Hubbry Logo
Alien (law)Alien (law)Main
Open search
Alien (law)
Community hub
Alien (law)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Alien (law)
Alien (law)
Alien (law)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Legal status of persons
Birthright
Nationality
Immigration

In law, an alien is generally any person (including an organization) who is not a citizen or a national of a specific country,[1][2][3][4] although definitions and terminology differ across legal systems.

Lexicology

[edit]

The term "alien" is derived from the Latin alienus. The Latin later came to mean a stranger, a foreigner, or someone not related by blood.[5] Similar terms to "alien" in this context include foreigner and lander.[6]

Categories

[edit]

Different countries around the world use varying terms for aliens. The following are several types of aliens:

  • legal alien — any foreign national who is permitted under the law to be in the host country. This is a very broad category which includes travel visa holders or foreign tourists, registered refugees, temporary residents, permanent residents, and those who have relinquished their citizenship and/or nationality.[7] Categories of legal alien include
    • temporary resident alien — any foreign national who has been lawfully granted permission by the government to drive, fly, travel, lodge, reside, study or work for a specific number of years and then apply for an extension or leave the country before such permission expires.[8]
    • permanent resident alien — any immigrant who has been lawfully admitted into a nation and granted the legal right to remain therein as a permanent resident in accord with the nation's immigration laws.[9]
    • nonresident alien — any foreign national who is lawfully within a nation but whose legal domicile is in another nation.[10][11]
  • alien enemy (or enemy alien) — any foreign national of any country that is at war with the host country.[12][13]
  • undocumented alien (or deportable alien) — any person who is liable to deportation because their presence in a nation is in violation of that nation's immigration laws.[14]

Common law jurisdictions

[edit]
See also: History of British nationality law § Early English and British nationality law

An "alien" in English law denoted any person born outside of the monarch's dominions and who did not owe allegiance to the monarch. Aliens were not allowed to own land and were subject to different taxes to subjects.[15] This idea was passed on in the Commonwealth to other common law jurisdictions.

Australia

[edit]

In Australia, citizenship is defined in the Australian nationality law. Non-citizens in Australia are permanent residents, temporary residents, or illegal residents (technically called "unlawful non-citizens").[16] Most non-citizens (including those who lack citizenship documents) traveling to Australia must obtain a visa prior to travel. The only exceptions to the rule are holders of New Zealand passports and citizenship, who may apply for a visa on arrival according to the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement.[17]

In 2020, in Love v Commonwealth, the High Court of Australia ruled that Aboriginal Australians (as defined in Mabo v Queensland (No 2)) cannot be considered aliens under the Constitution of Australia, regardless of whether they were born in Australia or hold Australian citizenship.[18][19][20]

Canada

[edit]

In Canada, the term "alien" is not used in federal statutes. Instead, the term "foreign national" serves as its equivalent and is found in legal documents. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act defines "foreign national" as "a person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident, and includes a stateless person."[21]

United Kingdom

[edit]
Further information: British Nationality Act

In the United Kingdom, the British Nationality Act 1981 defines an alien as a person who is not a British citizen, a citizen of Ireland, a Commonwealth citizen, or a British protected person.[22] The Aliens Act 1905, the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 and the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919 were all products of the turbulence in the early part of the 20th century.

United States

[edit]
Further information: Refugee Act of 1980 and United States person
World War II poster

In the United States, the term "alien" is synonymous with foreign national.[23] Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of the United States, "[t]he term 'alien' means any person not a citizen or national of the United States."[2][4] People born in American Samoa or on Swains Island are statutorily "non-citizen nationals."[24] Others, such as natives of Palau and the Marshall Islands, are legal immigrants and aliens for INA purposes.[25]

Every refugee that is admitted to the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1157 automatically becomes an "immigrant" and then a "special immigrant" after receiving a green card.[9]

People of various background became naturalized at Kennedy Space Center in Florida (2010). Before the naturalization they were lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens.

The usage of the term "alien" dates back to 1790, when it was used in the Naturalization Act and then 1798 when it was used in the Alien and Sedition Acts.[26] Although the INA provides no overarching explicit definition of the term "illegal alien", it is mentioned in a number of provisions under title 8 of the US code.[27] Several provisions mention the term "unauthorized alien". "undocumented alien" or "undocumented person[28] According to PolitiFact, the term "illegal alien" occurs in federal law, but does so scarcely, writing that, "where the term does appear, it's undefined or part of an introductory title or limited to apply to certain individuals convicted of felonies.”[29]

Since the U.S. law says that a corporation is a person,[4] the term alien is not limited to natural humans because what are colloquially called foreign corporations are technically called alien corporations. Because corporations are creations of local state law, a foreign corporation is an out-of-state corporation.

There are a multitude of unique and highly complex U.S. domestic tax laws and regulations affecting the U.S. tax residency of foreign nationals, both nonresident aliens and resident aliens, in addition to income tax and social security tax treaties and totalization agreements.[30]

"Alienage", i.e., citizenship status, has been prohibited since 1989 in New York City from being considered for employment, under that town's Human Rights legislation.[31][32]

Other jurisdictions

[edit]

Arab states

[edit]
See also: Bedoon

In the Gulf Cooperation Council (United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, and Qatar), many non-natives have lived in the region since birth. However, these Arab states do not easily grant citizenship to non-natives.[33][34][35] Most stateless Bedoon in Kuwait belong to indigenous northern tribes.[36]

Europe

[edit]

The European Parliament withdrew the term "alien" from documents relative to Eurodac, a European Union-wide biometric database that collects and maintains fingerprint records of non-EU/European Economic Area (EEA), adopting "third-country national or a stateless person"[37]

See also

[edit]

Notes and references

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Alien (law)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In United States , an alien is defined as any person not a citizen or national of the , a designation codified in the Immigration and Nationality Act to delineate for purposes of entry, residence, employment, and removal. This category includes lawful permanent residents (often holding green cards), nonimmigrant visa holders such as students or temporary workers, refugees, asylees, and individuals present without lawful authorization, each subject to distinct regulatory frameworks governing admissibility and deportability. Rooted in principles of —where full civic obligations and protections arise from or —the term historically separated those owing to the from foreigners, a distinction traceable to early English statutes and incorporated into American from the late onward. Aliens enjoy certain constitutional protections, including due process and equal protection under the law, but lack privileges reserved for citizens, such as voting or unrestricted public office-holding, reflecting the causal priority of national allegiance in allocating sovereignty-derived rights. The concept extends beyond domestic borders in international law, where aliens' treatment—via treaties on consular access or investment protections—balances host-state security with reciprocal foreign policy considerations, though enforcement often hinges on power asymmetries rather than uniform norms. Controversies arise from efforts to supplant "alien" with euphemisms like "noncitizen" or "foreign national," driven by claims of dehumanization, yet the term endures in statutes for its technical precision, unaltered by legislative amendment despite periodic advocacy.

Etymology and Historical Development

Origins in Ancient and Medieval Law

In during the 5th and 4th centuries BCE, resident foreigners classified as metoikoi (metics) formed a distinct legal category separate from citizens, comprising traders, artisans, and exiles who contributed economically but held inferior status. Metics were obligated to register annually with the polemarchos, pay the metoikion of 12 drachmas for adult males, and secure a citizen prostates (patron) for legal representation, enabling them to engage in contracts, own movable , and access courts while barring them from (enktesis granted only exceptionally for services), assembly participation, or military command in the . This framework balanced economic utility against political exclusion, with non-compliance risking enslavement or expulsion, as evidenced by Solon's reforms around 594 BCE and ' citizenship law of 451 BCE restricting rights to those born of two Athenian parents. Roman law similarly delineated peregrini—free provincials lacking —as aliens subject to limited protections from the era onward. Established as a category post-conquests, peregrini retained their native laws for internal affairs but transacted under the ius gentium (law of nations) for commerce or disputes with Romans, adjudicated by the praetor peregrinus appointed circa 242 BCE to address inter-status conflicts without full ius civile privileges like intermarriage (conubium) or property transfer (commercium). Lacking political rights and vulnerable to summary justice, including in interrogations, their status persisted until Emperor Caracalla's in 212 CE granted citizenship to most free empire inhabitants, though deditici subclasses (surrendered foreigners) retained dediticius freedom without rights. Medieval European law inherited these distinctions through the 11th-12th century revival of Roman jurisprudence via glossators in and compilations like Gratian's Decretum (circa 1140), which invoked principles affording foreigners rights to hospitality, transit, and absent wartime enmity. On the continent, fragmented feudal jurisdictions granted extranei (foreigners) privileges via safe-conduct letters (litterae salvus conductus) for merchants, as in the Champagne fairs, but local statutes (statuta) often restricted inheritance, guild access, or landholding based on origin, with 14th-century commentators like Bartolus of Saxoferrato classifying laws' territorial application to exclude aliens from certain benefits. Absent a unified model, alien status emphasized pragmatic reciprocity over birth-based exclusion, contrasting later insular developments where territorial birth defined subjecthood.

