Washburn Law Journal
Editor's Note
Volume 46, No. 2 (Winter 2007)
Immigration policy has rapidly risen to preeminent status in United States political and social discourse. The conviction with which all sides of the issue articulate their viewpoints is a reflection of the fact that illegal immigration has become, according to numerous polls, one of the most important problems currently facing the nation. Not only does immigration provoke interesting political and social discussions, it creates a number of areas for legal scholarship. One of those areas is the theme for this issue of the Washburn Law Journal, as authors were asked to address the theme of "Immigration and the Meaning of United States Citizenship." This theme generated a number of interesting articles.
In her article, On Rights, Federal Citizenship, and the "Alien," Professor Raquel Aldana examines recent scholarship calling for the use of "federal citizenship" as a means to expand constitutional rights for United States citizens. Given the increasing scope of Congress's plenary power over immigration, Professor Aldana argues, scholars and jurists must include in their analysis an examination of how "bounded conceptions of citizenship"-those based on racist, classist, or gendered ideologies-might serve to further exclude non-citizens from the rights and benefits of the United States Constitution. Cato, a former Senior Counsel at the United States Department of Justice, takes a different approach in his analysis of the meaning of United States citizenship and its implication for United States immigration policy in Coming to America: The Weaponization of Immigration. Cato argues that radical Islamic terrorists are seeking to infiltrate American society by exploiting the loopholes and deficiencies in United States immigration policy. He contends that this "weaponization" of immigration is particularly dangerous in the post-9/11 age of "asymmetrical" warfare, and that thoughtfully strengthening immigration controls is necessary to prevent future attacks on the American homeland. Finally, Professor George A. Martínez, in Immigration and the Meaning of United States Citizenship: Whiteness and Assimilation, analyzes the potential impacts of racism on federal immigration policy. Professor Martínez argues that current debates over curtailing immigration of Latinos risk adding a "de facto prerequisite" of whiteness to current citizenship requirements. Ultimately, he concludes that individuals should reject this "racialized approach to immigration law" and embrace an immigration policy that "reflects an ideal of multiculturalism."
This issue also contains a number of student-written contributions. In his note, Antitrust or Antitrade? Self-Assessment of Market Share Chills the Incentive to License Nanotechnology Patents in the European Union, Robert O'Loughlin analyzes a recently-passed EU competition regulation and concludes that its market share self-assessment requirement creates "legal uncertainty" that will "deter companies from licensing nanotechnology in the EU" and should therefore be repealed. Andrew Parmenter, in Nullifying the Jury: "The Judicial Oligarchy" Declares War on Jury Nullification, examines the history of jury nullification in America, considers the arguments for and against the practice, and ultimately concludes that jury nullification is an important democratic practice and that juries should be regularly informed of its existence. In his comment, Tyler A. Darnell posits that the Kansas Supreme Court prematurely recharacterized Kansas water law and that adoption of the "resumption of use" doctrine could potentially rectify the resulting problems. Timothy R. Hurley, in his comment, contends that the United States Supreme Court incorrectly applied the "legal incidence of the tax" test in a recent Indian tax immunity case, thus improperly prioritizing statutory form over substance. Finally, David R. Wolfe argues the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit followed outdated legal reasoning in rejecting the doctrine of selective waiver of attorney-client privilege, contributing to uncertainty surrounding the protection.
