Seadused ja normid on ühiskondlikus elus olulisel kohal. Selle üle ilmselt suurt vaidlust ei ole. Ka selle üle, et erinevates ühiskondades ja ühiskonna erinevates arengufaasides on erinevatel normidel erinev tähendus. Ja ka selle üle, et konkreetse normi tõlgendamisel võidakse olla erimeelt. Aga, kui eri meelt, see on siinviidatud teksti üks huvitavamaid aspekte. Vabalevis olev tekst ise leidis oma koha peamiselt põhjusel, et hetkel on ka Eestis märgata arvamusi mõne normi rakendamise üle (vt nt ajakirjanike trahvimise juhtum). Sageli jäävad arvamused hinnangutele tuginevaks ja nüanssidega tegelevateks. Vähe on selliseid, mis näitavad (=tunnistavad) teist perspektiivi.


Fong Yue Ting left two legacies that continue to shape immigration doctrine: the legacy of the “plenary power doctrine”—the doctrine of relaxed judicial review of federal immigration law3 —and a legacy of race-based domestic policing in stated service of immigration control.


Scholars may also view the policing practices and deportation practices as two faces of the same coin. The same dynamics—racism, labor exploitation, colonialism, and an indifference to the suffering of those considered outsidersproduced both deportation and race-based policing.

Autor seab eesmärgi:

Yet my aim in this Essay is to show that its domestic policing legacy deserves recognition in its own right, and not only as a path to deportation.

Üks perspektiiv erinevates kontekstides?

Race-based policing often operates the exact same way in the immigration context—yet in the immigration context, the justification is that the targets are “illegal” as well as criminal.

Kas ainult keelemängud?

Fong Yue Ting remains foundational to the field. It is the origin of a central conceptual distinction between “immigration” and “alienage” law. Fong Yue Ting regulates “immigration” because targeted residents could, in theory, be deported.

Politsei tähendusloome:

In Floyd, the court quoted the police officer’s directive to “own the block” to show how the police constructed illegitimate borders.


Imagine two different political communities, State A and State B. State A offers those who live within its borders a certain set of protections against government intrusion: police stops require individualized suspicion; people exercise freedom of association; and all people enjoy the liberty to live in households of their choice. State B is a police state: anyone can be stopped at any time and the government is free to block associational activities without justification.

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

If immigration policies are meant to be responsive to the interests of the membership community, then they cannot be anchored to racial constructs of who is perceived to belong.

JAIN, E. (2022) Policing the Polity. THE YALE LAW JOURNAL.