United States v. Magie

• Decision Date: 13 March 1931
• Citation: 47 F.2d 768
• Parties: UNITED STATES ex rel. LEHTOLA v. MAGIE, County Sheriff, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

47 F.2d 768 (1931)

UNITED STATES ex rel. LEHTOLA v. MAGIE, County Sheriff, et al.

District Court, D. Minnesota, Fifth Division.

March 13, 1931.

John F. Maki, of Duluth, Minn., for petitioner.

George Heisey, Asst. U. S. Atty., of St. Paul, Minn., for the United States.

MOLYNEAUX, District Judge.

The petitioner is here upon a writ of habeas corpus issued out of this court. He is held upon a warrant issued by the Assistant Secretary of Labor for deportation upon the charge that he is an alien found in the United States in violation of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, to wit, that he was a person likely to become a public charge at the time of his entry.

Section 19, chapter 29, Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, § 155, title 8 of the USCA, provides as follows: "At any time within five years after entry, any alien who at the time of entry was a member of one or more of the classes excluded by law; * * * shall, upon the warrant of the Secretary of Labor, be taken into custody and deported."

Section 3, chapter 29, Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, section 136, title 8 USCA, provides as follows: "The following classes of aliens shall be excluded from admission into the United States * * * (i) Persons likely to become a public charge."

The facts as disclosed upon the hearing under the warrant of deportation before the Assistant Secretary of Labor show that the petitioner is a citizen of Finland who came to the United States in the year 1919 when he was 15 years old and that he is 26 years old at the present time. He came to this country to live with his father who then lived on a farm near Two Harbors, Minn.; for the first three years after coming to this country from Finland, the petitioner lived with his father and attended public school for three winters; he then obtained a job as a common laborer and worked for three months for the City of Two Harbors; from that time on to the present time he has worked pretty steadily, following the vocation of a sailor upon American boats plying the Great Lakes, during the boat season and working during the winters in the logging camps. When on the boats, he worked decking, coal passing, and portering, always on American boats. On the American Boat William H. Wolf in September, 1929, he made the port Midland, Ontario, and remained with the boat in that port three days. The boat was loading grain there at the time. He went ashore and remained in Canada a couple of hours, returning to the boat, and returned to Allouze, Superior, Wis., and re-entered the United States September 7, 1929.

It appears from the evidence that the petitioner was somewhat addicted to the use of intoxicating liquor and was arrested eight or nine times, each time on a liquor charge, in Duluth and West Superior, within the last five years. It appears, however, that he did earn his own living, working as before related. It appears from the evidence taken at the hearing that the petitioner was convicted in the municipal court of the city of Duluth as follows: April 12, 1925, for drunkenness, committed to St. Louis County Work Farm for twenty days; July 12, 1926, for drunkenness, committed to the St. Louis County Work Farm for twenty days; December 20, 1926, for drunkenness, suspended sentence; March 13, 1927, drunkenness, committed to St. Louis County Work Farm for twenty days; August 22, 1927, drunkenness, committed to St. Louis County Work Farm for twenty days; January 20, 1930, drunkenness, committed to St. Louis County Work Farm for twenty days.

He was also convicted in the United States District Court in and for the District of Minnesota, on February 11, 1930, for a liquor nuisance and was committed to the St. Louis County Work Farm for twelve months; also he was convicted on January 5, 1931, for drunkenness, in the municipal court of the city of Duluth, Minn., and sentenced to serve twenty days in the St. Louis County Work Farm.

The government depends upon the convictions and commitments of April 12, 1925, July 12, 1926, December 20, 1926, March 13, 1927, and August 22, 1927, to establish the charge that the petitioner was a person likely to become a public charge at the time of his re-entry into the United States, all of said convictions last above mentioned having taken place prior to his re-entry into the United States September 7, 1929. The subsequent convictions were admitted in evidence at the hearing, on the theory that they constituted corroborative evidence.

The position of the government is: (1) That the landing in Canada, as before related, and the return to the United States, constituted a re-entry into the United States; and (2) that the convictions aforesaid established the charge that the petitioner was a person likely to become a public charge at the time of his re-entry into the United States.

As to the first proposition, the Circuit Court of Appeals of this circuit in the case of U. S. ex rel. Medich v. Burmaster, 24 F.(2d) 57, supports the contention of the government.

In that case the alien entered the United States in 1913 and became engaged in a taxicab...