UNITED STATES
v.
WONG YOU
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Chinese nationals who entered the United States unlawfully were ordered deported by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor under the Immigration Act of 1907, but the Circuit Court of Appeals held they could only be removed under the earlier Chinese Exclusion Acts, which provided a different procedure. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the 1907 Immigration Act's broad language authorizing summary deportation of any alien entering unlawfully applies to Chinese laborers, and the existence of earlier Chinese exclusion laws did not tacitly except them from the general deportation provisions of the later statute.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the'court.
This is a writ of habeas corpus. It was dismissed by the District Court, 176 Fed. Rep. 933, but whs sustained, by the Circuit Court of Appeals, which ordered the parties concerned to be discharged from custody. 181 Fed. Rep. 313. 104 C. C. A. 535. The parties are Chinamen -who entered the United States'surreptitiously, in a manner prohibited by the immigration act of February 20, 1907, c. 1134, § 36, 34 Stat. 898, 908, and the rules made in pursuance of the same, if. applicable to Chinese. They were arrested in transitu and ordered by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor'to be deported. §§ 20, 21. But as it transpired in the evidence that they were laborers, the Circuit Court of Appeals held that they, could be dealt with only under the Chinese exclusion acts of earlier date. Those-acts make it unlawful for any Chinese laborer to come from any foreign pl3.ce into the United States, or, having so come, to remain there, and provide á different procedure for removing them. Hence it was concluded that such'persons were tacitly excepted from the general provisions of the immigration aét,.although broad enough to include them and although of later date. .
We are of opinion that the Circuit Court of Appeals made a mistaken use of its principles of interpretation. By,the language of the act any alien tha,t enters the country unlawfully may be summarily deported by order of the Secretary of. Commerce and Labor at any time within three years. It seems to us unwarranted to except the Chinese from this liability because there is an earlier more1 cumbrous proceeding which this partially overlaps. The existence of the earlier laws only indicates thé special solicitude of the Government to limit "the entrance of Chinese. It is the very reverse of a reason for denying to the Government a better remedy against them, alone of all the world, now that one has been, created in general terms. To allow the immigration act its literal effect does not repeal, alter, or amend the laws relating to the Chinese, as it is provided that it shall not, in § 43. The present act does not contain the clause found in the previous immigration act of March 3, 1893, 27 Stat. 569,, c, 206, that it phall not apply to Chinese persons, and, on the other hand, as it requires deportation to the'trans-Pacific ports from which such aliens embarked for the United States, § 35, it is rather hard to say that it has not the Chinese specially in mind.
Judgment reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
NG Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276 (U.S. 1922)…. S. 253; Tang Tun v. Edsell, 223 U. S. 673. But they were not in the position of persons stopped at the- border when seeking to enter this country. Nor are they in the position of persons who entered surreptitiously. See United States v. Wong You, 223 U. S. 67. They arrived at San Francisco, a regularly designated port of entry; were duly taken to the immigration station; and, after a protracted personal examination, supplemented by the hearing of witnesses and the examination of reports of immigration of…
-
Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U.S. 585 (U.S. 1913)
-
United States v. Woo Jan, 245 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1918)…provisions of the act the Chinese Exclusion laws are excepted. They, the latter, are to stand in their integrity and efficacy. But it is asserted that they are so left to- stand and that § 21 only gives another remedy, and United States v. Wong You, 223 U. S. 67, is cited. First as to the assertion, then as to the cited case. That we may estimate. both we insert in the margin the provisions of the Exclusion laws.1 The Government, [*556] confronted with those provisions, conceded at bar that the remedy of §…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence