Ex parte Hamaguchi
Decision Date | 06 April 1908 |
Docket Number | 3,260. |
Citation | 161 F. 185 |
Parties | Ex parte HAMAGUCHI. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Veazie & Veazie, for petitioner.
W. C Bristol, U.S. Atty., for Inspector Barbour.
The principal insistence of counsel for petitioner against deportation is: That 'petitioner is held and sentenced on the charge of entering the United States without inspection'; that 'the law contains no provisions against entering the United States at a border point without inspection'; and that
Counsel are, I think, proceeding upon a mistaken premise, in that they base their defense upon the assumption that the petitioner is being held solely because he entered the United States without inspection. On the contrary, he is being held for deportation by reason of his being in the United States unlawfully. But of this later.
It is essential that reference be made to some provisions of the law, and to certain rules and regulations of the Department of Commerce and Labor adopted with a view to making the law effective. By section 1 of the immigration act of Congress of February 20, 1907 (chapter 1134, 34 Stat. 898 (U.S. Comp. St Supp. 1907, p. 389)), a tax of $4 is imposed upon every alien entering the United States, and adequate provisions are made for its collection. It is further provided, however, as follows:
'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 possession 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 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 possessions or from the Canal Zone.'
By sections 12, 13, 14, and 16 provision is made requiring manifests, a listing, examination by health officers, and due inspection at the port of arrival, of all aliens entering the United States by water transportation. Section 20 provides:
By executive order issued March 14, 1907, in pursuance of the authority extended to the President, it is directed that Japanese and Korean laborers, skilled and unskilled, who have received passports to go to Mexico, Canada, or Hawaii, and come therefrom, shall be refused permission to enter the continental territory of the United States; and the Secretary of Commerce and Labor is authorized to take such measures, and to make and enforce such rules and regulations, as shall be found necessary to carry the order into effect. Immigration regulations were adopted July 1, 1907. Rule 1 relates to the collection of the head tax, and provides, among other things, that:
'The head tax payable on account of aliens entering the United States from foreign contiguous territory shall be levied and collected * * * at Canadian border ports according to the terms of an agreement between the Commissioner-General of Immigration and certain transportation companies, embodied in rules 24 and 25 hereof.'
Rule 24 provides that:
'In accordance with section 36, the following are named as Canadian border ports of entry for aliens; and any alien who enters the United States across such border at any other point shall be deemed to have entered the country unlawfully, and shall be arrested and deported under sections 20, 21, and 35 of said act, in the manner provided by rule 34'-- among which ports is designated Blaine, Wash.
And rule 25 that:
Sections 20 and 21 of the immigration act clearly authorize deportation of any alien who shall enter or be found in the United States in violation of law or of said act. The act, it will be seen, itself specifically provides for inspection at water ports of entry; but, as it relates to border ports, it authorizes the Commissioner-General of Immigration to prescribe rules for both entry and inspection, and also to enter into contracts with transportation lines for such purpose. In pursuance of this authority, rules 24 and 25 were adopted, by the former of which Blaine, Wash., is designated as a border port of entry from Canada. By the latter, if an alien arrives in Canada whose destination is the United States, inspection is required to be had at certain ports in Canada, and, if the applicant is entitled to admission into the United States, he receives a certificate from the United States Commissioner of Immigration for Canada, which he is required to present at the border port, and upon doing so his lawful entry may be effected without further identification or examination. But if the alien was destined to Canada, and applies at a border port for admission to the United States, he is required to submit to inspection by a board of special inquiry located at one of certain designated ports, among which Blaine, Wash., is specified. So that such an alien entering by way of Blaine, Wash., would very naturally apply at that particular port for inspection.
The applicant either came to Canada destined to the United States, or he came destined to Canada. If destined to the United States, he should have applied for inspection at one of the ports...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Guiney v. Bonham
... ... 628, 128 C.C.A. 560; United ... States v. Williams, 200 F. 538, 118 C.C.A. 632; ... Healy v. Backus, 221 F. 358, 137 C.C.A. 166; Ex ... parte Hamaguchi (C.C.) 161 F. 185; Siniscalchi v ... Thomas, 195 F. 701, 115 C.C.A. 501; Toy Tong v ... United States, 146 F. 343, 76 C.C.A. 621 ... ...
-
Ong Seen v. Burnett
...Nishimura Ekiu v. U.S., 142 U.S. 651, 12 Sup.Ct. 336, 35 L.Ed. 1146; Toy Tong v. United States, 146 F. 343, 76 C.C.A. 621; Ex parte Hamaguchi (C.C.) 161 F. 185; Siniscalchi Thomas, 195 F. 701, 115 C.C.A. 501; United States v. Uhl, 211 F. 628, 128 C.C.A. 560; United States v. Williams, 200 F......
-
Singh v. United States
...in itself, irrespective of other considerations, to justify the order of deportation. Ex parte Li Dick (C.C.) 176 F. 998; Ex parte Hamaguchi (C.C.) 161 F. 185; Williams v. United States, 186 F. 479, 108 457; Ex parte Greaves (D.C.) 222 F. 157. But it is contended that the writ should have b......
-
Raftery v. Tillinghast
...282, 68 L. Ed. 591; United States ex rel. Bauder v. Uhl (C. C. A.) 211 F. 628; Siniscalchi v. Thomas (C. C. A.) 195 F. 701; Ex parte Hamaguchi (C. C.) 161 F. 185. The propriety of a deportation order is determined solely by the findings on which it is based. United States ex rel. Iorio v. D......