FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   976   977   978   979   980   981   982   983   984   985   986   987   988   989   990   991   992   993   994   995   996   997   998   999   1000  
1001   1002   1003   1004   1005   1006   1007   1008   1009   1010   1011   1012   1013   1014   1015   1016   1017   1018   1019   1020   1021   1022   1023   1024   1025   >>   >|  
ever been naturalized or acquired any domicile or residence in the United States, the decision of an executive or administrative officer, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, as to whether or not they shall be permitted to enter the country, is due process of law.[133] The complete authority of Congress in the matter of admission of aliens justifies delegation of power to executive officers to enforce the exclusion of aliens afflicted with contagious diseases by imposing upon the owner of the vessel bringing any such alien into the country, a money penalty, collectible before and as a condition of the grant of clearance.[134] If the person seeking admission claims American citizenship, the decision of the Secretary of Labor may be made final, but it must be made after a fair hearing, however summary, and must find adequate support in the evidence. A decision based upon a record from which relevant and probative evidence has been omitted is not a fair hearing.[135] Where the statute made the decision of an immigration inspector final unless an appeal was taken to the Secretary of the Treasury, a person who failed to take such an appeal did not, by an allegation of citizenship, acquire a right to a judicial hearing on _habeas corpus_.[136] DEPORTATION Deportation proceedings are not criminal prosecutions within the meaning of the Bill of Rights. The authority to deport is drawn from the power of Congress to regulate the entrance of aliens and impose conditions upon the performance of which their continued liberty to reside within the United States may be made to depend. Findings of fact reached by executive officers after a fair, though summary deportation hearing may be made conclusive.[137] In Wong Yang Sung _v._ McGrath,[138] however, the Court intimated that a hearing before a tribunal which did not meet the standards of impartiality embodied in the Administrative Procedure Act[139] might not satisfy the requirements of due process of law. To avoid such constitutional doubts, the Court construed the law to disqualify immigration inspectors as presiding officers in deportation proceedings. Except in time of war, deportation without a fair hearing or on charges unsupported by any evidence is a denial of due process which may be corrected on _habeas corpus_.[140] In contrast with the decision in United States _v._ Ju Toy[141] that a person seeking entrance to the United States was not entitled to a
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   976   977   978   979   980   981   982   983   984   985   986   987   988   989   990   991   992   993   994   995   996   997   998   999   1000  
1001   1002   1003   1004   1005   1006   1007   1008   1009   1010   1011   1012   1013   1014   1015   1016   1017   1018   1019   1020   1021   1022   1023   1024   1025   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

hearing

 

decision

 
United
 

States

 

process

 

aliens

 

person

 
officers
 

deportation

 

evidence


Congress

 

executive

 

proceedings

 

seeking

 
summary
 

corpus

 

citizenship

 

habeas

 

Secretary

 

appeal


admission

 

authority

 
immigration
 
entrance
 
country
 

conclusive

 
impose
 

Rights

 
deport
 
regulate

meaning
 

criminal

 
prosecutions
 
conditions
 

performance

 

Findings

 
reached
 
depend
 

reside

 
continued

liberty

 

impartiality

 

Except

 

presiding

 

inspectors

 

doubts

 
construed
 

disqualify

 
charges
 

unsupported