Court Opinion

ID: 9420697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:55:43.290691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:26.651290
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Frankfurter,
concurring.
It is not for this Court to reshape a world order based on politically sovereign States. In such an international ordering of the world a national State implies a special relationship of one body of people, i. e., citizens of that State, whereby the citizens of each State are aliens in relation to every other State. Ever since national States have come into being,' the right of people to enjoy the hospitality of a State of which they are not citizens has been a matter of political determination by each State. (I put to one side the oddities of dual citizenship.) Though as a matter of political outlook and economic need this country has traditionally welcoméd aliens to come to its shores, it has done so exclusively as a matter of political outlook and national self-interest. This policy has been a political policy, belonging to the political branch of the Government wholly outside the concern and the competence of the Judiciary.
Accordingly, when this policy changed and the political • and law-making branch of this Government, the Congress, decided to restrict the right of immigration about seventy years ago, this Court thereupon and ever since has. recognized that the determination of a selective and exclusionary immigration policy , was for the Congress and not for the Judiciary. The conditions for entry oí every alien, *597the particular classes of aliens that shall be denied entry altogether, the basis for determining such -classification, the right to terminate hospitality to aliens, -the grounds on which such determination shall be based, ’have been recognized as matters solely for the responsibility of the Congress and wholly outside the power of this Court to control.
. The Court’s acknowledgment of the sole responsibility of Congress for these matters has been made possible by Justices whose cultural outlook, whose breadth of view and robust tolerance were not exceeded by those of Jefferson. In their personal views,- libertarians like Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice Brandéis doubtless disapproved of some of these policies, departures as they were from the best traditions of this country and based as they have been in part on disqredited racial theories or manipulation of figures in formulating what is known as the quota system. But whether immigration laws have been crude and cruel, whether they may have reflected xenophobia in general or anti-Semitism or anti-Catholicism, the responsibility belongs to Congress. Courts do enforce the requirements imposed by Congress upon officials in administering immigration laws, e. g., Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U. S. 454, and the requirement of Due Process may entail certain procedural observances. E. g., Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U. S. 276. But the underlying policies of what classes of aliens shall be allowed to enter and what classes of aliens shall be allowed to stay, are for Congress exclusively to determine even though such determination may be deem.ed to offend American traditions and may,, as has been the case, jeopardizé peace.
In recognizing this power and this responsibility of Congress, one does not in the remotest degree align oneself with fears unworthy of the American spirit or with *598hostility to the bracing air of the free spirit. One merely recognizes that the place to resist unwise or cruel legislation touching aliens is the Congress, not this Court.
I, therefore, join in the Court’s opinion in these cases.