Evolution in English Common Law

In medieval English , the concept of an alien emerged by the mid-13th century primarily as a affecting of land, where birth overseas served as a bar to hereditary claims unless exempted by royal grant. Early cases, such as those from the 1270s documented in court rolls, illustrate this distinction, treating foreign birth as presumptive evidence of lacking the perpetual allegiance required for feudal tenure. Aliens were thus positioned outside the reciprocal bond of protection and obedience that defined native subjects, with their lands escheating to upon death. By the , doctrines began to refine alien status around the principle of ligeance, or direct obedience to the , distinguishing it from mere territorial birth. While statutes like that of 1351 extended to children born abroad to English subjects in the king's service, the underlying retained aliens—those born under foreign jurisdiction—as ineligible for freehold estates without , a royal privilege granting partial subject-like status. Aliens owed only temporary "local" during residence, entitling them to royal protection and the ability to sue for or debts, but barring them from inheriting, serving on juries, or holding certain offices. The landmark decision in Calvin's Case (1608) crystallized these principles, defining an alien born (alienigena) as one born outside the king's natural ligeance and under obedience to a foreign power, incapable of presenting real actions for land due to risks of realm security and escheat. Justices, led by Sir Edward Coke, delineated two types of aliens—friends (from nations at peace, permitted to trade and hold chattels) and enemies (subject to wartime forfeitures)—while affirming that natural allegiance arose from birth under the sovereign's actual obedience, not merely dominion boundaries. This ruling rejected arguments treating post-accession Scots as aliens, embedding jus soli tempered by ligeance as the test for subjecthood and excluding aliens from perpetual duties or privileges. Post-Calvin's, evolved to emphasize reciprocal duties: aliens enjoyed local protection and commerce rights but faced ongoing disabilities, such as land and exclusion from or curtesy tenancies, as codified in later expositions like Blackstone's Commentaries (1765). Enemy aliens, during hostilities, saw suspended rights, with property vesting in and potential expulsion, reflecting the sovereign's over foreign ingress. offered mitigation, allowing purchase of land but not , until statutory supplanted it; the core doctrine of alienage as non-allegiant outsider persisted, influencing treatments in wartime and until 19th-century reforms shifted toward codification.

Modern Codification and Shifts

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, represented a pivotal modern codification of alien status in U.S. by consolidating fragmented earlier statutes into a unified framework governing admission, exclusion, , and . The INA explicitly defined an "alien" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3) as "any person not a citizen or national of the ," distinguishing aliens from citizens based on birthplace, parentage, or rather than presumptions of . This statutory definition shifted from the more fluid concepts of perpetual and toward fixed categories of lawful permanent residents, nonimmigrants, and inadmissible or deportable persons, with numerical quotas favoring Western European nationals until later reforms. A key precursor to the INA's codification was the Alien Registration Act of 1940, which mandated registration and fingerprinting of all aliens aged 14 and older residing in the U.S. for 30 days or more, creating the Alien Registration Division (later INS) to track noncitizens amid pre-World War II security concerns. During wartime, the —retained in modern U.S. Code as 50 U.S.C. §§ 21–24—enabled apprehension, restraint, or removal of aliens from hostile nations, as applied to over 120,000 Japanese, German, and Italian aliens interned or relocated between 1941 and 1948, marking a temporary intensification of distinctions between "friendly" and "enemy" aliens. Postwar enforcement under the INA emphasized of illegal entrants, with INS priorities shifting by the 1950s to and workplace raids targeting undocumented agricultural and urban laborers. Significant shifts occurred in the late , beginning with the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of , which eliminated the national origins quota system established in 1924, reallocating visas primarily to family-sponsored and employment-based categories, thereby diversifying alien inflows from , , and . The and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) introduced employer sanctions for hiring unauthorized aliens while granting amnesty to approximately 3 million undocumented individuals who met residency requirements (continuous U.S. presence since January 1, 1982, or seasonal agricultural work), legalizing their status as lawful permanent residents and marking a rare expansion of pathways from alienage to citizenship. These reforms reflected causal pressures from labor demands and geopolitical changes, though they coexisted with heightened restrictions, such as the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act's expansion of deportable offenses and mandatory detention for certain criminal aliens. In the , post-9/11 legislation like the of 2001 and the REAL ID Act of 2005 further codified alien-related security measures, mandating enhanced biometric tracking and expedited removal for inadmissible aliens at ports of entry, while preserving the INA's core definition amid debates over perpetual alienage for denied entrants. These evolutions underscore a tension between codifying aliens as regulable outsiders—rooted in over borders—and incremental grants of , with empirical data showing deportation numbers rising from under 20,000 annually in the to peaks exceeding 400,000 by under enforcement-focused administrations. Unlike common law's emphasis on territorial presence for basic rights, modern statutes prioritize verifiable documentation and compliance, reducing ambiguity but enabling targeted liabilities for non-adherence. In law, an "alien" denotes any person who lacks or of the under consideration, thereby not owing it primary or enjoying inherent membership in its political body. This status arises from birth, descent, or lack of , positioning the individual as a foreigner subject to the host state's while retaining ties to another . Statutory definitions, such as in the United States Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (as amended), codify this as "any person not a citizen or national of the ," applying to both documented and undocumented individuals present within its territory. The concept originates in English , where an alien was defined as one born outside the king's dominion, ineligible for certain hereditary rights like inheritance of land unless granted by statute, yet entitled to temporary protection (comity) during peaceful residence. describes an alien as "a foreigner; one born abroad" who resides in a country but owes allegiance to another, underscoring the relational aspect of loyalty over mere geography. This framework influenced jurisdictions like the , where aliens historically faced restrictions on property ownership and political participation, as affirmed in cases such as Chy Lung v. Freeman (1875), which recognized aliens' presence but limited their claims against sovereign authority. Under international law, an alien is an individual without the nationality of the territorial state, subjecting them to expulsion protocols and diplomatic protections via their state of nationality, as outlined in the International Law Commission's Draft Articles on Expulsion of Aliens (2014). This entails obligations like compliance with local laws and potential liabilities for non-compliance, distinct from citizens' protections under domestic constitutions. Empirical data from state practices, such as registration requirements in over 100 countries per UNHCR reports, reinforce aliens' transient legal persona, vulnerable to policy shifts like the U.S. Alien Registration Act of 1940, which mandated fingerprinting and address reporting for non-citizens aged 14 and older.

Classifications by Status and Residency

In jurisdictions, aliens are classified primarily by their immigration status, which delineates the scope of their authorized presence and residency rights within the host nation. Lawful permanent residents hold indefinite permission to reside, work, and access certain benefits, though subject to for specified violations such as criminal convictions. In the United States, this status is conferred via adjustment to lawful permanent resident under the Immigration and Nationality Act, encompassing categories like immediate relatives of citizens, employment-based preferences, and diversity visas, with over 1 million such adjustments approved in fiscal year 2023. Similarly, the grants after meeting residency requirements under its points-based system, allowing settlement akin to . Australia's permanent visas, such as skilled migration or family reunion streams, provide comparable enduring residency rights, with 162,417 such grants in 2022-2023. Temporary or non-immigrant status permits short-term stays for defined purposes, without pathways to indefinite residency unless extended or converted. non-immigrant visas number over 20 categories, including B-1/B-2 for business/tourism (valid up to 6 months), F-1 for students, and H-1B for specialty occupations, admitting approximately 10 million individuals annually as of recent data. In the UK, temporary categories under the Rules include visas (up to 5 years) and visas (generally 6 months), tied to specific or activities. Australian temporary visas, such as subclass 482 for skilled work or 500 for students, similarly restrict duration and intent, with over 1.5 million temporary entries in 2022-2023, emphasizing non-permanent settlement. These statuses mandate compliance with conditions like non-employment outside authorized scopes, with overstays rendering the holder unlawfully present. Unauthorized or unlawful aliens enter or remain without legal admission, facing inadmissibility and removal proceedings. In the , this includes those entering without inspection or violating visa terms, estimated at 11 million in 2022 by data, ineligible for most benefits and subject to expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. law deems such individuals "overstayers" or illegal entrants, prosecutable under the , with no residency rights. classifies unauthorized arrivals, often via boat, as unlawful non-citizens under the , mandating detention and offshore processing where applicable. Residency classifications further intersect with fiscal and administrative obligations, distinguishing resident from non-resident aliens for tax purposes. A resident alien meets tests like lawful permanent residency (green card) or substantial presence—183 days over a three-year weighted period—triggering worldwide taxation equivalent to citizens. Non-resident aliens, by contrast, face taxation only on U.S.-sourced , with limited treaty relief; this applies even to temporary visa holders failing residency tests. Such delineations ensure aliens' liabilities align with their ties to the , independent of immigration status alone.
ClassificationKey FeaturesExamples in Common Law Jurisdictions
Lawful Permanent ResidentIndefinite stay, work rights, path to citizenship (INA categories); indefinite leave; Australian permanent skilled/family visas
Temporary/Non-ImmigrantLimited duration/purpose, no automatic permanence H-1B, F-1 visas; visa; Australian subclass 482/500
Unauthorized/UnlawfulNo legal basis for presence, subject to removal entrants without inspection; overstayers; Australian unlawful non-citizens
Tax Resident AlienWorldwide taxation via or presence testApplies across , , with variations; e.g., substantial presence formula

Classifications by Relation to Host Nation (Friendly and Enemy Aliens)

Aliens in jurisdictions are classified based on the diplomatic and military relations between their state of or and the host , distinguishing between friendly aliens (also termed alien friends) and enemy aliens. A friendly alien is defined as a subject, citizen, or denizen of a foreign state at peace with the host , encompassing both allied and neutral countries. This status entitles them to standard protections under domestic and applicable to non-citizens, such as rights to , own , and access courts, subject to general and residency regulations. In contrast, an enemy alien is any native, citizen, subject, or denizen of a state or at with the host , a designation that activates during declared hostilities and overrides prior resident status. The legal implications of these classifications diverge sharply during peacetime versus wartime. Friendly aliens face no inherent disabilities tied to their foreign origin beyond those imposed on all non-citizens, allowing participation in economic and civil activities unless individually deemed a security risk. Enemy aliens, however, become subject to restrictive measures justified by imperatives, including mandatory registration, , restrictions on movement, employment in sensitive sectors, and potential or . For example, under the Alien Enemies Act of July 6, 1798 (50 U.S.C. §§ 21–24), the president may, upon or predatory incursion by a foreign or , direct the apprehension, restraint, or removal of all enemy aliens aged 14 or older who are natives or citizens of the hostile power, with provisions for those showing loyalty to apply for post-hostilities. Historically, this framework has been applied in major conflicts to manage perceived threats from resident populations. In the during , aliens were initially assessed via a system categorizing them as Category A (high-risk , for ), B (medium-risk), or C (low-risk or friendly, for release under conditions), with over 74,000 Germans and Austrians reviewed by May 1940, leading to the internment of approximately 27,000 as enemy aliens following the fall of . Similarly, in the U.S. after on December 7, 1941, about 31,000 aliens—primarily German, Italian, and Japanese nationals—were registered and subjected to curfews, travel bans, and short-term detentions, though mass primarily affected U.S. citizens of Japanese descent under separate . These measures reflect a causal link between wartime exigencies and alien status, prioritizing host sovereignty over individual claims, while friendly aliens from non-belligerent states, such as Swiss or Swedish nationals, remained exempt from such classifications. Post-war, enemy alien designations lapse with peace treaties or armistices, restoring prior statuses absent ongoing legal actions.

Rights and Protections Afforded to Aliens

Civil and Due Process Rights

In jurisdictions, aliens—defined as individuals owing temporary allegiance to the while present in the —are generally to protections against arbitrary deprivation of by the state. This derives from the reciprocal nature of local allegiance, whereby aliens, in exchange for obedience to municipal laws during their residence, receive safeguards akin to those of natives in civil matters. Historical English , as reflected in treatises like Blackstone's Commentaries, affirmed that aliens could not be detained or punished without , emphasizing impartial justice administered through ordinary courts rather than executive fiat. In the United States, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments extend and equal protection to all "persons" within U.S. , explicitly including aliens regardless of status once physically present. The has consistently held that this encompasses procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings, such as the right to a fair hearing, counsel, and confrontation of evidence, as well as substantive limits on discriminatory state action. For instance, aliens benefit from protections against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment and from under the Fifth, applicable in both civil and criminal contexts. Civil rights further include the ability to enter contracts, own and dispose of property, and seek remedies in courts for torts or breaches, subject only to federal restrictions rather than blanket denial. In the , for aliens stems from traditions and, post-1950, incorporation of the via the , which mandates fair hearings under Article 6 for civil rights determinations and protects against arbitrary detention under Article 5. Aliens may access ordinary courts for civil claims involving property or , with rights to of administrative decisions affecting their status. However, these protections yield in or contexts, where streamlined processes may apply, though core procedural fairness—notification of charges, evidence disclosure, and appeal opportunities—persists. Empirical data from UK deportation statistics indicate that while over 90% of foreign national offender removals proceed without full hearings due to statutory presumptions, successful challenges often hinge on demonstrating procedural irregularities.

Access to Economic and Social Benefits

In , aliens are entitled to economic and social under instruments such as the International Covenant on (ICESCR, 1966), which applies to all individuals within a state's territory and prohibits discrimination based on , though states may differentiate based on and progressively realize these subject to resource constraints. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural has clarified that undocumented migrants retain access to like emergency healthcare and , but states retain to impose residency-based conditions to manage fiscal burdens and deter unauthorized migration. Domestic laws in most jurisdictions significantly limit aliens' access to non-contributory benefits, prioritizing citizens and lawful permanent to safeguard welfare systems from overuse, as unrestricted access could incentivize economic migration without integration. Undocumented aliens typically receive only , while temporary visa holders face "no recourse" clauses barring claims on resources. Lawful permanent often encounter waiting periods—ranging from two to ten years—before eligibility for means-tested programs like unemployment insurance, housing subsidies, or family assistance, reflecting policy aims to ensure self-sufficiency. In the United States, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA, 1996) renders non-qualified aliens ineligible for federal means-tested benefits such as (TANF), (SNAP), and non-emergency , with qualified aliens (e.g., lawful permanent residents) subject to a five-year waiting period post-admission unless exempt (e.g., refugees or asylees). Undocumented aliens are barred from these but may access emergency under the same statute and K-12 public education per the Supreme Court's ruling in (1982), which held denial unconstitutional under the for children. States retain discretion for non-federal benefits, though federal reimbursements are limited. In the , aliens subject to control—most non-EEA nationals and certain EEA citizens without settled status—are ineligible for "public funds," including income support, , housing benefit, and council housing, per the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and visa conditions imposing "no recourse to public funds" (NRPF). Exceptions apply to refugees, those with after five years, or destitute cases under limited support schemes, but tests further restrict short-term residents. Unauthorized migrants receive no routine benefits and risk destitution support only if vulnerable (e.g., families with children). Comparable restrictions prevail in and , where new permanent migrants face a two- to four-year newly arrived resident's waiting period for income support, family tax benefits, and parenting payments, extendable to ten years for certain humanitarian entrants, to promote workforce participation over dependency. Temporary visa holders and undocumented individuals are generally excluded from non-emergency welfare, with access tied to contributory schemes like superannuation or Medicare for eligible residents. These frameworks balance humanitarian obligations with economic incentives, ensuring benefits correlate with legal residency and contributions. Aliens are typically denied core political , such as voting in national elections and eligibility for , which are reserved for citizens to ensure undivided and preserve decision-making. Under , states retain authority to limit alien participation in political processes without breaching the minimum standard of treatment owed to foreigners. In traditions, political form a distinct category separate from civil or private , with aliens historically excluded from exercising them to mitigate risks of foreign influence. In the United States, federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in presidential and congressional elections, a restriction rooted in constitutional provisions tying the franchise to citizenship. Similarly, eligibility for the presidency is confined to natural-born citizens, as stipulated in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, reflecting concerns over loyalty in executive authority. Non-citizens are also barred from serving in Congress under Article I, which requires representatives and senators to be citizens for specified periods. Security-related rights impose further constraints, particularly for enemy aliens during hostilities. The U.S. Alien Enemies Act of 1798 authorizes the President, upon or predatory invasion, to apprehend, detain, or deport male aliens aged 14 or older who are natives or citizens of the hostile nation and not naturalized U.S. citizens. This measure, invoked historically during the , , and , curtails freedoms of movement and association to counter and risks. Friendly aliens, by contrast, face fewer such impositions but remain ineligible for roles requiring security clearances or involving national defense, due to potential conflicts of loyalty. In peacetime, aliens are often restricted from in or sensitive positions across jurisdictions, as exemplified by U.S. policies limiting enlistment to citizens or lawful permanent residents with stringent vetting.

Obligations and Liabilities of Aliens

Registration, Taxation, and Compliance Duties

In the United States, non-citizen aliens are required under Section 262 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to register with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) if they remain in the country for more than 30 days or engage in employment, obtaining an Alien Registration Receipt Card (Form I-551) or other evidence of registration such as an Employment Authorization Document. This obligation, originating from the Alien Registration Act of 1940, mandates that aliens aged 14 and older apply for registration and fingerprinting, while those under 14 must be registered by a parent or guardian; failure to comply can result in fines up to $5,000, imprisonment for up to six months, or deportation. Aliens must carry their registration documents at all times and report changes of address to USCIS within 10 days. Non-citizen aliens in the U.S. bear taxation duties comparable to citizens for sourced domestically, with nonresident aliens liable for on effectively connected from U.S. or at graduated rates, and on fixed or determinable annual or periodical (FDAP) —such as dividends or rents—withheld at 30% unless reduced by . Resident aliens, determined by the (presence for at least 31 days in the current year and 183 days over three years weighted), are taxed on worldwide like U.S. citizens, filing and potentially claiming deductions or credits. Noncompliance, including failure to file returns or pay estimated taxes, incurs penalties such as interest on underpayments and possible criminal charges for willful evasion. Broader compliance duties encompass adherence to visa or status conditions, such as not engaging in unauthorized , and timely renewal of documents to avoid unlawful presence, which accrues after 180 days and triggers reentry bars of three or ten years upon departure. Aliens must also notify USCIS of arrests or changes in affecting eligibility, with violations potentially leading to revocation of status and removal proceedings under INA Section 237. In practice, enforcement prioritizes those with criminal records, but systemic underreporting due to fear of detection has been noted in government audits, underscoring the obligation's role in tracking risks.

