The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks resulted in significant changes in the U.S. immigration law and policy. Six weeks later, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act to improve national security. Also in November 2002, Congress passed the Homeland Security Act, which abolished the Immigration and Naturalization Service and transferred most immigration functions to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Following the attacks, the U.S. Government carried out extensive investigations that targeted thousands of non-citizens, primarily from Arab and Muslim backgrounds. This article is at aiming to find how 9.11 terrorist attacks influenced the alien's right not to be removed from the United States without due process of law. First, Part I will demonstrate the relationship between the deportation system in immigration law and the alien enemies, introducing the Alien Enemy Act of 1798 and Ludecke v. Watkins the (1948) with historical views. Part II will introduce the 1996 immigration laws and the USA Patriot Act of 2001, criticizing the discriminative treatments of Arab and Muslim aliens by the Government. Part III will analyze Demore v. Kim (2003), Clark v. Martinez (2005), and Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (2005) to examine whether the plenary power doctrine over immigration matters restored after 9.11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. immigration laws. Part IV will point out the Supreme Court's basic attitude regarding immigration and national security. Finally, this article concludes that the terrorist attacks restored the plenary power doctrine on immigration matters, but Supreme Court will continue to base their judgements strictly on past immigration case precedents, except in the case of alien terrorists. Also it suggests the role of justices in times of stress and the possibility of Japan to learn from the American case.
雑誌名
長崎外大論叢
雑誌名(英)
The Journal of Nagasaki University of Foreign Studies
9.11同時多発テロ事件と絶対的権限理論の「再興」 -アメリカ移民法を素材として-
.png)
11-01本文PDF
(2.01MB)
