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 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.] 1 Congress has power, even in times of peace, to exclude aliens from 2 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.) 3 4 5 6 |