Criminal and Civil Liabilities

Aliens are subject to the criminal s of the host state for offenses committed within its , based on the of , which extends authority over all individuals present regardless of . This principle, rooted in , applies universally in municipal legal systems, including jurisdictions, where non-citizens face prosecution, trial, and punishment on par with citizens for acts such as , , or . For instance, , non-citizens may be charged under federal statutes like 8 U.S.C. § 1325 for improper entry, carrying penalties of fines or up to six months for first offenses, in addition to standard criminal liabilities. Convictions typically trigger immigration consequences, such as mandatory detention and removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, distinguishing alien liability from that of citizens who retain residency post-sentence. Practical disparities persist, including language barriers impeding fair trials and deportation precluding rehabilitative measures like afforded to citizens. Civil liabilities for aliens mirror those of citizens, encompassing responsibility for contracts, torts, disputes, and other obligations arising under host nation . Non-citizens may be sued in local courts for damages or , with often asserted via presence or effects within the territory. For example, an alien's estate remains subject to and claims under municipal rules, potentially conflicting with foreign treaties if unenforced. While entitled to equal clauses—such as the U.S. Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee against denial of —aliens encounter enforcement gaps, including discriminatory administration in civil proceedings. Immigration status may indirectly affect civil capacity, such as restrictions on owning certain or entering contracts in some , though core liabilities for harms caused persist unabated. Enemy aliens during hostilities face heightened liabilities, including potential internment or asset seizure under municipal emergency powers, beyond standard criminal or civil sanctions. These measures, justified by , do not exempt them from prosecution for wartime offenses like . In peacetime, friendly aliens enjoy treaty-based assurances of non-discrimination in liabilities, though systemic biases in judicial application can undermine parity.

Grounds and Processes for Deportation and Expulsion

Deportation and expulsion denote the state's compulsory removal of a non-national from its , with expulsion emphasizing the act of ordering departure and often referring to enforcement following unlawful presence or violation. States retain the inherent prerogative to expel aliens, provided such actions conform to domestic and pertinent international obligations, including prohibitions on arbitrary expulsion and collective measures. This authority stems from territorial , enabling control over non-citizens who lack permanent allegiance, though it must balance public interests against individual rights to avoid refoulement to or . Grounds for deportation and expulsion are delineated by national laws but commonly encompass immigration infractions, criminal conduct, and risks to state security or societal welfare. Typical bases include overstaying visas, unauthorized employment, or unlawful entry, which constitute status violations rendering the alien removable. Criminal convictions, particularly for offenses involving , aggravated felonies such as drug trafficking or violent crimes, or multiple misdemeanors, frequently trigger deportability, as these indicate failure to uphold host nation standards. threats, including terrorism affiliations or espionage, or public safety hazards like communicable diseases, further justify expulsion, with wartime provisions allowing apprehension of enemy alien nationals under statutes like the U.S. Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Expulsion decisions require specification of grounds in law, good-faith evaluation of the alien's actions and threat level, and exclusion of pretexts violating international commitments. For protected categories like lawfully present refugees or stateless persons, grounds are restricted to imperatives of or public order. Processes for deportation and expulsion entail administrative or judicial mechanisms ensuring procedural fairness, varying by jurisdiction but guided by principles of legality and review. Initiation typically follows detection via border control, interior enforcement, or criminal proceedings, culminating in a formal removal order. Aliens receive notice of charges and grounds, with opportunities to contest via submission of evidence or legal representation before a competent authority, such as an immigration tribunal. Key safeguards include the right to be heard, access to interpreters, review by an impartial body, and effective remedies against the decision, potentially with suspensive effect pending appeal to avert irreparable harm. Individualized assessment is mandatory, prohibiting mass expulsions, while vulnerable individuals—such as children or families—warrant consideration of dignity, family unity, and best interests. In expedited cases, such as recent unlawful entrants lacking valid documents, removal may proceed without full hearings, though entered aliens generally invoke due process protections. Enforcement involves detention if flight risk exists, followed by escorted departure, with penalties for reentry post-removal including bans of five to twenty years or permanent ineligibility. Non-compliance during process, like absconding, escalates liabilities under domestic penal codes.

Treatment in Common Law Jurisdictions

United States

In law, an "alien" is defined as any not a citizen or national of the , encompassing both lawful and unlawful entrants under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952. This classification distinguishes aliens from citizens in matters of entry, residency, and removal, with further subdivisions into categories such as immigrant (intending ), nonimmigrant (temporary status like students or workers), resident (), and nonresident aliens for tax and jurisdictional purposes. Aliens enjoy certain constitutional protections as "s" within U.S. territory, including under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and equal protection of the laws, but these do not extend fully to those at the seeking initial admission. Historically, distinctions arose between "friendly" aliens (from non-hostile nations) and "enemy aliens" during wartime, governed by the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which authorizes the President to apprehend, restrain, or deport natives or citizens of a nation at war with the U.S. if deemed dangerous. This law was invoked during and extensively in , affecting over 120,000 Japanese, German, and Italian aliens through registration, restrictions, and , though its peacetime applicability remains limited and untested in modern courts. In peacetime, treatment emphasizes administrative rather than enemy status, with aliens subject to plenary federal power over borders rooted in national . Aliens possess civil rights such as access to courts for contract disputes, property ownership, and criminal , but face limitations on political rights, including ineligibility to vote in federal elections or hold most public offices unless naturalized. Economically, lawful aliens may work, receive certain welfare benefits after residency periods (e.g., five years for many means-tested programs under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996), and own businesses, though undocumented aliens are barred from federal jobs and face employer verification mandates via Form I-9. Obligations include tax liability comparable to citizens—resident aliens file as U.S. persons under the —and registration requirements under the Alien Registration Act of 1940, mandating aliens aged 14 and older staying 30 days or more to register with the Department of , provide fingerprints, and carry proof like or G-325R. Non-compliance can lead to fines up to $5,000, imprisonment, or . Deportation, termed "removal" since the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, is an administrative civil process for aliens inadmissible or deportable on grounds like criminal convictions (e.g., aggravated felonies), violations, or threats, with over 1.2 million removals annually in recent fiscal years. Proceedings occur before immigration judges, affording notice, hearings, and to the Board of Immigration Appeals, though no government-provided counsel and expedited removal apply to recent border crossers without credible fear claims. Detention during removal is authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1231, with mandatory custody for certain criminals, though bond hearings mitigate prolonged per rulings like Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), limiting holds beyond six months absent removal likelihood. Expulsion does not bar reentry absent formal orders, but triggers escalating penalties, reflecting Congress's broad authority to regulate alien presence as a facet of power.

United Kingdom

In United Kingdom law, aliens—defined as individuals who are not British citizens—are subject to comprehensive immigration controls established under the , which regulates their entry, residence, and removal unless exempted by or specific privileges. This framework distinguishes aliens from citizens by denying them automatic rights to reside or work, requiring or remain via visas or the points-based system introduced post-Brexit in 2021. Non-European Economic Area aliens face stricter scrutiny, with entry often conditional on sponsorship, financial self-sufficiency, and purpose such as work, study, or , reflecting a policy emphasis on economic contribution over unrestricted access. Aliens enjoy certain civil protections, including equal access to courts for and disputes, as affirmed in historical statutes like the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914, which permitted aliens to acquire and hold real and personal without prior restrictions. The incorporates the , granting aliens safeguards against arbitrary detention or expulsion violating Article 5 or 8, though these yield to in or . Economic and social benefits are limited; most visa holders have "no recourse to public funds," barring access to welfare payments to prevent dependency, with exceptions for refugees or long-term residents meeting residency thresholds. Political , such as voting in general elections, are withheld, confined to local elections for certain settled aliens like Commonwealth citizens. Obligations for aliens include compliance with visa conditions, such as not exceeding permitted stay durations or engaging in unauthorized , enforced through the Immigration Rules updated periodically by the . Taxation applies universally to income and gains earned in the UK, with non-domiciled aliens potentially eligible for remittance basis but required to report worldwide income if resident. Registration with police is no longer routine but mandatory for specific cases like overstayers facing enforcement; failure to notify address changes or breaches can trigger criminal penalties under section 26 of the Immigration Act 1971. Deportation serves as a primary enforcement tool, exercisable by the under section 3(5) of the if deemed conducive to the public good, including for offenders sentenced to 12 months' or more, where the UK Borders Act 2007 mandates a order. Appeals lie to the , but are curtailed for serious criminals under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, prioritizing public safety over private life claims unless exceptional circumstances apply. The further restricts relief for irregular entrants, imposing detention and removal duties without asylum processing if safe third-country routes were available, aiming to deter unauthorized arrivals. In 2024, over 10,000 offenders faced proceedings, underscoring rigorous application amid capacity constraints.

