@book {320496,
	title = {The Cultural Defense of Nations: A Liberal Theory of Majority Rights},
	year = {2015},
	month = {2015},
	pages = {304},
	publisher = {Oxford University Press},
	organization = {Oxford University Press},
	edition = {1st},
	address = {Oxford},
	abstract = {The changing patterns of global immigration have initiated a new form of majority nationalism. In recent years, liberal democracies have introduced an increasing number of immigration and naturalization policies that are designed to defend the majority culture. This trend is fed by fears of immigration{\textemdash}some justified, some paranoid{\textemdash}which explain the rise of extreme right-wing parties in the West. Liberal theory and human rights law seem to be out of sync with these developments. While they recognize the rights of minority groups to maintain their cultural identity, it is typically assumed that majority groups have neither a need for similar rights nor a moral ground for defending them. The majority culture, so the argument goes, {\textquotedblleft}can take care of itself.{\textquotedblright} This book shifts the focus from the prevailing discussion of minority rights and, for the first time, directly addresses the cultural rights of majorities. The findings reveal a troubling trend in liberal democracies, which, ironically, in order to protect liberal values, violate the very same values. The book criticizes this state of affairs and presents a liberal theory of {\textquotedblleft}cultural defense{\textquotedblright} that distinguishes between justifiable and unjustifiable attempts by majorities to protect their cultural essentials. It formulates liberal standards by which liberal states can welcome immigrants without fundamentally changing their cultural heritage, forsaking their liberal traditions, or slipping into extreme nationalism.},
	url = {http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199668687.do},
	author = {Liav Orgad}
}
@article {321576,
	title = {Liberalism, Allegiance, and Obedience: Loyalty Oaths in A Liberal Democracy},
	journal = {Canadian Journal of Law \& Jurisprudence},
	volume = {17},
	number = {1},
	year = {2014},
	pages = {99-122},
	abstract = {The Article examines the wisdom of loyalty oaths as a legal institution in contemporary liberal democracies. First, using comparative analysis the Article highlights the growing global interest in loyalty oaths. Second, based upon historical evidence the Article explores the functions of loyalty oaths and assesses their role. Third, through using legal analysis the Article challenges the validity of loyalty oaths and identifies three fundamental concerns related to their content and form: the rule of law, freedom of conscience, and equality.
The Article reveals liberal concerns associated with the added value of the duty of "loyalty to the law" (allegiance), as distinct from the duty to "obey the law" (obedience). It presents an ongoing tension between loyalty and liberalism and argues that the more loyalty liberal democracies demand, the less liberal they become. The Article concludes that loyalty oaths yield high costs but have low benefits and suggests that liberal democracies\&nbsp;should abandon them as a legal institution.
},
	url = {http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online\&aid=9620108\&fileId=S084182090000624X},
	author = {Liav Orgad}
}
@conference {321656,
	title = {The Nation State and Immigration: The Age of Population Movements},
	year = {2014},
	pages = {240},
	publisher = {Sussex Academic Press},
	organization = {Sussex Academic Press},
	edition = {1st},
	address = {Eastbourne},
	abstract = {The Nation State and Immigration: The Age of Population Movements\&nbsp;is the third of a three-volume set which addresses key challenges facing the contemporary nation state from a global perspective but with special emphasis on the Middle East and Israel. This publication reflects research conducted under the auspices of The Israel Democracy Institute{\textquoteright}s {\textquotedblleft}Nation State Project{\textquotedblright}, which analyzes Israel{\textquoteright}s complex reality in which a Jewish majority contends with an Arab minority, ultra-Orthodox religious forces reject the authority of the nation state, and an immigrant society exhibits substantial cultural and ethnic variance.
Volume III explores the cultural, social, and political effects of immigration on the contemporary nation state {\textendash} its character, cohesion, and possible future, as well as on contemporary liberal democracy. Contributions deal with such issues as various liberal approaches to the issue of immigration and immigrant integration, nation-building narratives and their implications for immigrants and minorities, and citizenship tests and integration policy in the United States and in Europe, as well as Israel{\textquoteright}s Law of Return and the debate about it and other aspects of the country{\textquoteright}s immigration policy.},
	url = {http://www.sussex-academic.com/sa/titles/politics_ir/shapiraVol3.htm},
	editor = {Anita Shapira and Yedidia Stern and Alexander Yakobson and Liav Orgad}
}
@article {321586,
	title = {Ethnic Profiling in Airport Screening: Lessons from Israel, 1968-2010},
	journal = {American Law and Economics Review},
	volume = {14},
	number = {2},
	year = {2012},
	pages = {1-44},
	abstract = {
We interviewed a random sample of 918 passengers{\textemdash}308 Israeli Jews, 306 Palestinians who are Israeli citizens (Israeli Arabs), and 304 non-Israelis{\textemdash}post check-in, at Ben-Gurion Airport, in an effort to learn about the individual and social cost incurred by the Israeli Arabs going through the security process. The article discusses what we learned from the survey and draws some policy implications. This is the first time such a survey was administered.

