Jurisdiction is a central concept in the framing of the legal world but it has received short shrift in mainstream legal theory. This article examines the prevailing conceptual forms of jurisdiction in order to retrieve space for the political. The study of jurisdiction is also the study of the political community that it invokes and authorises. The first part of the article examines the three forms that jurisdiction takes in contemporary scholarship (territory, community, governance) to show that each form overlooks some implication of the political community that is tethered to jurisdiction. The second part of the article flips the inquiry to demonstrate the oversight of jurisdiction in theories of sovereign exception. The emergent understanding of jurisdiction as political provides an anchor for the study of jurisdiction going forward and highlights the potential role for jurisdictional arrangements in contemporary public law and constitutional law settings.

No abstract

Deportation is the expulsion of a non-citizen from the territory of a state by force or coercion. Largely because it is perceived to be a necessary extension of the state’s immigration power, deportation carries the same prerogative force, benefits from the same sweeping ambit of executive discretion and is subject to the same diminished scrutiny. Deportation is, however, a distinct legal phenomenon. Present on state territory, deportees are simultaneously subject to the state’s laws by virtue of their territorial presence and excluded from the state’s liberal democratic values of legality and fundamental rights by virtue of their status. Deportation practices create spaces inside the state where these values do not reach. As a ‘spectacular state power’ that acts inside the state, deportation bears a higher justificatory burden. The failure of states to adequately discharge this justificatory burden interrupts the integrity of legality on the inside and erodes their liberal democratic character.

The relationship between immigration and constitutional identity is simultaneously obvious and evasive. This Article explores that relationship through a comparative case study of Italy and Canada. It begins with a conceptual analysis of the role of immigration against the backdrop of collective identity, constitutional identity, and constitutional subjectivity. The metaphor of immigration as a mirror of constitutional identity orients this analysis. Then, an empirical comparison of the role of immigration in Italy and Canada demonstrates the very different place of immigration in national and constitutional narratives of "self" and "other." Yet, when the lens is widened to include their recent startup visa programs, their narratives start to converge as the new metonymy of innovation makes an appearance. This convergence marks a conceptual shift in constitutional identity: From immigration as mirror to immigration as display. As a tool of attraction for innovators, immigration law has both internal and external dimensions, which reverberate with implications for constitutional identity. Ultimately, the startup visa programs enlarge the constitutional "us" and make constitutional subjectivity more fluid.

No abstract