Australia and Canada

In Australia, non-citizens, referred to as "aliens" under the constitutional aliens power in section 51(xix) of the Constitution, are subject to comprehensive regulation under the Migration Act 1958, which distinguishes between lawful non-citizens holding valid visas and unlawful non-citizens lacking such status. Lawful non-citizens enjoy limited civil rights, including access to procedural fairness in visa decisions, but possess no inherent right to remain and are excluded from certain social benefits unless specified by visa conditions; for instance, temporary visa holders are generally ineligible for unemployment benefits under the Social Security Act 1991. Permanent residents, a subset of lawful non-citizens, face mandatory visa cancellation under section 501 if they fail the character test, particularly for sentences of 12 months or more imprisonment, regardless of time since residency began. Obligations include visa compliance, such as work restrictions and reporting, alongside taxation on Australian-sourced income under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997; non-compliance can trigger removal. Deportation and removal processes under the Migration Act differentiate sharply: unlawful non-citizens are subject to mandatory removal under section 198 without judicial discretion, while under sections 201-203 applies to lawful non-citizens for grounds including criminal convictions, security risks, or health issues, with the Minister holding broad discretionary powers. Amendments enacted in 2024 via the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Act expanded ministerial powers to fast-track s, potentially affecting up to 80,000 non-citizens from designated countries by limiting appeals and imposing bars, though procedural rights like merits review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal remain available in limited cases. , as affirmed by the in (2020), fall outside the aliens power and cannot be deported, reflecting their status as original inhabitants not subject to control. In Canada, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) of 2001 governs non-citizens, granting no unqualified right to enter or remain and classifying foreign nationals into categories like temporary residents, permanent residents, and , with admissibility determined by factors including , criminality, and health. Non-citizens physically present in Canada benefit from Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protections, such as section 7 liberty rights against arbitrary detention, but these yield to immigration enforcement; for example, the in Charkaoui v Canada (2007) upheld security certificates allowing pending removal, subject to procedural safeguards. Permanent residents hold enhanced rights, including appeal rights against removal for serious criminality under section 36 of IRPA, but face inadmissibility for convictions carrying a maximum of 10 years imprisonment or sentences over six months. Removal under IRPA occurs via enforceable orders—departure (self-enforced within 30 days), exclusion (barring re-entry for one to five years), or (for permanent residents)—issued by the Immigration Division for inadmissibility grounds like or organized crime involvement, with the executing over 8,000 removals annually as of 2023 data. Obligations for non-citizens include reporting residency changes, complying with conditions of stay, and paying taxes on worldwide income if deemed residents under the Income Tax Act; refugee claimants receive work authorizations but limited welfare access pending status determination by the Immigration and Refugee Board. Unlike citizens, non-citizens lack mobility rights under section 6(1) of the for international re-entry, emphasizing state sovereignty over borders while balancing claims through mechanisms like pre-removal risk assessments to avoid refoulement.

Treatment in Other Jurisdictions

European Civil Law Systems

In European civil law systems, prevalent in countries such as France, Germany, and Italy, the legal status of aliens—non-nationals lacking citizenship—is governed by codified statutes on foreigners' entry, residence, and removal, often structured as dedicated administrative codes separate from general civil or penal law. These frameworks emphasize state sovereignty over borders while incorporating EU-wide minimum standards for third-country nationals via directives on legal migration, family reunification, and long-term residence permits. For instance, Directive 2003/86/EC mandates member states to grant residence to family members of legally resident aliens under specified conditions, including adequate housing and integration measures, though national authorities retain discretion in assessing applications. National laws, like France's Code de l'entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d'asile (CESEDA), integrate these requirements by conditioning permits on language proficiency, employment stability, or asylum eligibility, reflecting a balance between admission controls and procedural fairness. Admission for aliens beyond visa-free short stays (typically 90 days under Schengen rules) requires prior authorization, with categories including temporary permits for work, study, or humanitarian reasons, and pathways to permanent status after five years of continuous legal residence per EU Directive 2003/109/EC. Rights of lawfully present aliens extend to civil protections, such as equal treatment in contracts, access to , and judicial remedies, as affirmed in national civil codes; for example, French jurisprudence holds that aliens may invoke all not explicitly restricted by . However, exclusions persist for political participation, public office, and unrestricted property ownership in sensitive sectors. Obligations encompass mandatory residence registration within days of arrival, income tax liability on local earnings equivalent to citizens, and adherence to public order laws, with non-compliance triggering administrative fines or permit revocation. Expulsion or deportation operates as an administrative prerogative for reasons including criminal convictions, security threats, or illegal stay, but is constrained by proportionality tests under the (ECHR) and EU Return Directive 2008/115/EC, which require individual assessments, appeal rights, and bans on refoulement to . In , the (Aufenthaltsgesetz) permits expulsion of long-term residents only for grave offenses, such as sentences exceeding three years, with judicial oversight; similarly, Italy's Consolidated Act allows removal but mandates alternatives like for minor infractions. Recent national reforms, such as France's December 2023 law enhancing integration quotas and expedited returns for rejected asylum seekers, underscore efforts to curb irregular migration amid enforcement pressures, though implementation varies by jurisdiction. These systems prioritize empirical integration metrics—e.g., rates over 50% for permit renewals in several states—over expansive entitlements, reflecting causal links between lawful status and societal contributions.

Arab and Islamic Law Systems

In classical Islamic jurisprudence (), foreigners, or aliens, are primarily categorized based on their relation to the (dar al-Islam). Non-Muslim aliens from non-hostile territories may receive temporary protection through aman (), granting them the status of musta'min, which affords inviolability of person, property, and freedom of worship for a limited period, typically up to one year, in exchange for pledges of good conduct. This status derives from Quranic principles of and obligations, as outlined in major schools of thought like Hanafi and Shafi'i, but excludes combatants or those from hostile lands (harbi), who lack automatic protections unless granted aman. Muslim aliens from other Muslim states are generally treated as brethren under solidarity, with rights to reside and trade without tax, though subject to local ruler's discretion. Permanent non-Muslim residents, distinct from transient aliens, hold dhimmi status, entitling them to (dhimma) in exchange for () and adherence to public order, with rights akin to in contracts, , and courts, but restrictions on proselytizing or building new places of worship. Violations of aman or dhimma covenants, such as or rebellion, trigger liabilities including fines, imprisonment, or expulsion, enforced by (judges) under principles prioritizing state security. (tarhil) of aliens is a sovereign prerogative, rooted in the caliph's authority over borders, absent in classical texts as a universal right but justified causally by threats to social cohesion or faith. In contemporary Arab states governed by Sharia-influenced systems, such as , aliens (foreign workers and residents) operate under the kafala sponsorship regime, where residency () ties legal status to a Saudi sponsor, mandating compliance with labor contracts, registration, and taxation via wage deductions. Breaches, including overstaying visas or criminal acts, incur penalties of up to 10,000 SAR fines, three months' , iqama revocation, and mandatory , as codified in Saudi residency regulations updated in 2022. Gulf states like the UAE extend kafala via No. 6 of 1973, requiring aliens to secure sponsor approval for job changes or exit, with for unauthorized or security threats, though recent reforms (e.g., 2021 UAE updates) allow limited self-sponsorship for skilled workers. Non-Muslims receive procedural equality in family matters under 2020 UAE laws, but aliens face systemic vulnerabilities, including sponsor-passport retention and restricted movement, reflecting Sharia's emphasis on hierarchical social order over egalitarian rights. In , over 2.8 million occurred from 2017-2023 for violations, prioritizing national (Saudization) and Islamic public morals. These systems underscore state sovereignty, with limited judicial recourse for aliens against expulsion, contrasting Western norms.

