1. Chinese women, being themselves ineligible to citizenship, do
not become citizens of the United States by marrying American
citizens. Rev.Stats. § 2169; Act of Sept. 22, 1922, c. 411, 42
Stat. 1022. P.
268 U. S.
351.
2. Chinese women who, before the date of the Immigration Act of
1924, married American citizens of the Chinese race permanently
domiciled in this country were debarred by the Act from coming here
to join their husbands (no treaty right being involved), since
§13(c) forbids admission of aliens ineligible to citizenship,
with certain exceptions which do not include such wives. P.
268 U. S.
352.
Page 268 U. S. 347
3. Such Chinese wives, coming here to join their husbands, are
immigrants as defined by § 3 of the Act. P.
268 U. S.
352.
4. That consular officers must issue them visas does not signify
that such wives must be admitted in view of § 2(g) of the Act,
expressly declaring that an immigration visa shall not entitle an
immigrant to enter if, upon arrival, he is found inadmissible under
the immigration laws.
Id.
5. The provision of § 4 of the Immigration Act, 1924,
classifying wives and minor children of citizens of the United
States residing here, etc., as nonquota immigrants cannot be
incorporated among the exceptions of § 13(c) upon the theory
that it was omitted by oversight.
Id.
6. The hardships of a case, and suppositions of what is rational
and consistent in immigration policy, cannot justify a court in
departing from the plain terms of an immigration act. P.
268 U. S. 353.
Question certified by the circuit court of appeals arising upon
appeal of a decision of the district court (
see Ex parte Chan
Shee, 2 F.2d 998) refusing relief by habeas corpus to the
appellants, who were the husbands of four Chinese women detained by
the immigration authorities, and the wives themselves.
Page 268 U. S. 350
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners, Chang Chan and three others, claiming to be
native-born citizens of the United States permanently domiciled
therein, sought release from detention by the Immigration
Commissioner of four young Chinese women, alleged to be their
lawful wives wedded in China prior to July 1, 1924. On that day,
the young women were on the high seas as passengers upon the
President Lincoln. Arriving at San Francisco July 11,
without immigration visas as provided for by § 9, Immigration
Act of 1924, c.190, 43 Stat. 153, they sought and were
Page 268 U. S. 351
finally denied permanent admission. In support of this action,
the Secretary of Labor said:
"Neither the citizenship of the alleged husband nor the
relationship of the applicant to him has been investigated, for the
reason that, even if it were conceded that both elements exist she
would still be inadmissible, as § 13 of the Act of 1924
mandatorily excludes the wives of United States citizens of the
Chinese race if such wives are of a race or persons ineligible to
citizenship, and the Department has no alternative than to
recommend exclusion."
The court below inquires, Judicial Code, § 239:
"Should the petitioners be refused admission to the United
States either, (a) because of the want of a visa or (b) because of
want of right of admission if found to be Chinese wives of American
citizens?"
This cause involves no claim of right granted or guaranteed by
treaty, and is therefore radically different from
Cheung Sum
Shee v. Nagle, ante, p.
268 U. S. 336.
The excluded wives are alien Chinese ineligible to citizenship
here. Rev.Stat. § 2169; Act May 6, 1882, c. 126, § 14, 22
Stat. 58, 61. Notwithstanding their marriage to citizens of the
United States, they did not become citizens and remained incapable
of naturalization.
Prior to September 22, 1922, Rev.Stat. § 1994 applied. It
provided:
"Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen
of the United States, and who might herself be lawfully
naturalized, shall be deemed a citizen."
Since that date, c. 411, 42 Stat. 1021-1022, has been in force.
It provides:
"That any woman who marries a citizen of the United States after
the passage of this Act, or any woman whose husband is naturalized
after the passage of this Act, shall not become a citizen of the
United States
Page 268 U. S. 352
by reason of such marriage or naturalization, but, if eligible
to citizenship, she may be naturalized upon full and complete
compliance with all requirements of the naturalization laws. . .
."
Section 13(c), Immigration Act of 1924, declares:
"No alien ineligible to citizenship shall be admitted to the
United States unless such alien (1) is admissible as a nonquota
immigrant under the provisions of subdivision (b), (d), or (e) of
section 4, or (2) is the wife, or the unmarried child under
eighteen years of age, of an immigrant admissible under such
subdivision (d), and is accompanying or following to join him, or
(3) is not an immigrant as defined in section 3."
Subdivisions (b), (d), and (e) of § 4 apply to immigrants
previously lawfully admitted, immigrants who seek to enter as
religious ministers or professors, and to students. They are not
controlling here. An "immigrant" is defined in § 3 as "any
alien departing from any place outside the United States destined
for the United States," with certain exceptions, none of which
describes the present applicants.
Taken in their ordinary sense, the words of the statute plainly
exclude petitioners' wives.
We cannot accept the theory that as consular officers are
required to issue visas to Chinese wives of American citizens,
therefore they must be admitted. A sufficient answer to this is
found in § 2(g):
"Nothing in this Act shall be construed to entitle an immigrant
to whom an immigration visa has been issued to enter the United
States if, upon arrival in the United States, he is found to be
inadmissible to the United States under the immigration laws."
Nor can we approve the suggestion that the provisions contained
in subdivision (a)
* of § 4 were
omitted from
Page 268 U. S. 353
the exceptions in § 13(c) because of some obvious
oversight, and should now be treated as if incorporated therein.
Although descriptive of certain "nonquota immigrants," that
subdivision is subject to the positive inhibition against all
aliens ineligible to citizenship who do not fall within definitely
specified and narrowly restricted classes.
In response to the demand for an interpretation of the Act which
will avoid hardships and further a supposed rational and consistent
policy, it suffices to refer to what we have said in
Yee Won v.
White, 256 U. S. 399,
256 U. S.
401-402;
Chung Fook v. White, 264 U.
S. 443,
264 U. S.
445-446;
Commissioner, etc. v. Gottlieb,
265 U. S. 310,
265 U. S.
314.
The applicants should be refused admission if found to be
Chinese wives of American citizens. It is unnecessary now to
consider the requirement of the Act in respect of visas.
*
"An immigrant who is the unmarried child under 18 years of age,
or the wife, of a citizen of the United States who resides therein
at the time of the filing of a petition under section 9."
