Delgadillo v. Carmichael
Headline: Court stops deportation of a long-term Mexican resident whose wartime rescue briefly put him in Cuba, ruling involuntary, chance returns cannot trigger deportation rules
Holding: The Court ruled that a Mexican resident’s involuntary wartime detour to Cuba and subsequent return did not count as an "entry" for deportation purposes, so he cannot be deported under the statute.
- Prevents deportation when residents are forced abroad by war or rescue, not a voluntary departure.
- Protects seamen and long-term residents from chance-triggered deportation.
- Limits immigration use of any return as a new 'entry' for deportation.
Summary
Background
The case involves a Mexican citizen who first entered the United States legally in 1923 and lived here until 1942. In June 1942 he worked as a seaman on an American merchant ship that was torpedoed after passing through the Panama Canal. He was rescued and taken to Havana, where the American consul cared for him about a week. On July 19, 1942 he returned to the United States through Miami and continued serving as a seaman. In March 1944 he was convicted of second-degree robbery and sentenced to one year to life. Immigration authorities began deportation proceedings under a 1917 law that allows deportation for crimes committed within five years after an "entry" into the United States.
Reasoning
The Court had to decide whether his trip from Havana to Miami counted as the required "entry" that would make him deportable. The opinion noted earlier cases that sometimes treated every return from abroad as an "entry," but distinguished them because those travelers intended or expected the foreign stop. Here the Court emphasized that the sailor’s presence abroad resulted from wartime exigencies and rescue, not a voluntary choice to abandon residence. Treating such chance or forced returns as entries would subject long-term residents to deportation based on capricious events, which the Court would not impute to Congress. The Court therefore reversed the deportation order and discharged the petitioner. Other grounds mentioned by immigration authorities were not open on the record.
Real world impact
The ruling protects long-term residents, especially seamen and others forced abroad by emergency circumstances, from automatic deportation based on involuntary or chance returns. It limits the immigration authorities’ ability to treat every return from foreign soil as a new legal "entry." The decision is focused on these facts; voluntary departures and other grounds for deportation were not decided here.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?