Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/92899/united-states-vs-woo-jan
Timestamp: 2018-02-20 06:12:44
Document Index: 480177731

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 43']

United States Vs Woo Jan - Citation 92899 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
United States Vs. Woo Jan - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/92899
Case Number 245 U.S. 552
Respondent Woo Jan
united states v. woo jan - 245 u.s. 552 (1918) u.s. supreme court united states v. woo jan, 245 u.s. 552 (1918) united states v. woo jan no. 586 argued january 17, 1918 decided january 28, 1918 245 u.s. 552 certificate from the circuit court of appeals for the sixth circuit syllabus section 21 of the immigration act of february 20, 1907, c. 1134, 34 stat. 898, empowers the secretary of labor, when satisfied that an alien has been found in the united states in violation of that act, or is subject to deportation under the provisions of that act or of any law of the united states, to cause such alien within the period of three years, etc., to be taken into custody and returned to the country whence he came; § 43,.....
United States v. Woo Jan - 245 U.S. 552 (1918)
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Woo Jan, 245 U.S. 552 (1918)
Section 21 of the Immigration Act of February 20, 1907, c. 1134, 34 Stat. 898, empowers the Secretary of Labor, when satisfied that an alien has been found in the United States in violation of that act, or is subject to deportation under the provisions of that act or of any law of the United States, to cause such alien within the period of three years, etc., to be taken into custody and returned to the country whence he came; § 43, however, provides that the act shall not be construed to repeal, alter, or amend existing laws relating to the immigration or exclusion of Chinese persons or persons of Chinese descent. Held that § 43 preserves the judicial proceedings prescribed by the Chinese Exclusion acts for the cases to which those acts apply, and that, where the ground was a violation of the Exclusion Acts and not a violation of the Immigration Act, the summary administrative method provided by § 21 cannot be used. United States v. Wong You, 223 U. S. 67 , distinguished.
The relation of these sections has given rise to diversity of decision, district courts of different districts and circuit courts of appeals for different circuits being in opposition. Ex parte Woo Shing, 226 F. 141, sustains the power of the Secretary of Labor exercised under § 21, and the decision was approved by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Lo Pong v. Dunn, 235 F. 510; Sibray v. United States, 227 F. 1. The power of the Secretary was denied in the instant case by the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, 228 F. 927, and the decision has been followed by the circuit courts of appeals for the Seventh and Fifth Circuits. United States v. United States ex rel. Lem Him, 239 F. 1023; Lee Wong Hin v. Mayo, 240 F. 368.
We are admonished at the outset by the diversity of opinion that there are grounds for opposing contentions. Indeed, §§ 21 and 43 seem to be, at first impression, in irreconcilable conflict. The declaration of § 21 is that the power of the Secretary of Labor shall extend to taking into custody and returning to the country from whence
" Provided, that this act shall not be construed to repeal, alter, or amend existing laws relating to the immigration or exclusion of Chinese persons or persons of Chinese descent."
There is, therefore, an express qualification of the universality of § 21 -- indeed, from all of the provisions of the act, the Chinese exclusion laws are excepted. They, the latter, are to stand in their integrity and efficacy. But it is asserted that they are so left to stand, and that § 21 only gives another remedy, and United States v. Wong You, 223 U. S. 67 , is cited, first as to the assertion, then as to the cited case.
That we may estimate both, we insert in the margin the provisions of the Exclusion Laws. [ Footnote 1 ] The government,
The remedies are too essentially different to be concurrent. And yet we are asked to decide that the law which permits the first -- that is, permits the deportation of an
This difference must be kept in mind. The Chinese Exclusion Laws have not the character or purpose of the Immigration
Act. They are addressed under treaty stipulations [ Footnote 2 ] to laborers only. Other classes are not included in their limitation, and it was provided by the treaty that the limitation or suspension of the entry of laborers should be reasonable. The questions, therefore, which could arise were deemed different from any under the Immigration Act, and the Exclusion Laws are adapted to them, and their procedure is hence saved by § 43.