Other Regional Variations

In Latin American legal systems, the Calvo Doctrine represents a key variation, asserting that aliens must exhaust local judicial remedies for grievances without preferential diplomatic intervention, thereby subjecting them to the same treatment as nationals and rejecting international minimum standards for foreign investors. This principle, incorporated into constitutions in countries such as and since the late 19th century, curtails access to and emphasizes sovereign equality in . Immigration frameworks across the region, updated in nations like and by the 2010s, generally permit entry via visas but restrict aliens from privileges including unrestricted ownership and certain professions, aligning with historical protections against foreign dominance. China's approach under the 2012 Exit and Entry Administration Law imposes rigorous obligations on non-citizens, requiring visa compliance, immediate registration with local authorities upon arrival, and adherence to restrictions on residence, employment, and activities, with violations triggering or without broad . Foreigners' rights to legal protection exist but are subordinated to priorities, prohibiting political activities and limiting property acquisitions to approved zones. In , the Foreigners Act of 1946, supplemented by the Immigration and Foreigners Act 2025 effective September 1, 2025, mandates registration for all non-citizens within 14 days of arrival (unless departing sooner), valid visas for entry and exit, and empowers authorities to detain and deport illegal entrants, explicitly excluding such individuals from refugee status under domestic provisions. The 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act further differentiates by expediting for non-Muslim aliens from select neighboring countries who entered before December 31, 2014, while intensifying scrutiny on others. African jurisdictions exhibit variations rooted in post-colonial controls, as in South Africa's Immigration Act 2002 (replacing the apartheid-era Aliens Control Act of 1991), which enforces permit-based entry, work restrictions, and expedited expulsion for undocumented aliens, though implementation has fueled documented xenophobic incidents through over-reliance on . In East African states like and , statutes such as Ghana's Aliens Act limit non-citizens' business ownership to specific sectors requiring ministerial approval, prioritizing local economic participation and imposing fines or for non-compliance. Southeast Asian systems prioritize labor regulation, exemplified by Thailand's Alien Working Act B.E. 2551 (2008), which prohibits foreigners from over 40 occupations reserved for nationals, mandates work permits renewable annually, and penalizes unauthorized with up to five years or fines, addressing irregular migration pressures from neighboring states. Similar frameworks in and the require alien registration and confine economic roles to skilled or investor categories, with for violations amid regional challenges like undocumented seafaring and overland flows.

International Law Framework

State Sovereignty in Admission and Expulsion

Under general , states possess an inherent sovereign right to regulate the admission of non-nationals into their , deriving from of territorial that allows exclusive control over borders and internal affairs. This authority enables governments to deny entry to aliens based on criteria such as , , or economic considerations, without incurring international responsibility, as no customary or treaty obligation compels states to admit foreigners absent specific bilateral or multilateral agreements. The absence of a general right to under underscores this sovereign prerogative, which has been consistently affirmed in state practice and doctrinal analysis since at least the , when sovereigns began codifying exclusionary powers in domestic legislation without international challenge. Regarding expulsion, states retain broad to remove aliens lawfully or unlawfully present on their , as this too constitutes a core aspect of over internal population composition and security. The Commission's Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens (2014) explicitly recognize that "a State has the right to expel an alien from its ," provided the process adheres to principles of , reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness under its national . This right extends to aliens who pose threats, such as those involved in criminal activity or , and has been exercised historically during conflicts, where enemy aliens may be expelled en masse under jus in bello without violating peacetime norms. Expulsion decisions are inherently discretionary, not subject to by international bodies unless tied to specific violations, reflecting the prioritization of state autonomy in managing territorial presence. While authority remains primary, it is qualified by procedural obligations to ensure expulsions are not arbitrary or discriminatory, including the right of the alien to challenge the decision domestically and access consular notification under the (1963). Article 36 of the Convention mandates that states inform detained aliens of their right to communicate with consular officers, facilitating without impeding the expulsion itself. Customary limits, such as prohibiting return to territories of persecution, derive from rather than eroding sovereignty, applying only to protected categories like refugees under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. These constraints reflect reciprocal state interests in orderly migration rather than a dilution of exclusionary powers, with violations typically addressed through diplomatic channels rather than automatic invalidation of acts.

Relevant Treaties and Customary International Law

establishes a minimum standard of treatment for aliens within a host state's , requiring states to protect aliens from arbitrary harm, ensure access to , and prevent denial of through ineffective or discriminatory judicial processes. This standard, rooted in historical practices of and for injuries to foreigners, mandates fair and equitable treatment, including safeguards against physical , unlawful expropriation of without compensation, and unreasonable or discriminatory measures. It applies universally as a floor of protections, independent of national treatment, though states retain broad discretion to differentiate aliens from nationals in privileges like political rights or ownership. No comprehensive multilateral treaty exclusively governs the general rights of aliens across all contexts; instead, protections derive primarily from customary norms supplemented by sector-specific agreements. The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (adopted December 18, 1990, entered into force July 1, 2003) addresses certain aliens as migrant workers, obliging states parties to ensure non-discrimination, fair wages, and procedural rights in employment and expulsion, but it has limited ratification (59 states as of 2023) and excludes broader categories of aliens like tourists or investors. Historical bilateral treaties, such as friendship, commerce, and navigation agreements, have provided reciprocal protections for aliens' property and business activities, influencing customary expectations of most-favored-nation treatment in economic matters. Regarding admission and expulsion, customary law affirms states' sovereign prerogative to control entry and removal of aliens, with no general right of entry or residence absent treaty or estoppel-based claims. Expulsions must adhere to , prohibiting arbitrary or collective measures and requiring individualized assessments, notification of reasons, and opportunities for review or remedy, as reflected in the International Law Commission's Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens (completed 2014). These drafts, while non-binding, codify customary prohibitions on expulsions motivated by race, , or , and mandate humane treatment during removal, drawing from state practice and judicial decisions like those of the in cases involving . Violations may trigger international responsibility, potentially justifying countermeasures by the alien's state of .

Interplay with Human Rights Instruments

Human rights instruments impose procedural safeguards and substantive prohibitions on the expulsion of aliens, primarily to prevent violations of , while preserving state over admission and removal decisions. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), in Article 13, stipulates that an alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party may be expelled only pursuant to a decision reached in accordance with law, with the right to submit reasons against expulsion and seek review by a , unless compelling reasons justify otherwise. This provision applies exclusively to procedural aspects and does not limit substantive grounds for expulsion, such as public order or security, thereby affirming that states retain broad discretion in determining who may enter or remain. The UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment No. 15 clarifies that Article 13 does not confer a general right of residence or impede expulsions based on lawful criteria, emphasizing that irregular entrants receive minimal protections beyond . Substantive limits arise principally from the principle of , codified in the Article 3, which prohibits return to any state where an individual faces substantial grounds for believing they would encounter , and reflected in applicable to aliens regardless of . Similarly, ICCPR Article 7 implicitly bars expulsion risking or cruel treatment, while the 1951 Refugee Convention Article 33 enforces non-return to persecution. Regional instruments, such as the (ECHR) Article 3, extend absolute protection against removal to areas of foreseeable inhuman or degrading treatment, as affirmed in the (ECtHR) ruling in Chahal v. (1996), where the Court held that national security concerns cannot override obligations even for suspected terrorists. ECHR Protocol No. 4, Article 4, further prohibits collective expulsions of aliens, requiring individualized assessments to avoid arbitrary group removals. These instruments do not grant aliens a positive right to admission, residence, or asylum, distinguishing protections from migration entitlements and upholding state sovereignty as codified in the International Law Commission's (ILC) 2014 Draft Articles on Expulsion of Aliens, which affirm a state's right to expel while mandating compliance with non-discrimination, , and . In practice, tensions emerge when states invoke security derogations, as in ECtHR under Article 5 (detention pending expulsion), which permits restrictions but demands proportionality and judicial oversight. The interplay underscores that while law curtails abusive expulsions—evidenced by over 1,000 ECtHR judgments on migration-related Article 3 claims since 1996—states maintain primary authority over borders, with violations typically remedied through individual remedies rather than systemic migration rights.

Controversies and Policy Debates

The term "alien" in legal contexts, particularly under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 as amended, is statutorily defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3) as "any person not a citizen or national of the ," encompassing both lawful and unlawful entrants to distinguish non-members of the polity based on nationality rather than conduct or intent. This definition aligns with longstanding traditions tracing to English jurisprudence, where "alien" denoted a foreigner owing to another , emphasizing the sovereign's over admission and expulsion without implying inherent criminality. Debates over replacing "alien" with terms like "non-citizen" or "undocumented immigrant" intensified in the 21st century, with critics arguing the former evokes dehumanizing imagery akin to extraterrestrial beings, potentially fostering public hostility and justifying harsher policies; for instance, at least seven U.S. states considered legislative changes in 2021 to excise "alien" and "illegal" from statutes in favor of neutral phrasing. Proponents of retention counter that such alterations obscure precise legal distinctions essential for enforcing , as "alien" neutrally captures foreign without conflating status with documentation gaps—"undocumented," they note, mischaracterizes unlawful presence as a mere administrative oversight rather than a violation of . Federal policy shifts exemplify these tensions: the Biden administration's 2021 U.S. Citizenship Act proposal and subsequent U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) guidance substituted "non-citizen" for "alien" to promote "modern, respectful" language, reflecting advocacy from groups like the National Immigration Law Center that prioritize humanizing rhetoric in judicial and administrative contexts. Conversely, the Trump administration reinstated "alien" in the USCIS Policy Manual in early 2025, defending it as a historically accurate descriptor rooted in over two centuries of federal statutes, including explicit uses like "illegal alien" in laws such as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, to maintain clarity in enforcement amid rising unauthorized entries exceeding 2.4 million encounters in fiscal year 2023. Legal framing debates extend to compound terms like "illegal alien," upheld by the U.S. as interchangeable with "illegal immigrant" in precedents such as (2012), where the Court affirmed state authority to address unlawful presence without diluting federal terminology's emphasis on breach of law. Advocates for alternatives, including some appellate opinions favoring "undocumented non-citizen," contend such phrasing reduces stigma and aligns with norms, yet empirical analyses of linguistic corpora reveal that softening terms correlates with policy preferences for over restriction, potentially undermining causal links between precise language and effective . In international law, "alien" remains standard in treaties like the 1930 Convention on the Treatment of Aliens, underscoring its utility for framing state obligations without eroding sovereignty over non-nationals.

