Cheung Sum Shee v. Nagle
| Decision Date | 25 May 1925 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 769 and 770,s. 769 and 770 |
| Citation | 268 U.S. 336,45 S.Ct. 539,69 L.Ed. 985 |
| Parties | CHEUNG SUM SHEE et al. v. NAGLE, Com'r of Immigration for Port of San Francisco |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. George A. McGowan, of San Francisco, Cal., Frederic D. McKenney, of Washington, D. C., and John L. McNab, of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner Cheung Sum Shee.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Donovan, for Commissioner.
Roger O'Donnell and W. J. Peters, both of Washington, D. C., amici curiae.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 337-343 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Henry W. Taft, of New York City, A. Warner Parker, of Washington, D. C., John J. Sullivan, of New York City, and
Petitioners are alien wives and minor children of resident Chinese merchants lawfully domiciled within the United States. They departed from China on the steamship President Lincoln, and upon arrival at San Francisco, July 11, 1924, sought permanent admission to the United States. The Secretary of Labor denied their applications and gave the following reasons therefor:
'Neither the mercantile status of the husband and father, nor the applicant's relationship to him, has been investigated for the reason that even if it were conceded that both these elements exist the applicants would be inadmissible as a matter of law. This is made necessary because of the inhibition against their coming to the United States as found in paragraph (c) of section 13 and that portion of section 5 which reads as follows: 'An alien who is not particularly specified in this act as a nonquota immigrant or a nonimmigrant shall not be admitted as a nonquota immigrant or a nonimmigrant by reason of relationship to any individual who is so specified or by reason of being excepted from the operation of any other law regulating or forbidding immigration."
The court below has inquired, Judicial Code, § 239 (Comp. St. § 1216):
'Are the alien Chinese wives and minor children of Chinese merchants who were lawfully domiciled within the United States prior to July 1, 1924, such wives and minor children now applying for admission, mandatorily excluded from the United States under the provisions of the Immigration Act of 1924?'
Prior to July 1, 1924, petitioners, if otherwise unobjectionable, might have been admitted notwithstanding their race and nationality. United States v. Mrs. Gue Lim, 176 U. S. 459, 466, 468, 20 S. Ct. 415, 44 L. Ed. 544; Yee Won v. White, 256 U. S. 399, 400, 401, 41 S. Ct. 504, 65 L. Ed. 1012. But it is said they are absolutely excluded by the approved May 26, 1924, c. 190, 43 Stat. 153, applicable provisions of which follow:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of London, England
...inconsistent state enactments. See Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, 1 L. Ed. 568; Jordan v. Tashiro, supra, cf. Cheung Sum Shee v. Nagle, 268 U. S. 336, 45 S. Ct. 539, 69 L. Ed. 985. When their meaning is uncertain, recourse may be had to the negotiations and diplomatic correspondence of the co......
-
Hempel v. Weedin
...459, 20 S. Ct. 415, 44 L. Ed. 544; Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U. S. 536, 5 S. Ct. 255, 28 L. Ed. 770; Cheung Sum Shee v. Nagle, 268 U. S. 336, 45 S. Ct. 539, 69 L. Ed. 985. See, also, Powers v. Comly, 101 U. S. 789, 25 L. Ed. 805, and in the matter of Lum Poi and Ng Shee (No. 12058) 2......
-
Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Limited, of London
...must prevail over inconsistent state enactments. See Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199; Jordan v. Tashiro, supra; cf. Cheung Sum Shee v. Nagle, 268 U.S. 336. When their meaning is uncertain, recourse may be had to the negotiations and diplomatic correspondence of the contracting parties relating ......
-
Gosschalk v. Gosschalk
...in business here pursuant to the Treaty of 1880 were referred to as 'domiciled' in this country. (Cheung Sum Shee v. Nagle, supra, 268 U.S. 336, at page 344, 45 S.Ct. 539, 69 L.Ed. 985; United States v. Mrs. Gue Lim, 1900, 176 U.S. 459, 20 S.Ct. 415, 44 L.Ed. 544; Lau Ow Bew v. United State......
-
Mendellín v. Dretke and Mendellín v. Texas: International Law Can't Mess with Texas
...1232 (11th Cir. 1986); Gengler , 510 F.2d at 67. 254 See, e.g. , Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 187, 193 (1961); Cheung Sum Shee v. Nagle, 268 U.S. 336, 346 (1925); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 340–44 (1924); Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U.S. 483, 486 (1879); Chirac v. Lessee of Chi......
-
First Impressions and Last Resorts: the Plenary Power Doctrine, the Convention Against Torture, and Credibility Determinations in Removal Proceedings
...access to an essential element of each alien's case). 113. Bridges, 326 U.S. at 154.114. Id. at 156-57; see also Cheung Sum Shee v. Nagle, 268 U.S. 336, 345-46 (1925) (employing a liberal construction of the Immigration Act of 1924 with the aim of "preserving] treaty rights unless clearly a......