},
	url = {http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/09/17/aler.ahs009.short?rss=1},
	author = {Badi Hasisi and Yoram Margalioth and Liav Orgad}
}
@article {321591,
	title = {The Preamble in Constitutional Interpretation},
	journal = {International Journal of Constitutional Law (I-CON)},
	volume = {8},
	number = {4},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {714-738},
	abstract = {
From Plato{\textquoteright}s Laws through common law and until modern legal systems, preambles to constitutions have played an important role in law and policy making. Through a qualitative analysis of the legal status of preambles in different common law and civil law countries, the article highlights a recent trend in comparative constitutional law: the growing use of preambles in constitutional adjudication and constitutional design. The article also explores the theory of preambles and their functions. It examines the legal status of the U.S. preamble and shows how the U.S. preamble remains the most neglected section in American constitutional theory. The article then presents a typology for determining the legal status of preambles: a symbolic preamble, an interpretive preamble, and a substantive preamble. While focusing on Macedonia, Israel, Australia, and the Treaty of Lisbon, the article discusses the sociological function of preambles in top-down and bottom-up constitutional designs.

},
	url = {http://icon.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/4/714.abstract},
	author = {Liav Orgad}
}
@article {323191,
	title = {The Citizenship Puzzle},
	journal = {American Journal of Comparative Law},
	volume = {59},
	number = {2},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {595-604},
	abstract = {The institution of citizenship has undergone far-reaching factual and normative changes. In two recent studies, Christian Joppke and Ayelet Shachar address complex and pressing problems underlying modern citizenship theory. Joppke and Shachar begin from different premises regarding immigration and citizenship. Joppke takes for granted the existing regime of birthright citizenship; his main focus is the relationship between immigration and citizenship, and the interrelation between the dimensions of citizenship. Shachar finds the option of becoming a citizen deficient, and underscores the need to rethink the whole concept of birthright citizenship and the role it plays in perpetuating global injustice. Joppke is more optimistic: he celebrates the triumph of liberalism. Shachar is pessimistic about the citizenship discourse {\textemdash} which, even if more liberal than in the past, is still flawed {\textemdash} yet optimistic about the potential of her ideas to bring about a better future. This review briefly examines each book and discusses the contribution of each to the contemporary, evolving debates on citizenship.
},
	url = {http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ascl/ajcl/2011/00000059/00000002/art00009},
	author = {Liav Orgad}
}
@article {321596,
	title = {Creating New Americans: The Essence of Americanism under the Citizenship Test},
	journal = {Houston Law Review},
	volume = {47},
	number = {5},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {1227-1297},
	abstract = {


An average of one million people receives U.S. naturalization annually. Understanding the nature of U.S. citizenship{\textemdash}or more particularly, the gatekeepers of U.S. citizenship{\textemdash}is thus crucial. One of these gatekeepers has recently been reconstructed following several years of redesign. In 2008, the U.S. government introduced a new citizenship test that professes to focus on the substantive understanding of fundamental concepts of U.S. history and civics rather than memorization of random trivia, as was tested by the old citizenship test.\&nbsp;



This Article is the first to analyze the normative aspects associated with the new U.S. citizenship test and seeks to challenge the test{\textquoteright}s purpose, subject matter, format, ideology, and justification. It opines that the test has failed to achieve the main goal of the redesign process: to create a more meaningful test. While the test creates {\textquotedblleft}summa cum laude immigrants{\textquotedblright} in U.S. history and civics, their understanding is still fleeting. It requires new Americans to memorize esoteric issues, such as\&nbsp;the location of the Statue of Liberty, while ignoring the understanding of important ideas, such as liberty and equal protection.