Balancing National Security and Alien Rights

The sovereign authority of states to regulate for purposes frequently conflicts with protections afforded to aliens under domestic and . While states retain broad discretion to exclude or expel non-citizens deemed threats, such actions must navigate procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary deprivation of liberty. For instance, Article 32 of the 1951 Refugee Convention permits expulsion of refugees on grounds, provided it adheres to and is not contrary to other convention obligations. Similarly, Article 33(2) allows exceptions to the principle for aliens posing a danger to security, emphasizing individualized assessments over blanket policies. In the United States, the doctrine grants the executive significant latitude in tied to foreign affairs and security, as affirmed in cases like Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952), where the upheld deportations of aliens with communist affiliations during the . Post-9/11 reforms, including the and enhanced vetting under the Immigration and Nationality Act, expanded grounds for removal of "criminal aliens" and those linked to , with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) prioritizing over 1.4 million such removals since 2008. However, judicial oversight limits , as in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), which capped post-removal detention at six months absent special justifications, balancing security imperatives against Fifth Amendment for aliens physically present. Recent U.S. rulings illustrate ongoing tensions, particularly under the Alien Enemies Act of , which authorizes wartime apprehension and removal of citizens from hostile nations. In April 2025, the Court lifted injunctions blocking deportations of Venezuelan nationals invoked by the executive for security reasons, while affirming rights to , rejecting claims of unchecked executive power. In September 2025, Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo further clarified that non-citizens must challenge removals in designated forums, streamlining enforcement but preserving avenues. Policy debates center on empirical risks, with security proponents citing Department of data on over 400 encounters with individuals on the terrorist watchlist at the southern border in fiscal year 2023 alone, arguing that inadequate screening enables infiltration by threats. Critics, drawing from studies like those by the , contend that immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than natives—e.g., undocumented immigrants in had 37% lower conviction rates for from 2012–2018—potentially overstating generalized threats while underemphasizing targeted vetting failures, such as the 9/11 hijackers' visa approvals. This divide underscores causal challenges: lax enforcement correlates with specific vulnerabilities, yet broad restrictions risk violating procedural norms without proportionate evidence of systemic danger.

