“国会全权”原则是美国最高法院支持排华立法的理论基石。基于这一原则,在移民事务中,特别是在拒绝外国人入境、递解外国人出境的事项上,法院往往服膺于国会的意志,对其相关立法的合宪性一般不加置喙。该原则由最高法院创立于一系列排华判例,并一直持续至今。它在很大程度上使得外国人权利保障沦为了美国宪政的“化外之地”。将这一司法学说置于美国排华这一历史语境下进行检视具有现实意义。在一系列排华判例中,最高法院对国会排华权力的论证缺乏明确的宪法依据。更重要的是,最高法院忽视了这一权力的宪法界限:其一,国会的立法权存在固有的禁区;其二,这一权力应当受到缔约权与司法权的制约;其三,该权力的行使有必要顾及外国人基本权利的保障。 The principle of “parliamentary autonomy” is the theoretical cornerstone of the Supreme Court of the United States in supporting anti-Chinese legislation. Based on this principle, in immigration matters, especially in refusing the entry of foreigners and deporting foreigners, the courts tend to act in the will of Congress and generally ignore the constitutionality of their relevant legislation. This principle was founded by the Supreme Court in a series of Chinese anti-discrimination cases and has continued to this day. To a large extent, it has reduced the guarantee of the rights of foreigners to the “outsider” of the U.S. constitutional government. It is of practical significance to place this judicial doctrine under the historical context of the Chinese Exclusion. In a series of patriotic precedents, the Supreme Court’s argument on the exclusion of congressional rights lacks a clear constitutional basis. More importantly, the Supreme Court has ignored the constitutional boundaries of this power: First, the legislative power of the Congress has its own forbidden zone; second, this power should be subject to the power of contracting parties and the judiciary; thirdly, the power of The exercise of the protection necessary to take into account the basic rights of foreigners.