United States v. Kimi Yamamoto

Good Law
153 C.C.A. 316·240 F. 390·1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2375
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 5, 1917No. 2803California438 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

The appellee came to the Hawaiian Islands in 1897, and has ever since been a resident thereof. She was ordered deported upon proof of the charge that she practiced prostitution after entry into the United States. The facts in the case are practically the same as in the Cases of Sui Joy, Wong Yuen, and Ching Lum, 240 Fed. 392 , - C. C. A. -, just decided by this court, and all four cases were dealt with in the court below in a single opinion.

The definition of the charge under which the appellee 'is held for deportation is limited by the words “after such alien shall have entered the United States.” It is true that she has never technically entered the United States. While the territory of Hawaii may in a sense be said to have entered the United States by its annexation on August 12, 1898, it does not follow that its inhabitants thereby became immigrants to lie United States. In ascertaining the intention of Congress in making the amendment of 1910, an important fact is that the amendment was made by striking certain words from the former act, whereby the time limitation in the former act was repealed. We think that Congress intended by the amendment to say that any alien found in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.