Tom C. Clark

“ Postulating that the power to hold could never be broader than the power to remove or shut out and that to 'continue an alien's confinement beyond that moment when deportation becomes patently impossible is to deprive him of his liberty', the court found respondent's 'confinement' no longer justifiable as a means of removal elsewhere, thus not authorized by statute, and in violation of due process. ”

“ There remains the issue of respondent's continued exclusion on Ellis Island. Aliens seeking entry from contiguous lands obviously can be turned back at the border without more. United States ex rel. Polymeris v. Trudell, 1932, 284 U.S. 279, 52 S.Ct. 143, 76 L.Ed. 291. While the Government might keep entrants by sea aboard the vessel pending determination of their admissibility, resulting hardships to the alien and inconvenience to the carrier persuaded Congress to adopt a more generous course. ”

“ Of course, neither a reentry permit, issuable upon proof of prior lawful admission to the United States, § 210 (b) , nor an immigration visa entitles an otherwise inadmissible alien to entry. §§ 210 (f) , 202 (g) . An immigrant is not unaware of this; § 202 (g) directs those facts to be 'printed conspicuously upon every immigration visa.' For a recent study of entry procedures with recommendations, see Report of the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (1953) , c. ”

“ Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, supra, 142 U.S. at page 660, 12 S.Ct. at page 338. In a case such as this, courts cannot retry the determination of the Attorney General. United States ex rel. Knauff v. ”