Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

passage of aliens in immediate and continuous transit

through the United States to foreign contiguous territory: Provided further, That skilled labor, if otherwise admissible, may be imported if labor of like kind unemployed can not be found in this country, and the question of the necessity of importing such skilled labor in any particular instance may be determined by the Secretary of Labor upon the application of any person interested, such application to be made before such importation, and such determination by the Secretary of Labor to be reached after a full hearing and an investigation into the facts of the case: Provided further, That the provisions of this law applicable to contract labor shall not be held to exclude professional actors, artists, lecturers, singers, nurses, ministers of any religious denomination, professors for colleges or seminaries, persons belonging to any recognized learned profession, or persons employed as domestic servants.''

See Zakonaite v. Wolf, 226 U. S. 272. For the sufficiency of a return that the petitioner was held under a decree of deportation as an alien prostitute, see Stretton v. Rudy, C. C. A., 176 Fed. 727.

Provided further, That whenever the President shall be satisfied that passports issued by any foreign Goyernment to its citizens or subjects to go to any country other than the United States, or to any insular possession of the United States or to the Canal Zone, are being used for the purpose of enabling the holder to come to the continental territory of the United States to the detri

ment of labor conditions therein, the President shall refuse to permit such citizens or subjects 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: Provided further, That aliens returning after a temporary absence to an unrelinquished United States domicile of seven consecutive years may be admitted in the discretion of the Secretary of Labor, and under such conditions as he may prescribe: Provided fur. ther, That nothing in the contractlabor or reading-test provisions of this act shall be construed to prevent, hinder, or restrict any alien exhibitor, or holder of concession or privilege for any fair or exposition authorized by act of Congress, from bringing into the United States, under contract, such otherwise admissible alien mechanics, artisans, agents, or other employees, natives of his country as may be necessary for installing or conducting his exhibit or for preparing for installing or conducting any business authorized or permitted under any concession or privilege which may have been or may be granted by any such fair or exposition in connection therewith, under such rules and regulations as the Commissioner General of Immigration, with the approval of the Secretary of Labor, may prescribe both, as to the admission and return of such persons. Provided further, That the Commissioner General of Immigration with the approval of the Secretary of Labor shall issue rules and prescribe eonditions, including exaction of such bonds as may be necessary, to control and regulate the admission and return of otherwise inadmissible aliens applying for temporary admission: Provided further, That nothing in this act shall be con. strued to apply to accredited officials of foreign Governments, nor to their suites, families, or guests.”

held to be constitutional. Such act deprived the court of the power to determine by the writ of habeas corpus, whether the Chinese immigrants belonged to one of the excluded classes. It was held by a divided court that the courts had then no power to determine, by the writ of habeas corpus, whether the Chinese excluded from admission was a citizen of the United States, and that the decision of administrative authorities upon the subject, when affirmed upon an appeal to the Secretary, was conclusive.4

The immigrant has a right to lave his appeal decided by the Secretary of Labor, and not by an Assistant Secretary, unless

2 U. S. v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, 49 L. ed. 1040; criticised Harv. L. Rev. xix, 61; Fok Yung Yo v. U. S., 185 U. S. 296, 46 L. ed. 917; Cf. Lee Gon Yung v. U. S., 185 U. S. 306, 46 L. ed. 921; Lee Lung v. Patterson, 186 U. S. 168, 46 L. ed. 1108; Zakonaite v. Wolf, 226 U. S. 272, 57 L. ed. 218; $ 12 of the Act of Sept. 13, 1888, 25 St. at L. 476, provided: “The collector shall in person decide all questions in dispute with regard to the right of any Chinese passenger to ter the United States, and his decision shall be subject to review by the Secretary of the Treasury, and not otherwise." This, if it ever became effective, seems to be no longer in force. See Act of April 27, 1904, ch. 1630, 85, 33 St. at L. 428, Comp. St. $ 4337, note, and note to $ 4306.

The removal of Chinamen, who are not within the classes subsequently de

scribed as subject to deportation by the order of the Secretary of Labor is after arrest upon a warrant issued by a United States Judge or Commissioner under a judgment subject to an appeal to a District Court of the United States. Act of Sept. 13, 1888, 25 St. at L. 476, $ 13, Comp. St. $ 4313. Act of April 27, 1904, ch. 1630, $ 5, 33 St. at. L. 428, Comp. St. $ 4337. The practice thereunder and upon such appeal is described infra $ 694.

