Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:30:45.237Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exclusion and Expulsion Of Aliens In Latin America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

J. Irizarry y Puente
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Hardly another question is of greater practical interest in Latin America today, from the point of view of public order and national security, than the inadmission and expulsion of aliens. The question is specially deserving of reexamination in these days of revolutionary changes in political and legal thought, changes which suggest that legislation designed to safeguard the internal order and external security of a countryshould not be neglected lest it become powerless to cope with situations which those changes may carry in their wake. The historic events now taking place are in no small measure the symptoms of a profound transition in political and juristic ideas throughout the world.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , April 1942 , pp. 252 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1942

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Declaration of the Principles of the Solidarity of America, Lima, Dec. 24, 1938.

2 Habeas Corpus de Olivia Soares Silveira, 52 0 Direito, 274,276, Brasil. See 2 Paiva,Estudio de la Constitucidn del Paraguay (Asunción, 1927), Chs. XIII and XVII.

3 1 Lafont, , Historia de la Constitucidn Argentina (Buenos Aires, 1935), 178–187 Google Scholar; 1 Levene, , Investigaciones acerca de la Historia Economica del Virreinato del Plata (La Plata, 1927), Ch. XV, pp. 107 Google Scholar, 112 et seq.; 1 Bulnes, , 1810 Nacimiento de las Repulicas Americanos (Buenos Aires, 1927), 8 Google Scholar; Baez, Rangel ,“El Monopolio del Comercio en la Colonia,” 9 Boletin de la Academia Nacional de la Historia (Caracas), 29–34 Google Scholar; 1 Acevedo, , Manuel de Historia Uruguaya (Montevideo, 1916), 32 Google Scholar; Chuecos, Garcia, Estudios de Historia Colonial Venezolana (Caracas, 1937), 310, 311Google Scholar. The Real Cedulas of Dec. 8, 1720, and Oct. 23,1769 (5 Documentos para la Historia Argentina [1915], 73,244) ordered the expulsion of aliens who carried on business in the Spanish dominions.

4 Dictamen emitido al Presidente de la Reptiblica por el Fiscal de la Corte Suprema Don Ambrosio Montt sobre ciertas reclamaciones (Santiago, 1890), 106, 111.Google Scholar

5 Art. 2, Ley Num. 145 (1888), as amended, Art. 21, Decreto Ntim. 1697, July 16,1936, and Art. 75, Cddigo Civil, Colombia; Art. 3, Ley de Extranjeria, Cuba; Art. 3, Ley de Extranjeria (1925), Venezuela.

6 Art. 3, Ley Num. 145 (1888), as amended, Art. 22, Decreto Num. 1897, July 16, 1936,Colombia.

7 Art. 4, Ley Num. 145 (1888), as amended, Art. 23, Decreto Num. 1897, July 16, 1936,Colombia. Art. 76, Codigo Civil, Colombia says:“Domicile consists in residence coupled with the real or presumptive intent to remain therein.”

8 Art. 12, Constitution, Colombia.

9 5 Documentos para la Historia Argentina, 73. The decree of Oct. 23, 1769 (5 ibid., 244) declared in force“the Laws which forbid the commerce of aliens in the Indies.”

10 Organization de la Confederacidn Argentina (ed. 1913 by Posada), 91.Google Scholar

11 Art. 11, Constitution of Sept. 16,1810, Mexico (in Rodriguez, La Condicion Juridicade hs Extranjeros en Mexico [1903], 148, 150):“Every man has the right to enter and leave the country.”Art. 7, Decreio de 23 de Noviembre de 1811 (in 2 Yarela, , Historic Constitutional de la Repiiblica Argentina [La Plata, 1910], 72):“Every man is free to remain in the territory of the state, or to leave when he pleases.”Google Scholar

12 Art. 1, Ley Num. 48 (1920), Colombia; Art. 51, Constitution, Nicaragua; Art. 17, Ley Núm. 82 (1914), Panama; Art. 18, Constitution, Paraguay; Art. 1, Ley de Extranjeria, Venezuela; Art. 25, Constitution, Argentine:“The Federal Government shall encourage European immigration.”

