One of Albany Law School’s notable former students, Robert H. Jackson, served as the Chief Prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials, as the United States Solicitor General, as the United States Attorney General and eventually as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (the only person in history to hold all three offices!!).  The following is an excerpt of particular contemporary relevance from Justice Jackson’s compelling dissent in the Korematsu v. United States (1944) Supreme Court decision (which infamously upheld the interment of American citizens of Japanese descent during WW II):

• [Fred] Korematsu was born on our soil, of parents born in Japan. The Constitution makes him a citizen of the United States by nativity and a citizen of California by residence. No claim is made that he is not loyal to this country. There is no suggestion that apart from the matter involved here he is not law abiding and well disposed. Korematsu, however, has been convicted of an act not commonly a crime. It consists merely of being present in the state whereof he is a citizen, near the place where he was born, and where all his life he has lived. A citizen’s presence in this locality, however, was made a crime only if his parents were of Japanese birth. Had Korematsu been one of four – the others being, say, a German alien enemy, an Italian alien enemy, and a citizen of American-born ancestors, convicted of treason, but on parole – only Korematsu’s presence would have violated the order. The difference between their innocence and his crime would result, not from anything he did, said, or thought, different than they, but only in that he was born of different racial stock. Now, if any fundamental assumption underlies our system, it is that guilt is personal and not inheritable. Even if all of one’s antecedents had been convicted of treason, the Constitution forbids its penalties to be visited upon him. But here is an attempt to make an otherwise innocent act a crime merely because this prisoner is the son of parents as to whom he had no choice, and belongs to a race from which there is no way to resign. If Congress in peace-time legislation should enact such a criminal law, I should suppose this Court would refuse to enforce it. Id. at 242-45. #tbt

By:  Christian Sundquist

In my recently published op-ed, entitled Despite Dark History of Exclusion, Laws Demand U.S. Accepts Refugees,” I argue that reactionary calls by the majority of US state governors and other politicians to refuse admission to Syrian refugees violates both domestic (statutory and constitutional) and international law.  For more details concerning my argument, please see: http://www.albanylaw.edu/about/news/current/Pages/Op-Ed-Despite-Dark-History-of-Exclusion%2c-Laws-Demand-U-S-Accepts-Refugees.aspx