United States v. McCandless, M-242.
| Decision Date | 19 May 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. M-242.,M-242. |
| Citation | 40 F.2d 643 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. MURPHY v. McCANDLESS, Immigration Com'r. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Adrian Bonnelly, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Calvin S. Boyer, Acting U. S. Atty., of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
This case presents the difficulty often presented between the enforcement of immigration laws which voice a policy not only wise in itself but necessary to the well-being of our country, and the hardship which thereby presses upon the individual subject to the provisions of the law.
The relator is a young woman of Irish birth, in no way objectionable from the standpoint of an immigrant or a prospective citizen. There was, however, at least an irregularity in the mode and manner of her admission to the country. Had she made application in accordance with the requirements of the law, no obstacle to her admission here would have arisen, so far as now appears. Unfortunately she took another course. The relator's correct name is Maggie Agnes Murphy. She had a sister whose name was Delia. Transportation to this country had been provided for the sister through a steamship ticket being issued in her name. It was decided, for family reasons, that Delia should not emigrate, but her sister Maggie, the relator, should come to this country in her place and stead. Any one familiar with the Irish view of the family relation can readily understand why in this respect, innocently enough, the relator took her sister's place. At all events, she did so, impersonating the sister throughout. This was nearly five years ago. The consequence was that she was visited at the place at which she was at work and interrogated, making frank answers to the questions asked her. This was followed by her being taken before the immigration officials and an order of deportation was issued. On the eve of the execution of the order of deportation, the present writ was sued out.
A preliminary question is raised which may forestall a ruling on the merits of the final question. This preliminary question can most clearly be presented by a reference to the acts of Congress. An alien who has entered this country in defiance of the immigration laws is a proper subject of a deportation order. In the type of cases before us the provision of the act of Congress is that the alien "shall upon the warrant of the Secretary of Labor be taken into custody and deported." The regulations following the act recognize a "warrant of arrest" and an "Order of Deportation." The regulations in much detail prescribe the requirements of an application for a warrant of arrest and provide for a hearing. "Upon a telegraphic or written warrant of arrest the alien shall be taken before" the official designated, "and (be) granted a hearing to enable him to show cause" against deportation, and "at the beginning of the hearing under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Schlotfeldt
...the opposite contentions as made by the respective parties. The case most favorable, perhaps, to appellant is that of U. S. ex rel. Murphy v. McCandless, D.C., 40 F.2d 643 (affirmed 3 Cir., 47 F.2d 1072), wherein an immigrant assumed the name of her sister in securing a visa. The reason giv......
-
Clarke v. Landon
...in the decision by the Third Circuit in McCandless v. United States ex rel. Murphy, 47 F.2d 1072, reviewing United States ex rel. Murphy v. McCandless, D. C.E.D.Pa., 40 F.2d 643, Judge Major's distinction given at 94 F.2d at page 264, may seem to others As the above authorities indicate, it......