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：驱逐、庇护和变得“合法”的政治：两种法律传统中驱逐决定的司法审查

• 批准号: 0616797
• 负责人: Christine Harrington
• 金额: $ 1.03万
• 依托单位: New York University
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2006
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2006-08-01 至 2007-07-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0616797&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Doctoral; Dissertation; Research; Deportation; Asylum

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.

博士论文研究摘要：驱逐出境，庇护和成为法律的政治：两个法律的驱逐决定的司法审查主要研究者：克莉丝汀哈林顿合作伙伴：随着全球不平等的加剧，被吸引到富裕国家的移民人数大大超过了法律的移民名额，造成非法移民人口不断增加，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其身份合法化，从而成为法律的人。 在过去的25年里，由于移民倡导运动本身跨越国界的诉讼努力，法院在审查行政行为的能力方面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一场猫捉老鼠的诉讼游戏，立法者和行政人员已采取行动加强驱逐出境法规的执行，简化行政审查程序，并利用法律修正案，使人们更难在搬迁过程中合法化他们的身份，并减少搬迁的数量和质量。对行政决定进行司法审查。 本项目旨在确定大陆法系和普通法系传统的法院如何处理其作为国家权力仲裁者的新角色，以消除其非公民居民。 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，如法院相对于行政分支的自治程度，法律的职业组织，以及司法和立法之间的关系，如何影响法院对行政人员的尊重，律师使用诉讼的方式，以及法官对立法试图限制其管辖权的回应方式。本研究将详细的文本案例分析与两个法律的传统中的法院制度分析并列，以构建一个完整的法律政治图景，在此期间，两国的拆迁决定诉讼呈指数级增长。 对司法意见和评论、诉讼当事人摘要、立法委员会报告和行政机构条例的审查将详细说明这些政治行为者的对比政策立场及其相互作用的动态。 与法国和美国的移民倡导者，与政府律师负责诉讼驱逐案件，并与法官和退休法官在每个国家的开放式访谈将进一步阐明法院参与实质性政策阐述的方式和类型的案件中，司法审查机构的决定一直是最引人注目的。就其更广泛的影响而言，该项目将为越来越多的比较公法文献作出贡献，特别是对法院与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的传统的制约因素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影响的科学理解。 通过详细说明个案决定如何与居住在移民接收国的数百万非法移民搏斗并构成国家社区的边界，并通过强调现行法律规范居住的制度偶然性，研究的价值在于它将对当前全球化时代政治社区性质的辩论做出潜在的智力贡献。