3 U. S. v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, 49 L. ed. 1040; U. S. v. Wong Chow, C. C. A., 108 Fed. 376. Cf. Li Sing v. U. S., 180 U. S. 486, 45 L. ed. 634; Lem Moon Sing v. U. S., 158 U. S. 538, 39 L. ed. 1082; Re Way Tai, 96 Fed. 484; Re Ota, 96 Fed. 487; Re Lea, 126 Fed. 234; U. S. er rel. Turner v. Williams, 126 Fed. 253; U. S. v. Sing Tuck, 194 U. S. 161, 48 L. ed. 917. For the former rule see Ekiu v. U. S., 142 U. S. 651, 35 L. ed. 1146; Fong Yue Ting v. U, S., 149 U. S. 698, 37 L. ed. 905.

4 U. S. v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, 49 L. ed. 1040; criticised Harv. L. Rev., XIX, 61; Wong Sang v. U. S., C. C. A., 144 Fed. 968; affirming 143 Fed. 147.

en

of a

re

[ocr errors]

or

a

5 Ex parte Tsuie Shee, 218 Fed. to appeal before such removal. Any 256.

appeal filed more than 48 hours af.

ter the time of an excluding deci. Rule 17. APPEALS.

sion may be rejected by the immi“Subdivision 1. Informing alien gration officer in charge in his disas to right of appeal.- Where an cretion. appeal lies the alien shall be in- “Subd. 4. Where no appeal lies. formed of his right thereto, and -No appeal lies where the decision the fact that he has been so in

board of special inquiry, formed shall be entered in the min- based upon the certificate of the utes.

examining medical officer, as "Subd. 2. Appeals, how filed.- quired by section 17, rejects an An'alien desiring to appeal may do alien because . (a) he is afflicted $0 individually or through any so- with tuberculosis in any form or a

ciety admitted to an immigration loathsome contagious or dangerous station or through any relative or contagious disease, or (b) he is an friend or through any person, in idiot or an imbecile or an epileptic cluding attorneys, permitted to or is insane or feeble-minded, or practice before the immigration au- (c) he is afflicted with constituthorities. Where such an appeal tional psychopathic inferiority or has been taken any further appeal has any mental defect is shall be disregarded. Appeals pur- chronic alcoholic. porting to be filed on behalf of “Subd. 5. Where appeal lies dean alien, but without his knowledge spite certificate.—When an alien is or consent previously obtained, may certified for a physical defect other be ignored. A board member who *than tuberculosis in any form or dissents from a majority voté to a loathsome contagious or dangeradmit also may take an appeal. In ous contagious disease, the board such a case the alien shall be al

of special inquiry must decide, on lowed the same opportunity for the basis of all the evidence (inrepresentation as though the ap- cluding the certificate) whether or peal were his, but his brief or ar- not such certified defect may affect gument must be submitted at the his ability to earn a living. An same time that the board member's alien rejected on said ground is enappeal is forwarded to the bu- titled to appeal. reau. See Mah Shee v. White, C. «Subd. 6. Forwarding appeal C. A., 242 Fed, 868, 872.

record.—The complete appeal record "Subd. 3. Time for filing ap- shall be forwarded promptly to the peals.--Appeals must be filed bureau with the views in writing of promptly. The immigration officer the immigration officer in charge. in charge may refuse to accept an “Subd. 7. Bonds under section appeal filed after the alien has been 21.-- Where the landing of an alien removed from an immigration sta- under bond is authorized, unless tion for deportation, provided the different instructions are given, the alien had a reasonable opportunity bond shall be in the sum of $500,

such assistant is acting Secretary after the death, resignation, or during the absence or disability of the Secretary. A decision is none the less made by the Secretary when it is written and signed by the Assistant Secretary or the solicitor 7 of the department and approved by the Secretary.8 The Secretary is not concluded by his ruling and may reverse it. The signature of a preliminary warrant of arrest by the Assistant Secretary does not invalidate it. 10

re

and the alien shall not be released until it has been furnished and the immigration official in charge has satisfied himself of the responsibility of the sureties. If within a reasonable time after landing under bond is authorized a satisfactory bond is not furnished, instructions shall be requested of the bureau.