Enforcement Challenges and Recent Developments

Enforcement of alien laws faces significant logistical and legal obstacles, including prolonged detention periods and high costs associated with holding removable non-citizens. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement () has encountered barriers in repatriating detained aliens, with 2017 data indicating average detention times exceeding expectations due to diplomatic from countries of origin refusing acceptance, resulting in daily costs of approximately $100 per detainee. These repatriation issues persist internationally, as many nations lack formal agreements or incentives to accept deportees, complicating expulsion under principles like while straining bilateral relations. Legal challenges further impede enforcement, particularly through expansive requirements and jurisdictional conflicts. Expedited removal processes, intended for rapid of certain inadmissible aliens, have been criticized for potential violations when applied to those fearing , as low-level officers may err in assessments without adequate review, leading to erroneous expulsions. In the U.S., state and local resistance, such as sanctuary policies limiting cooperation with federal authorities, has reduced interior enforcement effectiveness, with rulings like United States v. California (2023) affirming but highlighting ongoing tensions over resource allocation and . Resource constraints exacerbate these issues, with immigration court backlogs—reaching over 3 million cases by 2024—delaying removals and incentivizing releases under alternatives to detention, which often fail to ensure compliance. Recent developments as of 2025 have intensified enforcement efforts, particularly in the United States under the second Trump administration. By September 2025, over 2 million illegal aliens had been removed in under 250 days, surpassing prior records and projecting nearly 600,000 deportations by year's end, facilitated by expanded use of expedited removal and invocation of the Alien Enemies Act for wartime-like authorities against nationals from adversarial states. approved unprecedented funding in July 2025 for mass detention and operations via budget reconciliation, enabling arrests of approximately 485,000 additional aliens by . support for these measures is evident, with a Harvard/ from early 2025 showing 56% of registered voters favoring of all illegal aliens and 78% backing removal of criminal non-citizens. Internationally, has seen mixed progress, with European states facing similar repatriation hurdles amid EU-wide asylum surges, though bilateral deals like the UK's scheme (revived in 2024) aim to deter irregular entries by outsourcing processing. These U.S.-led escalations have prompted diplomatic pushback from origin countries, underscoring causal links between lax prior and current backlogs, while highlighting the need for enhanced intergovernmental cooperation to address root drivers like economic migration and weak border controls.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101
  2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alien
  3. https://epicenter.wcfia.harvard.edu/article/case-against-aliens
  4. https://www.ime.gr/chronos/05/en/society/metoikoi_intro.html
  5. https://digitalcommons.bucknell.edu/honors_theses/717/
  6. https://greekreporter.com/2025/07/19/ancient-greece-class-metics-overlooked/
  7. https://www.academia.edu/102070552/The_Peregrini_Romes_Provincial_Subjects
  8. https://www.pilgrimaps.com/being-a-pilgrim-in-ancient-rome-was-not-a-good-thing/
  9. https://www.cambridge.org/us/universitypress/subjects/law/legal-history/aliens-medieval-law-origins-modern-citizenship
  10. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/6/article/16383
  11. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01440365.2018.1434965
  12. https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/1608-Calvins-Case-77EngRep377.pdf
  13. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch10.asp
  14. https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/legislation/immigration-and-nationality-act
  15. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/immigration-act
  16. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/the-trump-administrations-registration-requirement-for-immigrants/
  17. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/alien-enemies-act-explained
  18. https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/our-history/explore-agency-history/overview-of-agency-history/post-war-years
  19. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/09/30/how-u-s-immigration-laws-and-rules-have-changed-through-history/
  20. https://cis.org/Historical-Overview-Immigration-Policy
  21. https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/our-history/explore-agency-history/overview-of-agency-history/late-twentieth-century
  22. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227
  23. https://thelawdictionary.org/alien/
  24. https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/9_12_2014.pdf
  25. https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility-categories
  26. https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/lawful-permanent-residents/immigrant-classes-admission
  27. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules
  28. https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing
  29. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/all-visa-categories.html
  30. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
  31. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851
  32. https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/determining-an-individuals-tax-residency-status
  33. https://www.unco.edu/payroll/pdfs-on-webpage-folder/forms/international_uploads_for_webiste/nra-ra-differences.pdf
  34. https://thelawdictionary.org/alien-friends/
  35. https://cekhukum.com/alien-friend-blacks-law-dictionary/
  36. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095402579
  37. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/331.1
  38. https://holocaustcentrenorth.org.uk/blog/enemy-aliens-the-british-interment-camps-on-the-isle-of-man/
  39. https://lawliberty.org/alien-enemies-alien-friends-and-the-concept-of-allegiance/
  40. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1442
  41. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-322/201393/20211129094533065_Johnson%2520and%2520Garland%2520CAC%2520Brief%2520-%2520FINAL.pdf
  42. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/removal-of-aliens-who-have-entered-the-united-states
  43. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/
  44. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/context/facpub/article/1302/viewcontent/cole_foreign_nationals.pdf
  45. https://freemovement.org.uk/what-is-the-law-on-the-deportation-of-non-eu-foreign-criminals-and-their-human-rights/
  46. https://righttoremain.org.uk/toolkit/humanrights/
  47. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e825
  48. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/noncitizensen.pdf
  49. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/HR-PUB-14-1_en.pdf
  50. https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/OHCHR-ILO%2520Fact%2520Sheet%2520Right%2520to%2520Social%2520Security%2520web.pdf
  51. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/welfare-benefits-for-non-citizens/
  52. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/content/immigrants-public-benefits-us
  53. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1611
  54. https://tracreports.org/tracker/dynadata/2012_10/RL34500.pdf
  55. https://www.albanylaw.edu/government-law-center/immigrants-and-public-benefits-what-must-states-and-localities-provide
  56. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-funds/public-funds-accessible
  57. https://www.nrpfnetwork.org.uk/information-and-resources/rights-and-entitlements/immigration-status-and-entitlements/who-has-no-recourse-to-public-funds
  58. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06847/SN06847.pdf
  59. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/unauthorised-migration-in-the-uk/
  60. https://visaenvoy.com/australian-social-welfare-payment-for-new-migrants/
  61. https://noborderslawgroup.com.au/articles/understanding-support-concession-and-healthcare-benefits-in-australia-key-legalities-for-migrants/
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1282570/
  63. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e744
  64. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1283&context=lalrev
  65. https://www.usa.gov/who-can-vote
  66. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedition-acts
  67. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1963&context=facpub
  68. https://www.nafsa.org/regulatory-information/alien-enemies-act-1798
  69. https://www.uscis.gov/alienregistration
  70. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF13003
  71. https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/nonresident-aliens
  72. https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/alien-taxation-certain-essential-concepts
  73. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324
  74. https://www.ice.gov/about-ice/ero
  75. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6361&context=mlr
  76. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
  77. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1226
  78. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=jclc
  79. https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_12_2014.pdf
  80. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e745
  81. https://www.usa.gov/deportation-process
  82. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/foia/Inadmissibillity_and_Waivers.pdf
  83. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/immigration/deportation-defense/grounds-for-deportation/
  84. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/expedited-removal/
  85. https://tracreports.org/immigration/reports/155/
  86. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1231
  87. https://www.womenslaw.org/laws/federal/statutes/ina-ss-101-8-usc-ss-1101-definitions
  88. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/about-immigration/due-process-and-courts/
  89. https://www.archives.gov/research/immigration/enemy-aliens/ww2
  90. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-6-2-3/ALDE_00013726/
  91. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/immigrants-rights
  92. https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/g-325r
  93. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/4-5/17/enacted
  94. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9790/
  95. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/citizenship-and-naturalisation-for-migrants-in-the-uk/
  96. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8062/
  97. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/illegal-migration-bill
  98. https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/index.html
  99. https://www.auspublaw.org/blog/2024/2/the-exclusion-of-aliens-under-federal-law-analysing-the-impact-of-nzyq-alexander-and-benbrika
  100. https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/public-sector-guidance-sheets/expulsion-aliens
  101. https://www.kptlegal.com.au/resources/knowledge/what-crimes-will-get-you-deported-from-australia/
  102. https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/communities/NTLawHbk/RemovalAndDeportation
  103. https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s202.html
  104. https://www.gotocourt.com.au/immigration/deportation/
  105. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2425/25bd031
  106. https://www.hrlc.org.au/case-summaries/2020-2-21-aboriginal-australians-cannot-be-deported-as-aliens-high-court-holds/
  107. https://cba.org/resources/practice-tools/the-cba-child-rights-toolkit/immigration-and-refugee-law/
  108. https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreborder-criminologies/blog/2014/04/non-citizens-and
  109. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/inadmissibility/reasons.html
  110. https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/reports-rapports/security-securite/removals-renvois-eng.html
  111. https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/page-7.html
  112. https://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/legal-policy/act-rules-regulations/Pages/index.aspx
  113. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art6.html
  114. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3529&context=vlr
  115. https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/iml_16.pdf
  116. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/news/france-law-adopted-control-immigration-improve-integration-2023-12-20_en
  117. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e711
  118. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3361656
  119. https://iifa-aifi.org/en/33097.html
  120. https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/3898406/39711_UBA002001633_07.pdf
  121. https://www.moi.gov.sa/wps/portal/Home/sectors/moidiwan/contents/%21ut/p/z1/jZFNb4MwDIb_Si6cYwgt7Jh1GtAhobRjZblE0ZrSTHwUSNv1349SddMm9cMn23nsvHqNOc4wr-RO59LoupJFX7_zsYDIdUPbdV58MnGBjmfMS-LABs_BiwGYBDR0vRjAj4MRRDRMZw-MEKAE83vm4UJQuHP-MsCvr5_LFk9vfdK7oD-bhlPMP-rKqC-Ds7LWaKn3srLgmK7rUqHhsTJIthYcGxa0Kt8Wg5kW6EaWEnWHzqgS7XR96ndIoI3qvTZadcMuMYDiBIpfUPxgYqlWclsY0YtfYP5XfvLERr38R2c-TV4hYPZ_AKj_DJSStzD0mJP4Z-DaEW_ZuCnTNNsfCOgo_waN0aIi/dz/d5/L0lHSkovd0RNQUprQUVnQSEhLzROVkUvZW4%21/
  122. https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/countries/middle-east/saudi-arabia
  123. https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/united-arab-emirates
  124. https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-report-on-international-religious-freedom/united-arab-emirates
  125. https://sauditimes.org/insights/society/saudi-arabia-tightens-the-rules-on-who-gets-to-stay/
  126. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3399&context=mulr
  127. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10382&context=mlr
  128. https://blogs.iadb.org/migracion/en/migration-policy-regimes-in-latin-america-and-the-caribbean/
  129. https://en.nia.gov.cn/n147418/n147458/c155978/content.html
  130. https://en.nia.gov.cn/n147418/n147458/c155970/content.html
  131. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10383441.2025.2477950
  132. https://www.mha.gov.in/en/divisionofmha/foreigners-division/acts-rules-and-regulations-pertaining-foreigners-division
  133. https://www.fragomen.com/insights/india-new-law-simplifies-immigration-law-and-creates-stricter-registration-and-reporting-rules.html
  134. https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-immigration-and-foreigners-bill-2025
  135. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-50670393
  136. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182&context=ijgls
  137. https://www.ahrlj.up.ac.za/alimohammadi-e-muller-g
  138. https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4017&context=til
  139. https://benoit-partners.com/alien-working-act-thailand/
  140. https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=ijil
  141. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/National-Report_Philippines_endorsed-31-Dec-2020.pdf
  142. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/general-admission-of-aliens-under-international-law/BA5FB08F7ADC9F5F6D417229180BFE81
  143. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e745?prd=MPIL
  144. https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_565.pdf
  145. https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_2_1963.pdf
  146. https://jusmundi.com/en/document/publication/en-minimum-standard-of-treatment-mst
  147. https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/parties_publications/C3765/Claimants%2527%2520Amended%2520Memorial/Legal%2520Authorities/CL-0013.PDF
  148. https://www.ciel.org/reports/international-law-on-investment-the-minimum-standard-of-treatment-november-2003-orellana-originally-presented-at-the-world-trade-organizations-5th-ministerial-in-august-2003-2/
  149. https://asadip.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/mst.pdf
  150. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-protection-rights-all-migrant-workers
  151. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2607&context=facsch_lawrev
  152. https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1910&context=faculty_publications
  153. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/4897681.pdf
  154. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
  155. https://hrlibrary.umn.edu/gencomm/hrcom15.htm
  156. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-5807
  157. https://academic.oup.com/book/4053/chapter/145730900
  158. https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2904&context=lawreview
  159. https://news.wttw.com/2021/11/26/some-states-dropping-dehumanizing-terms-immigrants
  160. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/terminology-migrants-refugees-illegal-undocumented-evolving
  161. https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Use_of_Illegal-Alien.pdf
  162. https://www.liberty.edu/champion/2021/03/opinion-language-changes-in-immigration-debate-are-attempts-to-change-the-narrative/
  163. https://www.nilc.org/articles/judge-ketanji-brown-jacksons-understanding-of-the-power-of-language-is-a-welcome-addition-to-the-supreme-court/
  164. https://www.jeelani-law.com/trump-administration-reintroduces-the-term-alien-in-immigration-policy-manual/
  165. https://www.cato.org/blog/illegal-alien-one-many-correct-legal-terms-illegal-immigrant
  166. https://www.aila.org/think-immigration-from-alien-to-noncitizen-the-subtle-power-of-language-in-u-s-appellate-courts
  167. https://sherloc.unodc.org/cld/en/education/tertiary/terrorism/module-3/key-issues/international-refugee-law.html
  168. https://www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/amicus/unhcr/2006/en/11743
  169. https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2342&context=blr
  170. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/17_0220_S1_Enforcement-of-the-Immigration-Laws-to-Serve-the-National-Interest.pdf
  171. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf
  172. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-lifts-temporary-block-on-trumps-use-of-alien-enemies-act-to-deport-immigrants-clears-path-to-further-challenges
  173. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf
  174. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/immigration-us-national-security-since-911
  175. https://www.dallasfed.org/~/media/documents/research/papers/2019/wp1905.pdf
  176. https://forumtogether.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Immigration-Is-Not-a-Security-Threat-3_4_2021.pdf
  177. https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2019-03/OIG-19-28-Mar19.pdf
  178. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1419&context=uclf
  179. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11023
  180. https://www.ice.gov/statistics
  181. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/09/23/new-milestone-over-2-million-illegal-aliens-out-united-states-less-250-days
  182. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/press-release/congress-approves-unprecedented-funding-mass-detention-deportation-2025/
  183. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-admin-on-pace-shatter-deportation-record-end-first-year-just-the-beginning
  184. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/10/08/polls-show-americans-overwhelmingly-support-president-trumps-mass-deportations
  185. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/trump-expedited-removal
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.