DIGEST OF IMMIGRATION DECISIONS. INTRODUCTORY. The decisions embodied in this digest of immigration decisions are confined chiefly to those rendered on appeal by courts of final jurisdiction. Originating in the administration of both State and Federal laws, in most instances, the cases have been appealed to the highest courts accessible for the purpose of either testing the laws or obtaining justice. Many cases arising in the State courts were transferred to Federal jurisdiction or appealed to the Federal Supreme Court for final adjudication. As a result the important questions. with which immigration officers contend have received the interpretation either of State supreme courts or United States district courts reenforced by that of the United States circuit courts of appeal or the United States Supreme Court. The general principles of law underlying the statutes, rules, and regulations applied to aliens are fairly well settled. The cardinal principles of law involved in the cases adjudicated and also the appropriate methods of application are reduced to a brief and simple statement in the digest. For facility in investigation and for practical utility in application the decisions are grouped under general titles and, further, indexed under the various cases." The general titles are as follows: Constitutional power of government to regulate residence of aliens within the United States and to remove aliens from the United States. Status of exclusion treaties and laws. Evidence. Procedure. "See pp. 317 to 333. 149 CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE RESIDENCE OF ALIENS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND TO REMOVE ALIENS FROM THE UNITED STATES. [U. S., 1893.] The right of a nation to expel or deport foreigners who have not been naturalized or taken any steps toward becoming citizens of the country rests upon the same grounds, and is as absolute and unqualified, as the right to prohibit and prevent their entrance into the country.-(Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S., 698; 13 Sup. Ct., 1016; 37 L. Ed., 905. Wong Quan v. Same, Id. Lee Joe v. Same, Id.) [U. S., 1889.] Congress has power, even in times of peace, to exclude aliens from or prevent their return to the United States for any reason it may deem sufficient.-(Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U. S., 581; 9 Sup. Ct., 623; 32 L. Ed., 1068.) [U. S., 1893.] The political department of the Federal Government, through the constitutional grant to it of control over international relations, has authority to expel aliens who have taken no steps to become citizens, even though they are subjects of a friendly power, and have acquired a domicile in this country.-(Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S., 698; 13 Sup. Ct., 1016; 37 L. Ed., 905. Wong Quan v. Same, Id. Lee Joe v. Same, Id.) Chinese laborers residing in the United States are entitled, like all other aliens, so long as they are permitted by the Government to remain in the country, to all the safeguards of the Constitution, and to the protection of the laws in regard to their rights of person and of property, and to their civil and criminal responsibility; but, as they have taken no steps to become citizens, and are incapable of becoming such under the naturalization laws, they remain subject to the powers of Congress to order their expulsion or deportation whenever, in its judgment, such a measure is necessary or expedient for the public interest.-(Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S., 698; 13 Sup. Ct., 1016; 37 L. Ed., 905. Wong Quan v. Same, Id. Lee Joe v. Same, Id.) Congress, having constitutional power to exclude alien-contract laborers, also had power to impose a penalty upon persons who assist in their introduction.-(Lees v. United States, 150 U. S., 476; 14 Sup. Ct., 163; 37 L. Ed., 1150.) [U. S., 1874.] A State, in the exercise of its police power, may exclude foreigners when convicts, lepers, etc., but can not discriminate against the citizens of a foreign treaty power as a class.-(In re Ah Fong, Fed. Cas. No. 102, 3 Sawy., 144.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 [U. S. Sup., N. Y., 1904.] The enactment of provisions of immigration act, March 3, 1903, ch. 1012, 32 Stat., 1213 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1903, pp. 172-180), for the exclusion and deportation of alien anarchists, does not violate either Constitution of United States, Article III, section 1, or amendments 5 and 6. Order (C. C. 1903) 126 F., 253, affirmed.—(United States v. Williams, 194 U. S., 279; 24 Sup. Ct., 719; 48 L. Ed., 979.) [U. S. D. C., N. Y., 1908.] 2 An alien acquires no rights by a domicile in the country which will relieve her of the effect of a decision of the Department of Commerce and Labor ordering her deportation.-(Ex parte Crawford, 165 F., 830.) 3 4 5 6 [U. S. D. C., Oreg., 1907.] The right to exclude or expel aliens from the territory of the United States is vested in the political department of the Government and is a right with which the judicial department can have nothing to do except as authorized by treaty or act of Congress.-(United States v. Ngum Lun May, 153 F., 209.) [U. S. Sup., N. Y., 1904.] Congress did not exceed its delegated powers by enacting the provisions of immigration act March 3, 1903, ch. 1012, sec. 2, 32 Stat., 1213 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1903, pp. 172-180), for the exclusion or deportation of alien anarchists. Order (C. C. 1903) 126 F., 253, affirmed. (United States v. Williams, 24 Sup. Ct., 719; 194 U.S.,279; 48 L. Ed., 979.) The conclusion of the immigration inspectors, approved by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, that an alien came within the provisions of immigration act, March 3, 1903, ch. 1012, sec. 2, 32 Stat., 1213 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1903, pp. 172-180), for the exclusion and deportation of alien anarchists, can not be said, as a matter of law, to be wholly unsupported by the evidence, even though such act be so construed as to include only advocates of the forcible overthrow of the Federal Government or of all governments, or of the assassination of officials, where there was evidence that such alien advocated "as an anarchist" a universal strike, and proposed to lecture upon "the legal murder of 1887," and to address mass meetings on that subject, in association with a person who had been convicted of advocating revolution and murder. Order (C. C. 1903) 126 F., 253, affirmed. (United States v. Williams, 24 Sup. Ct., 719; 194 U.S., 279; 48 L. Ed., 979.) [U. S. D. C., Oreg., 1907.] Immigration act February 20, 1907, ch. 1134, sec. 1, 34 Stat., 898 (U. S. Comp. St. Sup. 1907, p. 389), provides That whenever the President shall be satisfied that passports issued by any foreign government to its citizens to go to any country other than the United States or to any insular possessions of the United States or to the Canal Zone, are being used for the purpose of enabling the holders to come to the continental territory of the United States to the detriment of the labor conditions therein, the President may refuse to permit such citizens of the country issuing such passports to enter the continental territory of the United States from such other country or from such insular possession or from the Canal Zone. |