法律翻译｜《哈佛法学评论》第132卷第5期目录+摘要

译者 | 王学康  南京大学本科

一审 | 刘汉青  北京师范大学硕士研究生

二审 | LYJ  NUS LL.M 

编辑 | 李建云 湖南师范大学本科

责编 | 王有蓉 中国政法大学硕士

Segregation by Citizenship

国籍隔离

Article by Emma Kaufman
埃玛·考夫曼所著文章

For centuries, prisoners in the United States were housed together regardless of their citizenship status. That changed in 1999 when the federal government began to send noncitizens into separate prisons. Today, tens of thousands of people — more than half of all noncitizens in federal prison — live in an institution segregated by citizenship. The vast majority of these people are Mexican nationals. Nearly all of them are Latino.

几个世纪以来，无论其国籍为何，美国将所有囚犯关押在一起。这种情况在1999年时发生了变化，联邦政府开始将外籍人士送进单独的监狱。时至今日，数以万计的人——联邦监狱里超过一半的外籍人士——生活在一个国籍隔离的机构里。他们中的绝大多数都是墨西哥国民。几乎所有人都是拉丁裔。

The rise of the all-foreign prison raises pressing questions about federal immigration power and noncitizens’ equal protection rights. Yet no legal scholarship examines these unusual institutions. Few even know they exist. Drawing on extensive data from the Bureau of Prisons, internal agency documents, interviews, and other primary sources, this Article provides the first account of the all-foreign prison. It notes that these prisons are insulated from meaningful judicial review by an alienage jurisprudence that affords deference to any federal policy characterized as migration control. And it critiques this doctrine, arguing that courts need a more coherent and defensible conception of the relationship between national sovereignty and noncitizens’ equal protection rights. To that end, this Article advances a simple claim: only core immigration activities — setting rules on entry, exit, and naturalization — should count as migration control. Other species of state action, including segregating foreign national prisoners, may affect where and how immigrants live their lives. But they are not the kind of migration control that warrants deference from federal courts.

全外籍人士监狱的兴起引发了有关联邦移民权力和外籍人士平等保护的紧迫问题。然而法律学者还没有研究过这些非同寻常的机构。甚至很少有人知道这些监狱的存在。根据联邦监狱局大量的数据、政府机构的内部文件、访谈、以及其他原始资料，本文首次介绍了全外籍人士监狱。本文注意到这些监狱被隔绝在有意义的司法审查之外，因为有关外籍人士身份的判例尊重所有被归类为移民管控的联邦政策。本文批评了这一理论，本文认为法院需要在国家主权和外籍人士的平等保护之间建立一个更为协调以及更具可辩护性的概念。因此，本文提出了一个简单的主张：只有核心的移民活动——制定入境、出境和入籍规则——才能算作移民管控。包括隔离外国囚犯在内的其他类别的国家行为可能影响移民生活的地点和方式，不过这些行为并不是联邦法院所尊重的那种移民管控。

原文链接：https://harvardlawreview.org/issues/volume-132-issue-5/