This volume provides a comprehensive and up-to-date analysis of the source and scope of international law on migration. It explores international norms on state authority to regulate migration, freedom of movement, forced migration, human rights, family unification, trafficking and smuggling of migrants, national security, rescue at sea, health, development, integration, and nationality. Migration and International Legal Norms shows that, despite the absence of a comprehensive legal instrument governing international migration, there is a wide range of legal norms relevant to migration embodied in multilateral treaties and conventions, regional agreements, and customary international law. It also identifies some significant gaps in international law, recommending areas for further cooperative efforts. This volume will be of interest to scholars and policy-makers, and to all those interested in how the community of nations is responding to the increasingly significant phenomenon of international migration.

The international refugee regime is fundamentally broken. Designed in the wake of World War II to provide protection and assistance, the system is unable to address the record numbers of persons displaced by conflict and violence today. States have put up fences and adopted policies to deny, deter, and detain asylum seekers. People recognized as refugees are routinely denied rights guaranteed by international law. The results are dismal for the millions of refugees around the world who are left with slender prospects to rebuild their lives or contribute to host communities. T. Alexander Aleinikoff and Leah Zamore lay bare the underlying global crisis of responsibility. The Arc of Protection adopts a revisionist and critical perspective that examines the original premises of the international refugee regime. Aleinikoff and Zamore identify compromises at the founding of the system that attempted to balance humanitarian ideals and sovereign control of their borders by states. This book offers a way out of the current international morass through refocusing on responsibility-sharing, seeing the humanitarian-development divide in a new light, and putting refugee rights front and center.

The forms, policies, and practices of citizenship are changing rapidly around the globe, and the meaning of these changes is the subject of deep dispute. Citizenship Today brings together leading experts in their field to define the core issues at stake in the citizenship debates. The first section investigates central trends in national citizenship policy that govern access to citizenship, the rights of aliens, and plural nationality. The following section explores how forms of citizenship and their practice are, can, and should be located within broader institutional structures. The third section examines different conceptions of citizenship as developed in the official policies of governments, the scholarly literature, and the practice of immigrants and the final part looks at the future for citizenship policy. Contributors include Rainer Baub?ck (Austrian Academy of Sciences), Linda Bosniak (Rutgers University School of Law, Camden), Francis Mading Deng (Brookings Institute), Adrian Favell (University of Sussex, UK), Richard Thompson Ford (Stanford University), Vicki C. Jackson (Georgetown University Law Center), Paul Johnston (Citizenship Project), Christian Joppke (European University Institute, Florence), Karen Knop (University of Toronto), Micheline Labelle (Universit? du Qu?bec ? Montr?al), Daniel Sal?e (Concordia University, Montreal), and Patrick Weil (University of Paris 1, Sorbonne)

In a set of cases decided at the end of the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court declared that Congress had "plenary power" to regulate immigration, Indian tribes, and newly acquired territories. Not coincidentally, the groups subject to Congress' plenary power were primarily nonwhite and generally perceived as "uncivilized." The Court left Congress free to craft policies of assimilation, exclusion, paternalism, and domination.

Despite dramatic shifts in constitutional law in the twentieth century, the plenary power case decisions remain largely the controlling law. The Warren Court, widely recognized for its dedication to individual rights, focused on ensuring "full and equal citizenship"--an agenda that utterly neglected immigrants, tribes, and residents of the territories. The Rehnquist Court has appropriated the Warren Court's rhetoric of citizenship, but has used it to strike down policies that support diversity and the sovereignty of Indian tribes.

Attuned to the demands of a new century, the author argues for abandonment of the plenary power cases, and for more flexible conceptions of sovereignty and citizenship. The federal government ought to negotiate compacts with Indian tribes and the territories that affirm more durable forms of self-government. Citizenship should be "decentered," understood as a commitment to an intergenerational national project, not a basis for denying rights to immigrants.