| 翻訳と辞書 |
| United States v. Ju Toy ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
United States v. Ju Toy
''United States v. Ju Toy'', ( 198 U.S. 253 (1905) ), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court conceded its right to judicial review over immigration matters.〔Sucheng Chan, “Struggles for Civil, Political, Economic, and Social Rights,” in Asian American Studies Now, ed. Jean Yu-wen Shen Wu and Thomas C. Chen (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2011), 219.〕 The case held that “a citizen of Chinese parentage seeking admission to the United States” could be excluded by the administrative immigration authorities, even when being denied a hearing before a judicial body on the question whether they were indeed a citizen.〔Thomas Reed Powell, “Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Immigration Proceedings,” Harvard Law Review 22, no. 5 (1909): page number.Thomas Reed Powell, “Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Immigration Proceedings,” Harvard Law Review 22, no. 5 (1909): 360.〕 The Court determined that refusing entry at a port does not deny due process and held that findings by immigration officials are conclusive and not subject to judicial review unless there is evidence of bias or negligence.〔Richard Evelyn Byrd, “The Decay of Personal Rights and Guarantees,” The Yale Law Journal 18, no. 4 (1909): 356.〕 This case marked a shift in the court in respect to habeas corpus petitions and altered the judicial landscape for citizens applying for admission into the United States as well as for those facing deportation.
==History==
The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 prohibited the immigration of Chinese laborers for a period of ten years and restricted all Chinese immigrants from obtaining naturalized citizenship, while at the same time allowing “merchants, teachers, students, travelers, and diplomats” to be exempt from these exclusions.〔Erika Lee, “The Chinese Exclusion Example: Race, Immigration and American Gatekeeping, 1182-1924,” Journal of American Ethnic History 21, no. 3 (2002): 36.〕 Chinese in the United States before the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act was passed were able to return without impediment to the United States if they “obtained a certificate before their departure and could produce this document upon their return”.〔Sucheng Chan, “Struggles for Civil, Political, Economic, and Social Rights,” in Asian American Studies Now, ed. Jean Yu-wen Shen Wu and Thomas C. Chen (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2011), 219.〕 In 1888, Congress passed the Scott Act which revoked the right of Chinese laborers to renter the United States after visiting China.〔Sucheng Chan, “Struggles for Civil, Political, Economic, and Social Rights,” in Asian American Studies Now, ed. Jean Yu-wen Shen Wu and Thomas C. Chen (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2011), 219.〕 The Scott Act was renewed with the passing of the Geary Act in 1892 which also “required all alien Chinese then residing in the United States to register” and those caught without their registration form on their person could potentially be arrested or deported.〔Sucheng Chan, “Struggles for Civil, Political, Economic, and Social Rights,” in Asian American Studies Now, ed. Jean Yu-wen Shen Wu and Thomas C. Chen (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2011), 219.〕 The combination of these acts increased the restrictions on and exclusion of Chinese and Chinese Americans. As a result the Chinese combatted discrimination and exclusion through the judicial system, often via petition of habeas corpus, and many Chinese found relief through the judicial system until the United States v. Ju Toy decision.〔Sucheng Chan, “Struggles for Civil, Political, Economic, and Social Rights,” in Asian American Studies Now, ed. Jean Yu-wen Shen Wu and Thomas C. Chen (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2011), 218.〕
Ju Toy was a Chinese man who had been born in the United States and was not subject to the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act nor the Scott Act of 1888.〔Richard Evelyn Byrd, “The Decay of Personal Rights and Guarantees,” The Yale Law Journal 18, no. 4 (1909): 255.〕 Ju Toy visited China and returned to San Francisco on the steamship Doric, but on his return Ju Toy was denied permission to land and was ordered to be deported by immigration officials even though he was not an immigrant.〔Richard Evelyn Byrd, “The Decay of Personal Rights and Guarantees,” The Yale Law Journal 18, no. 4 (1909): 255.〕 Ju Toy then sued out of a writ of habeas corpus from a Federal District Court. The Federal District Court ruled that Ju Toy was a person native to the United States and ordered his release.〔Richard Evelyn Byrd, “The Decay of Personal Rights and Guarantees,” The Yale Law Journal 18, no. 4 (1909): 255.〕 The Government appealed and the case was brought to the Supreme Court and heard for arguments on April 3, 1905.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「United States v. Ju Toy」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|