13 Art. 2, Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation, Feb. 2,1825, Argentine and Great Britain (1 Coleccion de Tratados celebrados por la Repiiblica con las Naciones Extranjeros [Buenos Aires, 1884], 97, 99):“There shall be . . . reciprocal freedom of commerce.”Google Scholar;Art.4, General Convention of Peace, Amity, Commerce and Navigation, May16,1832, Chile and United States (1 Montes, A. Bascufian , Recopiladdn de Tratadosy Convenciones, 1819–1863 [Santiago, 1894])Google Scholar.

14 Art. 1, Convencion sobre Condiciones de los Extranjeros, Sixth International Conference of American States, Havana, 1928; Art. 17, Constitution, Nicaragua.

15 Almeida, Lacerda de , Expvhao de Extrangeiros (Rio de Janeiro, 1907), 18;Google Scholar 1 Moreno, El Cddigo Penal y sus Antecedentes (Buenos Aires, 1922), Sec. 126, p. 259; Anzoategui, La Le Núm. 4 144 de Residencies (Buenos Aires, 1939), 60; Carbone Oyarzum, Sistema Constitutional Argentina de Derecho Internacional (Buenos Aires, 1928), 393; Ulloa, Derecho Internacional Publico (Lima, 2d ed. 1938), Sec. 244, p. 257; Aspiazu, Dogmas del Derecho Internacional (New York, 1872), Sec. 117, p. 101; 1 Ruiz Moreno, Lecciones de Derecho Internacional ptiblico (Buenos Aires, 1934), 250; Planas Suarez, Condicion legal de los Extranjeros enGwttemala (Madrid, 1919), 10. Art. 21, Constitution (1936), Honduras:“Las leyes estableceran la forma y casos en que puede negarse al extranjero la entrada al territorio nacional u ordenarse su expulsi6n por considerarlo pernicioso.”

16 Decreto Num. 491,12 Recopilacion de las Leyes de la RepubUca de Guatemala (1893–1894, ed. Mendez, 1931), p. 417.Google Scholar

17 Ralston’s Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903(Washington, 1904), 914–915.

18 Habeas Corpus de Irene Amor Magaz de Gonzalez, 148 Folios, 410, 414. See also, Habeas Corpus de Francisco Macia, et al., No. 282, 74 Gaceta del Foro, 169, Supreme Court of Argentina. For the history of the Macia case, see Caminos, Palacios y, Derecho de Asilo(Caso Macia-Gassol), (Buenos Aires, 1928)Google Scholar.

19 Habeas Corpus de Everardo Dias, 26 Revista de Supremo Tribunal, 19, 20. See also, Compahnia de Seguros Garantia v. Uniao Federal

20 Art. 3, Ley de Expulsiones de Extranjeros, Num. 4, 144, Argentina; Art. 1, Ley de Residencia, Chile; Art. 17, Constitution, Honduras; Art. 50, Ley de Extranjeria, Honduras; Art.17, Constitution, Nicaragua; Art. 14, Ley de Extranjeria, Venezuela.

21 Art. 4, Lei Núm. 1,641 (1902), Brazil; Art. 53, Ley de Extranjeros, Honduras; Art. 27,Ley de Extranjeros, Venezuela.

22 Art. 1, Lei 1,641 (1907), Brazil; Art. 1 (4), Ley de Expulsiones, Costa Rica; Art. 14 (1),Ley de Extranjeros (1925), Venezuela.

23 Art. 14 (1), Ley de Extranjeros, Venezuela.

24 Art. 2, Ley de Residencia (1919), Chile; Art. 7 (d), Ley Núm. 48 (1920), Colombia; Art.14 (6), Ley de Extranjeros (1925), Venezuela.

