2,438
edits
Changes
→Full timeline
| 1892 || January 14 (argument), March 14 (decision) || Court case || United States || ''Lau Ow Bew v. United States'' is decided in favor of Lau Ow Beow, the petitioner. A Chinese businessman who has lived in the United States for 17 years, Lau Ow Beow is denied re-entry because he did not obtain a re-entry certificate per the 1884 amendment to the Chinese Exclusion Act (the Chinese Exclusion Act and Scott Act do not forbid him since they only exclude laborers). The Supreme Court rules that the need for businessmen to obtain re-entry certificates is unclear, and decides the government must allow him re-entry.<ref name=lau-ow-bew-justia/>
|-
| 1892 || May 5 || Legislation || United States || The {{w|Geary Act}}, written by California Congressman {{w|Thomas J. Geary}}, becomes law. In addition to extending the Chinese Exclusion Act's prohibition on migration of Chinese laborers for another ten years, the Act also begins requiring Chinese in the United States to obtain and keep "certificates of residence" to demonstrate that they have been present in the United States since before immigration of Chinese laborers was banned. After Ny Look, a Chinese civil war veteran, is arrested for failure to obtain a certification, Judge {{w|Emile Henry Lacombe}} of the U.S. Circuit Court in the Southern District of New York, ruled rules in {{w|In re Ny Look}} that there are no deportation provisions in the law and Look could not be detained indefinitely therefore he should be released. This leads to the McCreary Amendment, giving Chinese an additional six months to register, and changing some of the requirements for certificates.
|-
| 1893 || May 10 (argument), May 15 (decision) || Court case || United States || ''{{w|Fong Yue Ting v. United States}}'' is decided in favor of the United States government. The case challenges the validity of the "certificates of residence" requirements of the Geary Act; the plaintiffs are people who were arrested for failing to obtain the certificates of residence. The plaintiffs' argument is rejected, and the Geary Act is upheld.<ref>{{cite web|url = https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/149/698/case.html|title = Fong Yue Ting v. United States|publisher = [[Justia]]|accessdate = February 18, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url = http://immigrationtounitedstates.org/503-fong-yue-ting-v-united-states.html|title = Fong Yue Ting v. United States|publisher = Immigration to the United States|accessdate = February 18, 2016}}</ref><ref name=findlaw>{{cite web|url = http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/149/698.html|title = United States Supreme Court. FONG YUE TING v. U S, (1893) No. 108|accessdate = February 18, 2016|publisher = [[FindLaw]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url = http://cis.org/plenarypower|title = Plenary Power: Should Judges Control U.S. Immigration Policy?|last = Feere|first = John|date = February 1, 2009|accessdate = February 27, 2016|publisher = Center for Immigration Studies}}</ref><ref name=resident-aliens>{{cite web|url = http://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1833&context=lawreview|title = Resident Aliens and the First Amendment: The Need for Judicial Recognition of Full Free Speech and Association Rights|last = Henthorne|first = Heather|publisher = Catholic University Law Review|accessdate = February 27, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|ssrn = 722681|title = Chae Chan Ping and Fong Yue Ting: The Origins of Plenary Power|last = Chin|first = Gabriel|accessdate = January 16, 2016}}</ref>
