McFarland v. United States
| Decision Date | 06 June 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 4731.,4731. |
| Citation | 19 F.2d 805 |
| Parties | McFARLAND v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
O. Guy Frick, of Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff in error.
David Polasky, of Detroit, Mich. (Delos G. Smith, U. S. Atty., of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for the United States.
Before DENISON and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges, and GORE, District Judge.
DENISON, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
In passing, we note a question as to the sufficiency of the indictment. The statute is unfortunately ambiguous in its use of the alternative. The offense is defined with reference to "any alien not duly admitted by an immigrant inspector or not lawfully entitled to enter or to reside within the United States under the terms of this act." Is it necessary, in making out the offense, that the alien should have both attributes, viz. should neither have been admitted nor be entitled to enter; or is it sufficient if the alien has either disqualification, viz. either has never been admitted or is not entitled to enter? Either construction falls back upon a doubtful intent; but we think the question not now necessarily to be decided, because, with either meaning, there is an insuperable difficulty in applying section 8 to the facts of this situation.
What John McFarland did was to aid and promote another's attempt unlawfully to pass the inspection line. Is this "to bring into or land in the United States"? From its context this language seems to refer to persons who are like the master of a vessel, although by the words "or otherwise" it reaches to other conveyances. The verbs in question are appropriate to a relatively active conduct which affects a relatively passive immigrant. They are appropriate to one who transports, and are distinctly inappropriate, although not necessarily inapplicable, to one who persuades or aids the immigrant to take himself by public conveyance up to the inspection line for examination, whether or not he gets through. Their unsuitability is emphasized by the complete association — to "bring into the United States" any alien not duly admitted by an immigrant inspector. Only by great stretch will this reach one who only helps, or, in a sense, "brings," an alien up to the inspector for admission.
An alien may get into the United States in either of two ways: He may come up to the established point of inspection and submit himself for examination, and for admission or rejection, or he may endeavor to avoid this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Aguilar
...States within the meaning of section 1324. Aguilar relies almost exclusively upon a 1927 Sixth Circuit decision, McFarland v. United States, 19 F.2d 805 (6th Cir.1927). Defendant in McFarland met with his son in Canada and provided him with another person's entry documents. The two then cro......
-
U.S. v. Aguilar
...States within the meaning of section 1324. Aguilar relies almost exclusively upon a 1927 Sixth Circuit decision. McFarland v. United States, 19 F.2d 805 (6th Cir.1927). Defendant in McFarland met with his son in Canada and provided him with another person's entry documents. The two then cro......
-
US v. Aslam, Magistrate No. 56990.
...in the physical ingress into the United States. United States v. Washington, 471 F.2d 402, 404 (5th Cir.1973); McFarland v. United States, 19 F.2d 805, 806 (6th Cir.1927); United States v. Anaya, 509 F.Supp. 289, 295 (S.D.Fla.1980) (en banc). The defendant need not have actually been presen......
-
United States v. Anaya
...basis for ž 1324(a)(1) prosecution, United States v. Harding, 432 F.2d 1218 (9th Cir. 1970) surreptitious entry and McFarland v. United States, 19 F.2d 805 (6th Cir. 1927). In McFarland, the Court held that the original and nearly identical version of ž 1324(a)(1) applied only to surreptiti......