。对司法意见和评论、诉讼摘要、立法委员会报告和行政机构法规的审查将详细说明这些政治行为者的不同政策立场及其互动的动态。对法国和美国移民倡导者、负责对遣送案件提起诉讼的政府律师，以及对每个国家的法官和退休法官的开放式采访，将进一步阐明法院参与实质性政策阐述的方式，以及对机构决定进行司法审查的案件类型。就其更广泛的影响而言，该项目将有助于日益增多的关于比较公法的文献，特别是关于法院和行政机构之间关系的比较研究。它还将通过详细说明特定法律传统的限制如何影响诉讼内容和结果的具体方式，促进对跨国难民和移民权利运动的影响的科学理解。通过详细说明个别案件裁决如何与居住在移民接受国的数百万非法移民角力并构成国家社区的边界，并通过突出现行管理居住的法律的制度或有性质，这项研究的价值在于它将对当前关于全球化时代政治社区性质的辩论做出潜在的智力贡献。

Abstract for Doctoral Dissertation Research: Deportation, Asylum, and the Politics of Becoming Legal: Judicial Review of Removal Decisions in Two Legal Traditions Principle Investigator: Christine HarringtonCo-PI: Leila KawarAs global inequality has increased, the number of migrants drawn to wealthy countries has vastly exceeded the number of slots made available for legal immigration, producing growing populations of illegal immigrants and raising the contentious question of whether or not people who reside within the national community should be able to regularize their status and thus become legal. In the past twenty-five years, courts in their capacity to review administrative actions have been increasingly involved in the political battles over removal policy as the result of the litigation efforts of an immigrant advocacy movement that itself crosses national borders. Immigrant advocates have expanded the range of claims made by illegal immigrant residents and have engaged in a litigation cat-and- mouse game with legislators and administrators, who have acted to increase enforcement of deportation statutes, to streamline the administrative review process, and to use statutory amendments both to make it harder for people to regularize their status in the removal process and to reduce the quantity and quality of judicial review of administrative decisions. This project seeks to identify how courts in the civil law and common law traditions have dealt with their new role as arbiters of the states power to remove its non-citizen residents. The choice of France and the United States allows for an analysis of how the central characteristics of these two paradigmatically different administrative law traditions, such as the degree of autonomy of the courts from the executive branch, the organization of the legal profession, and the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature, have impacted the courts deference to administrators, the way that advocates have used litigation, and the way in which judges have responded to legislative attempts to curtail their jurisdiction. The research juxtaposes detailed textual case analysis with institutional analysis of courts in two legal traditions to construct a complete picture of the politics of law during the twenty-five year period during which litigation over removal decisions has increased exponentially in both countries. An examination of judicial opinions and commentaries, litigants briefs, legislative committee reports, and administrative agency regulations will detail the contrasting policy positions of these political actors and the dynamic of their interactions. Open-ended interviews with French and American immigrant advocates, with government attorneys charged with litigating removal cases, and with judges and retired judges in each country will further elucidate the manner in which courts have engaged in substantive policy articulation and the types of cases in which judicial review of agency decisions has been most striking. In terms of its broader impact, the project will contribute to the growing body of literature on comparative public law, in particular comparative studies of the relationship between courts and administrative agencies. It will also advance a scientific understanding of the impact of the transnational refugee and immigrant rights movement by detailing the specific ways in which the constraints of particular legal traditions affect the content and outcomes of litigation. By detailing how individual case decisions have wrestled with and constituted the boundaries of national community for the millions illegal migrants residing in immigrant-receiving states, and by highlighting the institutionally contingent nature of current law regulating residence, the merit of the research lies in the potential intellectual contribution it will make to current debates over the nature of political community in an age of globalization.