Kaplan v. Tod
| Decision Date | 02 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 241,241 |
| Parties | KAPLAN v. TOD, Commissioner of Immigration |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. James Marshall and Elijah N. Zoline, both of New York City, for appellant.
Mr. Asst. Atty. Gen. Donovan, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition of the appellant for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition alleges that the petitioner is a citizen of the United States, and that she is unlawfully detained by the respondent under a warrant of deportation issued by the Assistant Secretary of Labor, without jurisdiction and without due process of law contrary to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. An appeal was taken directly to this Court on the alleged infringement of the appellant's constitutional rights. Chin Yow v. United States, 208 U. S. 8, 13, 28 S. Ct. 201, 52 L. Ed. 369; Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U. S. 276, 284, 42 S. Ct. 492, 66 L. Ed. 938.
The appellant was born in Russia. On July 20, 1914, being then about thirteen years old, she was brought to this country, where her father already was, by her mother. Upon examination she was certified to be feeble minded, and was ordered to be excluded, but before the order could be carried into effect the European war had begun. Deportation necessarily was suspended, and she was kept at Ellis Island until June, 1915. In the latter half of that month she was handed over to the Hebrew Sheltering and Immigrant Aid Society upon its undertaking to accept custody of the child until she could be deported safely, to return her when required, and meanwhile to prevent her becoming a public charge. The Society allowed her to live with her father, which she has done ever since. On December 14, 1920, her father was naturalized, she being then about nineteen. The warrant of deportation was issued on January 19, 1923; the writ of habeas corpus was allowed on April 24, and was dismissed on the following October 9.
It is not questioned that the appellant rightly was denied admission in July, 1914, or that she is feeble minded still. Act of March 26, 1910, c. 128; 36 Stat. 263. But it is said that she became a citizen by the naturalization of her father while she was a minor and in this country, Rev. St. § 2172 (Comp. St. § 4367) and that she cannot be deported upon a warrant issued more than five years after her entry into the United States. Act of February 5, 1917, c. 29, § 19, 39 Stat. 874, 889 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 42891/4 jj); Act of February 20, 1907, c. 1134, § 20; 34 Stat. 898, 904. The answers to both arguments are much the same. Naturalization of parents affects minor children only 'if dwelling in the United States.' Rev. St. § 2172. The appellant could not lawfully have landed in the United States in view of the express prohibition of the Act of 1910 just referred to, and until she legally landed 'could not have dwelt within the United States.' Zartarian v. Billings, 204 U. S. 170, 175, 27 S. Ct. 182, 184 (51 L. Ed. 428). Moreover while she was at Ellis Island she was to be regarded as stopped at the boundary line and kept there unless and until her right to enter should be declared. United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, 263, 25 S. Ct. 644, 49 L. Ed. 1040. When her prison bounds were enlarged by committing her to the custody of the Hebrew Society, the nature of her stay within the territory was not changed. She was still in theory of law at the boundary line and had gained no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of San Jose v. Trump, No. 20-CV-05167-RRC-LHK-EMC
...practice, and Supreme Court case law.Indeed, one case on which Defendants rely supports Plaintiffs’ position. In Kaplan v. Tod , 267 U.S. 228, 45 S.Ct. 257, 69 L.Ed. 585 (1925), the Supreme Court considered a child's immigration status. The child, Esther Kaplan, had been denied entry into t......
-
Petgrave v. Aleman
...Branch officers "enlarg[e]" an arriving noncitizen's detention "bounds" by paroling him into society. See Kaplan v. Tod , 267 U.S. 228, 257–58, 45 S.Ct. 257, 69 L.Ed. 585 (finding that the "nature of [a child's] stay within the territory was not changed" when the Government committed her to......
-
Aslanturk v. Hott
...present in the United States, he is characterized as stopped at the gates." Joshi , 720 F.2d at 803 (citing Kaplan v. Tod , 267 U.S. 228, 230, 45 S.Ct. 257, 69 L.Ed. 585 (1925) ). Petitioner's designation as an arriving alien who has been paroled pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 212(d)(5), and effect......
- Padilla v. Immigration & Customs Enf't, No. 19-35565
-
Chapter 24 - EXHIBIT 24C • USCIS GUIDANCE CONCERNING UNLAWFUL PRESENCE
...line and [has] gained no foothold in the United States." Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357 U.S. 185, 188-189 (1958), quoting Kaplan v. Tod, 267 U.S. 228 (1925). Parole may be granted on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons (humanitarian parole) or for significant public benefit. Se......
-
Due Process in Removal Proceedings After Thuraissigiam.
...to those who are "detained after arriving at a port of entry"--specifically, those "in respondent's position"). (88.) See Kaplan v. Tod, 267 U.S. 228, 229-30 (1925) (explaining that someone who was ordered deported, but whose deportation was delayed by the start of World War I, was "still i......
-
Can the Boat People Assert a Right to Remain in Asylum?
...note 22 supra. 102. An example of such a control point in the United States is an immigration center like Ellis Island. See Kaplan v. Tod, 267 U.S. 228, 230 (1925). 103. See Comment, Refugee-Parolee: The Dilemma of the Indochina Refugee, 13 San Diego L. Rev. 175, 182-83 (1975). 104. Whether......
-
Eli J. Kay-oliphant, Considering Race in American Immigration Jurisprudence
...without a hearing). 54 See Motomura, supra note 11, at 1634-37. 55 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001) (citing Kaplan v. Tod, 267 U.S. 228, 230 (1925)). Interestingly, this distinction shows recently to play more of a limited importance. See Clark v. Martinez, 125 S. Ct. 716 (2005) ......