Thus, invocation of the political questions doctrine, or other doctrines of judicial self-restraint, are not necessarily legitimate. Neuman gives a compelling constitutional argument as to why judges should be more active in overseeing immigration policies, but he does not adequately account for the fact that some doctrines of judicial restraint are also related to the international position of the United States. That is, federal judges in particular are generally loath to interfere with the foreign affairs powers of the executive branch, and have developed restraint-oriented principles that reflect that. Indeed, for Neuman, the international dimension does not really matter. For instance, state sovereignty as defined by international law accords broad discretion to a state's treatment of its nationals and territory.
Sovereignty also serves to justify restrictive immigration policies in nations in the world system.
State practice indicates otherwise, and often the practice of states is the most important factor in international law. I am unable to cover all of Neuman's arguments in Strangers to the Constitution. In all, I found the book interesting and thought provoking, and it does offer a new approach to the issues of immigration law and policy. Neuman's historical research demonstrates that immigration policy in the United States has always been in a state of flux, and often the federal judiciary has served to clarify and complicate the matter. Professor Neuman's arguments are worthwhile, and certainly contribute to the dialogue over immigration law and policy.