The manner new Americans are {\textquotedblleft}created{\textquotedblright} is a political decision. The choices made today are likely to influence society tomorrow. The citizenship test is a great platform to examine these choices. This Article calls for a complete reassessment of the concept of citizenship tests.\&nbsp;



\&nbsp;





},
	url = {http://www.houstonlawreview.org/2011/04/07/volume-47-number-5-spring-2011/},
	author = {Liav Orgad}
}
@report {321641,
	title = {Five Liberal Concerns about Citizenship Tests},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {21-24},
	institution = {European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies},
	address = {Florence},
	abstract = {


A significant number of {\textendash}mostly Western European{\textendash} countries have recently newly introduced citizenship tests or have added stricter requirements of civic knowledge to previously existing language tests. This working paper collects the contributions to a EUDO-CITIZENSHIP forum debate on whether such tests can be defended from a liberal perspective. The question: {\textquoteleft}How liberal are citizenship tests?{\textquoteright} can be interpreted in two ways: as a question whether applicants for naturalisation should be tested at all, or as a question about specific modes, contents and consequences of such tests that may make them either liberal or illiberal. In his kickoff contribution, Christian Joppke suggests an answer in line with the second interpretation by focusing on modes and contents. In his view, citizenship tests are defensible if applicants have reasonable opportunities to prepare for them and if questions are not inquisitive about individuals values and beliefs. Other authors claim instead that the most problematic feature of citizenship tests is the intention or effect of raising hurdles for naturalisation among long-term resident immigrants. Joseph Carens defends the view that {\textquoteleft}the most liberal citizenship test is none at all{\textquoteright}.