25 Art. 2, Ley de Residencia (1919), Chile.

26 Idem.

27 Art. 7 (d), Ley Núm. 48 (1920), Colombia; Art. 17, Ley Núm. 82 (1914), Panama; Art.14 (b), Ley de Extranjeros (1925), Venezuela.

28 Art. 7 (d), Ley Núm. 48 (1920), Colombia:“who attempts against the right of property.”

29 Compahnia de Seguros Oarantia v. Uniāo Federal, No. 696, 88 O Direito, 250,254, Brazil.

30 Art. 1, Ley de Residencia (1919), Chile; Art. 15, Ley de Extranjeria, Costa Rica; Art. 14(1), Ley de Extranjeros (1925), Venezuela.

31 Art. 2 (1) (2), Lei Núm. 1, 641 (1907), Brazil; Art. 1, Ley de Residencia (1919), Chile;Art. 7 (e), Ley Núm. 48 (1920), Colombia; Art. 1 (2), Ley de Expulsiones, CostaRica; Art.14 (3), Ley de Extranjeros (1925), Venezuela.

32 Art. 1, Ley de Residencia (1919), Chile; Art. 7 (a), Ley Núm. 48 (1920), Colombia; Art.17, Ley Núm. 82 (1914), Panama; Art. 14 (7), Ley de Extranjeros (1925), Venezuela.

33 Art. 7 (b), Ley Núm. 48 (1920), Colombia; Art. 17, Ley Núm. 82 (1914), Panama; Art. 1,Ley de Extranjeria, Peru.

34 Art. 2 (3), Lei Núm. 1, 641 (1907), Brazil; Art. 2, Ley de Residencia (1919), Chile; Art.71 (c), Ley Núm. 48 (1920), Colombia; Art. 1, Ley de Expulsiones, Costa Rica; Art. 17, Ley Núm. 82 (1914), Panama.

35 Art. 53, Ley de Extranjeros (1925), Venezuela:“imprisonment from six months to one year.”

35a Habeas Corpus de Everardo Dias, 26 Revista de Direito, 19, 27, Supreme Court, Brazil:“Esta materia de expulsao de estrangeiro 6 regulada, principalmente, pelo direito publico intemo. No direito internacional apenas se nos deparam algunas restricgoes & actividade legislativa e administrativa dos Estados. E esse o conceito juridico, geralmente admittido na theoria e na pratica. Tratando da admissao e da expulsao dos estrangeiros, doutrina Despagnet: ‘La condition legale des strangers est, en principe, fixee d’une maniere souveraine par le droit interne de chaque pays; mais le respect qui est du aux autres Etats impose au legislateur certaines restrictions que fixe le Droit International’ (Cours de Droit International Public, n. 334, 4* ed.).”

36 Art. 113, Constitution, Brazil.

37 Art. 51, Constitution, Nicaragua; Art. 18, Constitution, Paraguay.

38 Art. 51, Constitution, Nicaragua.

39 Lacerda de Almeida, op. cit., 18; Rodrigo Octavio, Le Droit international privi dans la legislation Brisilienne (Paris, 1915), 103–104; 1 Moreno, El Cddigo Penal, op. cit., p. 261; 1 Bielsa, , Derecho Administrativo y Ciencia de la Administracion (Buenos Aires, 2d ed. 1929), 64; Villegas-PulidoGoogle Scholar, Los Extranjeros en Venezuela (Caracas, 2d ed. 1919), 56; 2 Roure, A Constituinte Republicana (Rio de Janeiro, 1920), 305Google Scholar; Flores, Flores y, Extracto de Derecho Internacional (Guatemala, 1902), 204 Google Scholar; Castro y Casaleiz, El Derecho de Expulsion ante el Derecho Internacional y la Legislation EspaHola (Madrid, 1895), 11, 13; Art. 17, Constitution, Honduras; Art. 17, Constitution, Nicaragua.

