Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T01:37:11.433Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconsidering US Immigration Reform: The Temporal Principle of Citizenship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2011

Elizabeth F. Cohen
Elizabeth F. Cohen
Affiliation:
Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. E-mail: efcohen@maxwell.syr.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The uncertain political status of America's millions of undocumented immigrants and their children has exposed deep and ongoing disagreement about how US citizenship should be accorded to foreign-born persons. I identify the principle of jus temporis, a law of measured calendrical time, that has worked in concert with jus soli and consent to construct citizenship law since the nation's founding. Jus temporis translates measured durations of time such as “time in residence” or “time worked” into entitlement to rights and status. It creates temporal algorithms in which measured calendrical time plus additional variables (e.g., physical presence, education, or behavior) equals consent to citizenship. I explore recent scholarly references to temporal principles and trace the history of how jus temporis was invoked by the nation's first Supreme Court jurisprudence on citizenship and the first Congressional debates about immigration and naturalization. Scholarly convergence on the principle of jus temporis as well as its originalist pedigree imbue this principle with the potential to resolve contemporary disagreements about the rights and status of foreign-born persons in the US.

Type
Reflections
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 575 - 583
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bauböck, Rainer. 1994. From Aliens to Citizens: Redefining the Status of Immigrants in Europe. Brookfield, VT: Avebury.Google Scholar
Bodin, Jean, and Franklin, Julian H.. 1992. On Sovereignty: Four Chapters from the Six Books of the Commonwealth. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvin's Case. 1608. 7 1a.Google Scholar
Carens, Joseph H. 1987. “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders.” Review of Politics 49(2): 251–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carens, Joseph H. 1999. “A Reply to Meilaender: Reconsidering Open Borders.” International Migration Review 33(4): 1082–97.Google Scholar
Carens, Joseph H. 2000. “Open Borders and Liberal Limits: A Response to Isbister.” International Migration Review 34 (2): 636–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carens, Joseph H. 2010. Immigrants and the Right to Stay. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chapin, Bradley. 1964. The American Law of Treason, Revolutionary and Early National Origins. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Chinn, Jeff, and Truex, Lise A.. 1996. “The Question of Citizenship in the Baltics.” Journal of Democracy 7(1): 133–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Elizabeth F. 2010. “The Political Currency of Time.” Unpublished manuscript. Political Science Department, Syracuse University.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert Alan. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Elk v. Wilkins. 1884 (112 U.S. 94).Google Scholar
Haywood, John. 1806. Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Superior Courts of Law and Equity, Court of Conference, and Federal Court: for the State of North Carolina from the Year 1797 to 1806. North Carolina: William Boyland.Google Scholar
Hing, Julianne. 2011. “Lawmakers in 14 States Coordinate Birthright Citizenship Attack,” Colorlines.com, January 5. http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/01/state_legislators_announce_plans_to_attack_birthright_citizenship.html; accessed January 30, 2011.Google Scholar
Howard, Marc Morjé. 2009. The Politics of Citizenship in Europe. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P. 2004. Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor. 1830 99 (Supreme Court of the United States).Google Scholar
Kettner, James H. 1976. “Subjects or Citizens? A Note on British Views Respecting the Legal Effects of American Independence.” Virginia Law Review 62(5): 945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kettner, James H. 1978. The Development of American Citizenship, 1608–1870. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Lister, Matthew. 2010. “Citizenship, in the Immigration Context.” Maryland Law Review 70(1): 175.Google Scholar
Madison, James. 1966. Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Reported by James Madison. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
McIlvaine v. Coxe's Lessee. 1804 280 (Supreme Court of the United States).Google Scholar
Ngai, Mae M. 2003. “The Strange Career of the Illegal Alien: Immigration Restriction and Deportation Policy in the United States, 1921–1965.” Law and History Review 21 (1). (http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/21.1/ngai.html), accessed January 30, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ngai, Mae M. 2004. Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Oforji v. Ashcroft. 2003 (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit).Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1999. The Law of Peoples, with the Idea of Public Reason Revisited. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 2005a. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 2005b [1971]. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Respublica v. Chapman. 1781 (1 U.S. 53).Google Scholar
Rodriguez, Christina. 2009. “The Citizenship Clause, Original Meaning, and the Egalitarian Unity of the Fourteenth Amendment.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 11: 1363.Google Scholar
Schuck, Peter H. 2010. “Birthright of a Nation.” New York Times, August 13, A19.Google Scholar
Schuck, Peter, and Smith, Rogers M.. 1985. Citizenship without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Shachar, Ayelet. 2009. The Birthright Lottery: Citizenship and Global Inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 1996. Democracy's Place. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, A. John. 1976. “Tacit Consent and Political Obligation.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 5(3): 274–91.Google Scholar
Smith, Rogers M. 1999. Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Rogers M. 2009. “Birthright Citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 and 2008.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 11: 1329–35.Google Scholar
Spaskovska 2010—see n. 54Google Scholar
Stein, Dan, and Bauer, John. 1996. “Interpreting the 14th Amendment: Automatic Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants.” Stanford Law and Policy Review 7: 127.Google Scholar
U.S. House of Representatives. 1790. “Rule of Naturalization.” Annals of Congress 1st Cong., 2nd Sess.: 1147–1164. (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:24:./temp/~ammem_a2Um), accessed November 6, 2010.Google Scholar
Vattel, Emer de. 1820. The Law of Nations. Northampton, MA: Simon Butler.Google Scholar
Welke, Barbara. 2008. “Law, Citizenship, and Personhood in the Long Nineteenth Century: The Borders of Belonging.” In Cambridge History of Law in America, ed. Grossberg, Michael and Tomlins, Christopher L.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar