Yee Won v. White
Headline: Court affirmed denial of admission for a Chinese resident laborer’s foreign‑born wife and minor children, holding immigration laws bar entry of laborers’ families born in China and not specifically exempted.
Holding: The Court held that a Chinese man who later became a laborer cannot require that his wife and minor children born in China be admitted, because the immigration statutes exclude laborers’ families unless the law expressly exempts them.
- Bars admission of laborers’ foreign‑born wives and minor children.
- Affirms immigration laws limiting Chinese laborer family entry.
- Leaves detained families subject to return under the statutes.
Summary
Background
A Chinese man living in the United States sought a writ to secure release of his wife and two minor children, who were denied admission when they arrived at San Francisco from China and were being held for return. He first entered the United States in 1901 as a minor son of a resident merchant, later acquired the status of a laborer, and had returned from a trip to China in 1914 with a wife and two children born there. The family members were making their first application to enter the United States.
Reasoning
The core question was whether a person who has the status of a laborer may demand that his foreign‑born wife and minor children be allowed to come and live here. The Court reviewed the statutes and treaties limiting the coming of Chinese laborers, compared the earlier merchant‑wife decision, and concluded that Congress intended to exclude Chinese laborers and their class unless a specific exemption applies. Because the statutes do not expressly exempt a resident laborer’s wife and minor children, the Court upheld the denial of admission.
Real world impact
The ruling means families in this situation cannot claim automatic rights to enter the country with a family member who has become a laborer. Immigration officials may continue to enforce the statutory exclusions described in the opinion, and families born abroad who are not listed in the law’s exemptions will remain barred under these statutes.
Dissents or concurrances
The opinion notes that Mr. Justice Clarke dissented; the Court’s opinion does not state his reasons in the text presented.
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?