Sovereignty along el Río Bravo/the Rio Grande: Changes in U.S. Immigration Law and Mexican Foreign Relations Law

Abstract

This chapter examines the ways in which the migration process has contributed to a reinterpretation of legal sovereignty in both Mexico and the United States.2 “Traditional” or “absolute” sovereignty paints sovereign authority as exclusive and autonomous, something not to be shared or to be made subject to foreign influence.3 Specifically, this chapter analyzes the doctrine of nonintervention (NIV) in Mexican foreign-relations law and the plenary power doctrine (PPD) in U.S. immigration law. Both doctrines are based on and apply the international law concept of sovereignty.4 NIV barred the Mexican governments foreign policy from interfering in another country’s domestic affairs. It prohibited foreign policy addressing the concerns or seeking to benefit migrants in the United States because such a policy “intervened in U.S. jurisdiction. ” Such intervention would have violated international sovereignty. Because of this, Mexico had a “policy of no policy” on migrants in the United States.5 With sovereignty applied similarly, PPD labels U.S. immigration law issues as immune from judicial review because the political branches (Congress and the executive branch) have complete “plenary ” authority over immigration.6 This effectively denies migrants in the United States most individual rights protections in the U.S. Constitution. Without judicial review the courts cannot determine whether immigration law infringes on a migrant’s individual rights.