},
	url = {http://eudo-citizenship.eu/docs/RSCAS_2010_41.pdf},
	author = {Liav Orgad},
	editor = {Rainer Baub{\"o}ck and Christian Joppke}
}
@report {321646,
	title = {Managing Global Migration: A Strategy for Israeli Immigration Policy},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {108},
	institution = {The Metzilah Center},
	edition = {1st},
	address = {Jerusalem},
	abstract = {Immigration is one of the main topics on the agendas of Western democracies. Most countries have formulated systematic policies and made perceptible attempts to adjust their legislation to the changing reality.\&nbsp;Israel, which has found it difficult thus far to internalize the fact that it has ceased to be exclusively an "aliya country" and has become one that also attracts large-scale immigration, has yet to take the requisite actions. Its legislature has not given thought to the enormous changes that have unfolded in Israel and abroad since the early 1950s, when the Law of Return, the Citizenship Law, and the Entry into Israel Law - which regulate entry to, residence in, and the acquisition of citizenship in Israel - were passed.Today, Israel has neither a systematic immigration policy nor a policy toward immigrants. Absent a normative and structural infrastructure and absent adequate legislation, Israel is unprepared to cope with the political, social, security, and economic challenges that its immigrants bring in train.\&nbsp;In this Position Paper, the authors, for the first time in Israel, propose a strategy for thought and action ahead of the formulation of an immigration policy that promotes Israel{\textquoteright}s interests as a Jewish and democratic state.},
	url = {http://www.metzilah.org.il/861},
	author = {Shlomo Avineri and Liav Orgad and Amnon Rubinstein},
	editor = {Ruth Gavison}
}
@article {321601,
	title = {Illiberal Liberalism: Cultural Restrictions on Migration and Access to Citizenship in Europe},
	journal = {American Journal of Comparative Law},
	volume = {58},
	number = {1},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {53-105},
	abstract = {
This article addresses a simple but important and understudied question: Is culture a legitimate criterion for regulating migration and access to citizenship? While focusing on France, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Denmark, I describe how these states embrace illiberal migration policies which violate the same values they seek to protect. I then construct a two-stage set of immigration-regulation principles: In the first stage, immigrants would have to accept some structural liberal-democratic principles as a prerequisite for admission; these principles are not culturally-oriented but constitute a system of rules governing human behavior in liberal democracies. In the second stage, as part of the naturalization process, immigrants would have to recognize and respect some constitutional principles essential for obtaining citizenship of a specific state. I call this concept "National Constitutionalism." As the American debate on immigrant integration policy comes at a decisive moment, the European experience has some important lessons for U.S. policymakers.},
	url = {http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ascl/ajcl/2010/00000058/00000001/art00004},
	author = {Liav Orgad}
}
@article {321606,
	title = {Race, Religion and Nationality in Immigration Selection: 120 Years after the Chinese Exclusion Case},
	journal = {Constitutional Commentary},
	volume = {26},
	number = {2},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {101-153},
	abstract = {In May 1889, in the Chinese Exclusion Case, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that Congress has the power to exclude people of Chinese descent from U.S. territory. 120 years have since passed: is this case a relic from another era or still good law? In this article, the authors discuss the question whether race, religion and nationality still matter in the process of immigration selection. They demonstrate how official and central racial classifications remain in current immigration policy. The authors then consider a normative question: is the use of race, religion and nationality in immigration selection legally permitted? They analyze this question under the lens of three normative disciplines: constitutional law, international law and moral philosophy. They show that under each of these disciplines, some forms of race-based criteria are generally permitted in the process of immigrant selection. Focusing on protecting national security as a case study, the authors nevertheless challenge the use of racial immigration criteria based on utilitarian grounds. They show how the use of race in immigrant selection often lacks statistical correlation, is not cost-effective, and is likely to be over-inclusive and far in excess of its potential contribution due to cognitive biases and heuristic judgment. They conclude by suggesting four alternative methods for selecting immigrants: universal selection, positive selection, random selection and racial selection with just compensation.
},
	url = {http://www.law.umn.edu/constcom/v26n2.html},
	author = {Liav Orgad and Theodore Ruthizer}
}
@article {321616,
	title = {{\textquoteright}Cultural Defence{\textquoteright} of Nations: Cultural Citizenship in France, Germany, and the Netherlands},
	journal = {European Law Journal},
	volume = {15},
	number = {6},
	year = {2009},
	pages = {719-737},
	abstract = {This article presents a new development in European immigration policy. Focusing on France, Germany and the Netherlands, I describe a process of {\textquoteleft}culturalisation{\textquoteright} of admission and citizenship rules in Europe intended to reinforce liberal values and national identity. I then suggest a two-stage set of immigration-regulation principles: in the first stage, immigrants would have to accept some structural liberal-democratic principles as a prerequisite for admission. While Europe has criteria for state admission, anchored by the Copenhagen Criteria, Europe has not yet formalised definite criteria for immigrants{\textquoteright} admission. In the second stage, as part of the naturalisation process, immigrants would be expected to recognise and respect constitutional principles essential for obtaining citizenship of a specific state. I call this concept "National Constitutionalism."
},
	url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eulj.2009.15.issue-6/issuetoc},
	author = {Liav Orgad}
}
@article {321621,
	title = {Love and War: Family Migration in Time of National Emergency},
	journal = {Georgetown Immigration Law Journal},
	volume = {23},
	number = {1},
	year = {2008},
	pages = {85-127},
	abstract = {The 9/11 Commission found that several systems failed to detect and prevent the 9/11 attacks. A significant failure occurred in the implementation of immigration policies. The Commission reports that the INS failed to see the nexus between immigration policies and national security; it failed to understand that the presence of a terrorist in the country may, by itself, be a lethal weapon. The Commission found that for terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons.

This article seeks to map the subject of migration in times of war. It explores this issue through one type of migration - family-sponsored migration - as it reflects the interests of foreigners but also the rights of citizens and represents the most difficult clash arising between individuals seeking their happiness in mutual love and national interests. The main argument is that despite the strong case for individual rights, admission policies should be seen as an important counterterrorism measure. To this end, the nation can establish a {\textquoteright}Presumption of Dangerousness{\textquoteright} stating that every non-resident enemy alien - or every non-resident alien under the rule of states sponsoring terrorism - presents a security risk. But while the traditional laws of war as applied during the two World Wars banned any contact between enemy aliens in a categorical and collective manner - not only family migration but also trade, student exchanges and tourism - recent developments in international human rights law require mitigation of these outdated prohibitions. I therefore suggest sustaining the presumption of dangerousness yet enabling it to be rebutted in particular cases for the purpose of achieving individual justice.
},
	url = {http://articleworks.cadmus.com/geolaw/zs900109.html},
	author = {Liav Orgad}
}
