Deporting the Addicted: Arguments for the Repeal of Section 237(A)(2)(B)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

ACT8 See INA § 237(a) (2) (b) (ii); see also infra notes 273-91 and accompanying text.9 See, e.g., Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581, 609 (1889); Massieu v. Reno, 915 F. Supp.681, 698 (fin 1996) (reiterating that legislative power over admission of aliens is absolute).10 See, e.g., Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U,S.580, 586-87 (1952) (holding that an alien's status in this country is a matter of Congressional permission and tolerance, and an alien has 110 constitutional right to remain in the United Stales); United States v. Oboh, 92 F.3d 1082, 1087 (11th Cir.1996), cert.denied, 117 S.Ct.1257 (1997) (same).11 130 U.S. at 609. 12 See id. at 582. 13 See id.In 1882, Congress passed an act which suspended the immigration of Chinese laborers for ten years.See Act of May 6, 1882, ch.126, 22 Stat.58 ("Act of 1882"); THOMAS ALEXANDER ALE1NIKOEF EX AL., IMMIGRATION PROCESS AND POI.ICY 4 (3d ed.1995).Because it was not Congress's intent for the Act of 1882 to affect Chinese laborers who were already in the United States, the statute established a procedure for the issuance of "certificates of identity" so that if a Chinese laborer chose to leave for a visit, he could re-enter.Act of 1882 § 4; see ALEINIROFF, supra.Prior to his departure, Chae Chan Ping complied with the Act of 1882 and obtained a certificate of identity, believing that such certificate would entitle him to re-enter the United States without a problem.See.Owe Chan Ping, 130 U.S. at 582.Congress passed another act in 1888, however, that prohibited the return of all Chinese laborers who had left the United States regardless of whether or not they obtained their certificates pursuant to the Act of 1882.