"Subd. '8. Cash deposits under section 21.-If the acceptance of a cash deposit is authorized, the deposit, unless different instructions are given, shall be in the form of a postal money order and in the sum of $500. A receipt for the deposit shall be issued by the officer in charge, showing the object for which the money has been accepted and the disposition to be made thereof. The money order shall be then transmitted to the department, by which it will be deposited in the postal savings bank at Washington, in such manner as to permit the interest accruing thereon to be paid semiannually and transmitted to the person making the cash deposit.

««Subd. 9. Reopening of cases.Whenever a case is referred back to a board by the bureau or the department in order that additional evidence may be taken, such case is thereby reopened; and after the new evidence has been taken the board shall render a new decision, in which it may in its discretion reaffirm, alter, or reverse its previous decision. The mere action of referring back a

case under such circumstances is not to be taken as an indication of any disapproval by the bureau or the department of the board's decision or of what the new decision should be.

“Subd. 10. Requests for reopening.Whenever, either before or after receipt of a decision from the bureau or the department affirming an excluding decision, the local immigration officials learn of new evidence of such relevancy and materiality as in their opinion to require that, in justice to the alien or the United States, it be considered by the board, they may stay deportation and request the bureau's permission to reopen the case, at the same time briefly stating the general nature of the new evidence. This usually should be done by letter. Whenever it is necessary to resort to a telegram, such telegram shall be in substantially the following form:

For the purpose of receiving new material evidence, recommend opening case of.. (Very briefly indicate character of new evidence.)

"The words ‘For the purpose of receiving new material evidence, recommend reopening case of' shall be represented by the code word “Renvoy.'

Thus it will be possible to phrase the telegram in a few words. Upon receipt of the bureau's permission to reopen, the board again acquires full control of the case as under subdivision 9 hereof.

"Subd. 11. Procedure in opened cases. The hearing in a case reopened before a board of special inquiry shall be of the same nature and be subject to the same conditions, limitations, and privileges as an original hearing before such body.

"Subd. 12. Detention expenses during extended time. The immi

re

Similar sections of the former statutes did not apply to citizens of the United States, 11 nor to aliens, not Chinese, who had been already admitted into the United States. 12

gration officer in charge may decline, in his discretion, to extend an alien's time to appeal or to delay deportation except on condition that there be deposited a sum of money sufficient to defray the cost of maintenance during the extension or delay granted.

"Subd. 13. Application for privilege of reapplying for admission. Aliens rejected or arrested and deported under any provision of the act who apply for admission within one year after such deportation are mandatorily excluded, unless prior to so applying, at either a seaport or a land border port, they shall have obtained the consent of the Secretary to their presenting themselves for examination. (Secs. 3 and 18.)

Application for this privilege always shall be submitted to the immigration official in charge at the port where the alien was previously rejected or the immigration official in charge of the district in which the alien was arrested for deportation, and shall be forwarded by such official to the bureau, accompanied by the record previously formulated, unless the bureau already, through warrant or appeal proceedings, has come into possession of such record. The telegraph

ing of such application shall be avoided as far as possible and, when granted, always shall be at the expense of the alien or those interested in him both as to the application (which should be prepaid), and telegraphic response from the department (which will be transmitted

collect'). Aliens rejected solely as 'accompanying aliens,' or de. ported solely on the ground of being "under 16 unaccompanied' may reapply for admission without securing permission in advance."

6 Ibid.

7 Tang Tun v. Edsell, 223 U. S. 673, 683, 56 L. ed. 606.

8 Chin Hing v. White, C. C. A., 234 Fed. 616.

9 U. S. ex rel. Tremaine v. Commissioner of Immigration, 209 Fed. 137.

10 Moy Wing Sun v. Prentis, C. C. A., 234 Fed. 24.

11 Act of March 3, 1903 ch. 1012, 32 St. at 1213; U. S. ex rel. Fischer v. Rodgers, 144 Fed. 711.

12 Redfern v. Halpert, C. C. A., 186 Fed. 150; Ex parte Koerner, 176 Fed. 478; Botis v. Davies, 173 Fed. 996. Contra, Prentis v. Di Giacomo, C. C. A., 192 Fed. 467; Prentis v. Stathakos, C. C. A., 192 Fed. 469.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »