citizenship under federal law) to a state statute barring issuance of commercial fishing licenses to persons “ineligible to citizenship.” 13 Footnote Id. which involved a challenge brought by a Japanese alien (then ineligible for U.S. Fish & Game Commission, 12 Footnote 334 U.S. The Court eroded the “special interest” doctrine in the 1948 decision Takahashi v. The Court stated that “he assertion of an authority to deny to aliens the opportunity to earning a livelihood when lawfully admitted to the state would be tantamount to the assertion of the right to deny them entrance and abode.” Id. The Court partially relied on preemption principles, citing the federal government’s authority to control immigration. According to the Court, “No special public interest with respect to any particular business is shown that could possibly be deemed to support the enactment.” 11 Footnote Truax, 239 U.S. 392, 396–97 (1927) (ruling that states could prevent aliens from being licensed to operate pool halls). The Court also extended the “special public interest” doctrine to exclude aliens from receiving occupational licenses. the Court struck down an Arizona law that required employers with more than five employees to hire at least 80 percent qualified voters or native-born citizens. 326, 334 (1923) (approving of law restricting transfer to aliens of shares of a land owning corporation). 313, 322 (1923) (validating law prohibiting food crop contracts with aliens) Frick v. 225, 232–33 (1923) (sustaining California statute prohibiting the use of land by ‘ineligible’ aliens) Webb v. 197, 217 (1923) (finding that aliens were distinguishable as to land ownership and use for reasons other than hostility to race) Porterfield v. The Court also sustained laws prohibiting the ownership of land by aliens and the indirect control of lands by aliens. 138 (1914) (killing of wild game) McCready v. In particular, the Court upheld state laws forbidding aliens from taking possession of natural resources, citing a state’s significant legitimate interest in reserving use of these resources for its citizens. 195, 198 (1915) (affirming New York law that made it a crime to employ aliens on public works contracts). 175, 194 (1915) (upholding New York law that prohibited the employment of aliens on public works contracts for the construction of subways) Crane v. In many subsequent cases after Yick Wo until 1948, the Court allowed less favorable treatment of aliens whenever the alienage classification related to a “special public interest.” 6 Footnote Heim v. The Court struck down the facially neutral city ordinance as an equal protection violation, stating that the distinction was based on “no reason … except hostility to the race and nationality.…” 5 Footnote Id. The Supreme Court found the officials were employing their authority to deny permission to resident Chinese aliens. involved the constitutionality of a municipal ordinance that granted officials absolute and unrestrained authority to grant licenses for laundries. One of the earliest equal protection decisions, Yick Wo v. 678, 693 (2001) ( “nce an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” ). 202, 210–16 (1982) (emphasizing that “liens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as ‘persons’ guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments” ) Graham v. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Īn alien, whether present lawfully, unlawfully, temporarily, or permanently, is a “person” within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause and receives its protection. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |