Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    United States Ex Rel. Claussen v. Day, 279 U.S. 398 (1929)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss a writ of habeas corpus filed by an alien facing deportation. The alien, a Danish national, had been sentenced to over one year in prison for manslaughter committed within five years of an "entry" into the United States in 1918. The Court held that the alien's return to Boston in 1918 after traveling to South America and Cuba on an American vessel constituted an "entry" under the Immigration Act of 1917, subjecting him to deportation for committing a crime of moral turpitude within five years of that entry.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    United States Ex Rel. Claussen v. Day, 279 U.S. 398 (1929)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    32 views3 pages
    The United States Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss a writ of habeas corpus filed by an alien facing deportation. The alien, a Danish national, had been sentenced to over one year in prison for manslaughter committed within five years of an "entry" into the United States in 1918. The Court held that the alien's return to Boston in 1918 after traveling to South America and Cuba on an American vessel constituted an "entry" under the Immigration Act of 1917, subjecting him to deportation for committing a crime of moral turpitude within five years of that entry.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1929-05-13 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 279 U.S. 398 Docket: 416

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss a writ of habeas corpus filed by an alien facing deportation. The alien, a Danish national, had been sentenced to over one year in prison for manslaughter committed within five years of an "entry" into the United States in 1918. The Court held that the alien's return to Boston in 1918 after traveling to South America and Cuba on an American vessel constituted an "entry" under the Immigration Act of 1917, subjecting him to deportation for committing a crime of moral turpitude within five years of that entry.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    32 views3 pages

    United States Ex Rel. Claussen v. Day, 279 U.S. 398 (1929)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss a writ of habeas corpus filed by an alien facing deportation. The alien, a Danish national, had been sentenced to over one year in prison for manslaughter committed within five years of an "entry" into the United States in 1918. The Court held that the alien's return to Boston in 1918 after traveling to South America and Cuba on an American vessel constituted an "entry" under the Immigration Act of 1917, subjecting him to deportation for committing a crime of moral turpitude within five years of that entry.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    279 U.S.

    398
    49 S.Ct. 354
    73 L.Ed. 758

    UNITED STATES ex rel. CLAUSSEN


    v.
    Day, Commissioner of Immigration.
    No. 416.
    Argued April 10, 1929.
    Decided May 13, 1929.

    Messrs. Silas B. Axtell and Charles A. Ellis, both of New York City, for
    petitioner.
    Mr. Alfred A. Wheat, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
    Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

    Petitioner is an alien held upon a warrant issued by the Assistant Secretary of


    Labor for deportation under section 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917, U. S. C.
    tit. 8 (8 USCA 155. On his petition, the District Court for the Southern
    District of New York issued a writ of habeas corpus. Respondent made return
    and after a hearing the writ was dismissed. The Circuit Court of Appeals
    affirmed.

    Section 19 contains the following: 'At any time within five years after entry, * *
    * any alien who is hereafter sentenced to imprisonment for a term of one year
    or more because of conviction in this country of crime involving moral
    turpitude, committed within five years after the entry of the alien to the United
    States, * * * shall, upon warrant of the Secretary of Labor, he taken into
    custody and deported.'

    The facts are not in controversy. Petitioner is a native and subject of Denmark.
    He came to this country as a member of the crew of a British ship and landed at
    Norfolk January 22, 1912. He shipped the next day on an American schooner
    and subsequently served as a seaman on other American ships. October 19,
    1917, he shipped from New York on the Elisha Atkins for a voyage to South

    America and return by way of Cuba; he landed at Boston, March 26, 1918. That
    was his last voyage from foreign ports to the United States. He was
    subsequently employed in American coastwise trade and resided for a time on
    land as representative of a seamen's labor union. In June, 1919, he petitioned
    for naturalization and declared his intention to become a citizen of the United
    States. June 17, 1921, in the Cumberland county court in the state of Maine, he
    pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter, the killing of James Walker at
    Portland on May 21, 1921, and was sentenced to imprisonment for more than
    one year. Subsequently a warrant of the Department of Labor was served upon
    him and after a hearing he was ordered to be deported to Denmark upon the
    termination of his imprisonment.
    4

    The question for decision is whether petitioner was sentenced within five years
    after his entry into the United States.

    The provision extends to all aliens, that that is, every person not a native-born
    or naturalized citizen. Section 1; U. S. C. tit. 8 (8 USCA) 173. It is immaterial
    whether he was entitled to admission or whether he lawfully entered. The cause
    for which his deportation was ordered arose after entry. Lapina v. Williams,
    232 U. S. 78, 91, 34 S. Ct. 196 (58 L. Ed. 515); Lewis v. Frick, 233 U. S. 291,
    34 S. Ct. 488, 58 L. Ed. 967. His declared purpose to naturalize does not serve
    him here as he had not become a citizen. If his landing at Boston in 1918 was
    an entry he is rightly held.

    Section 1 provides that 'United States,' as used in the act, shall be construed to
    mean the United States and any waters, territory or other place subject to the
    jurisdiction thereof, except the Isthmian Canal Zone. An entry into the United
    States is not effected by embarking on an American vessel in a foreign port.
    Such a vessel outside the United States whether on the high seas or in foreign
    waters is not a place included within the United States as defined by the act.
    See Cunard S. S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 101, 122, 43 S. Ct. 504, 67 L. Ed.
    894, 27 A. L. R. 1306; Scharrenberg v. Dollar S. S. Co., 245 U. S. 122, 127, 38
    S. Ct. 28 (62 L. Ed. 189). The word 'entry' by its own force implies a coming
    from outside. The context shows that in order that there be an entry within the
    meaning of the act there must be an arrival from some foreign port or place.
    There is no such entry where one goes to sea on board an American vessel from
    a port of the United States and returns to the same or another port of this
    country without having been in any foreign port or place. See sections 19, 32,
    33, 35 (8 USCA 155, 168, 169).

    And it is clear that petitioner departed from the United States on the Elisha
    Atkins and that, when he landed at Boston on his return from South American

    and Cuban ports, he made an entry into the United States within the meaning of
    the act.
    8

    Judgment affirmed.

    You might also like