| This dissertation answers the following question: Why did the Supreme Court establish the Plenary Power Doctrine in decisions that affirmed legislation to exclude certain undesirable immigrants? This dissertation shows that the Court did so in order to eliminate institutional barriers to federal capacity to enforce these laws. I demonstrate this by combining legal process methodology in law and institution-focused methodologies in the social sciences, in a study of primary sources of the period from 1882 to 1891; including Court decisions, Congressional, and Executive Branch records.;The Supreme Court turned to the notion of powers inherent in sovereignty to justify New York State's control over immigration in the 1837 Miln decision. In the 1889 Chae decision, the Court found the same authority resided in the federal government. This change reflected an institutional transformation, not a doctrinal innovation. In historical terms, the distance between these two decisions was punctuated by dramatic institutional changes in the United States, most important among them the Civil War and its resolution, which created the opportunity for federal consolidation of state power. Government officials, elected and appointed, found themselves facing a novel and deeply contentious institutional landscape as they endeavored to create policy solutions that satisfied popular demand for exclusion of certain undesirable groups: Chinese immigrants and European contract laborers. Passing laws to exclude them was not going to be enough. In order to succeed, these laws had to be enforced; regularly, predictably, and in a manner that expressed, rather than subverted, Congressional intent to restrict immigration.;Members of Congress, Executive branch officials, the President, and Federal judges struggled with and against one another over the course of a decade (1882 -- 1891) to resolve institutional obstacles to enforcement. The Court's dominance during the 19th century meant that it would play a prominent role in resolving this institutional challenge, by expressing it as a doctrinal interpretation of the Constitution's scope in matters regarding alienage. The Plenary Power Doctrine in immigration law was the Supreme Court's solution to resolve institutional barriers to federal immigration enforcement. |