40 Habeas Corpus de Rosa Press, 65 Revista de Direito, 89, 93. In Habeas Corpus de Everardo Dias, 26 Revista de Supremo Tribunal, 19, the Supreme Court of Brazil said:“O Estadotem a faculdade, attributo da soberania, de expulsar do seu territorio, os estrangeiros nocivos a seguranca social ou a ordem publica”.

41 Expulsao de Extrangeiros (Rio de Janeiro, 1907), 9–10.

42 3 Revista de Direito, 536–541. In the Habeas Corpus de Vicente Urbino de Freitas, 3 Revista de Direito, 541, a federal District Court in Rio said:“E, considerando que o direito de expulsSo de estrangeiros esta universahnente reconhecido como um consectario da soberaniae 6 praticado pela maioria das Nagoes cultas em nome dos interesses da seguranga da ordem e da moralidade.”

43 p. 539.

44 12 Revista de Direito, 311, 314. In the Habeas Corpus de Everardo Dias, 26 Revista de Supremo Tribunal, 19, the same court said:“ I t is an admitted principle of international law that the State has the authority, as an attribute of sovereignty, to expel from its territory, or not to permit the entry therein, of aliens harmful to the social security or to public order."

45 Ralston's Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, 265, 267.

46 For the difference between the transient and domiciled aliens, see supra, notes 5–8, p. 253.

47 No. 3,598, 3 Bevista do Supremo Tribunal, Pt. I, pp. 13, 16.

47 a Habeas Corpus de Everardo Dias, supra.

48 Alberdi, Bases y puntos de partida para la organizacion politica de la Reptiblica Argentina (Buenos Aires, 1852), 234.

49 Art. 3, Decreto No. 1, 641, of Jan. 7, 1907, Brazil, forbids expulsion of“aliens who reside in the territory of the Republic.”Art. 1, Ley sobre Expulsion de Extranjeros (1908), Peru,applies to aliens who have not acquired a“domicile”in the country.

50 Habeas Corpus de Francisco Macia, et al., supra.

51 Habeas Corpus de Adelina Gianelli, 39 Revista de Direito, 254.

51 a Same provision in Constitution of 1934 (Art. 113), and Constitution of 1937 (Art. 122).

52 In 2 Roure, op. cit., 308, 310, 311, 312, 313. See also Habeas Corpus de Vicente Vatirca,supra; Habeas Corpus de Giacomo Cortazzi, supra; and opinion of Judge Lessa in Habeas Corpus No. 21, 414, 86 Revista de Direito, 244, on the meaning and scope of Art. 72 (33).

53 Habeas Corpus de Len Sen, et al., 9 Registro Judicial, 289.

54 Ralston’s Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, 265, 267.

55 Art. VI, Sixth International Conference of American States.

56 Habeas Corpus de Rosa Press, supra.

57 Habeas Corpus de Everardo Dias, supra.

58 Ralston’s Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, 696, 704.

59 Habeas Corpus de Alberto Berthelot, 11 Registro Judicial, 485, 486, Supreme Court,Panama.

60 Habeas Corpus de Vicente Vadrca, supra.

61 Art. VI, Convencidn sobre Condicidn de los Extranjeros, Sixth International Conference of American States, Havana, 1929.

62 Habeas Corpus de Vicente Vacirca, supra. In the Habeas Corpus de Rosa Press, supra,the same court said:“From this, however, it should not be concluded, as it has been done insistently but without foundation, that the power of expulsion is restricted: (a)to those judicially condemned, because the truth is that the constitutional provision authorizes it in the broadest terms, even when there is no conviction, if it is shown that the alien is dangerous to the public order, or pernicious to the interests of theRepublic.”

63 Art. 32, Ley de Extranjerla, Venezuela.

64 Art. 2, Ley sobre expulsidn de extranjeros, Niim. 4,144 (1902), Argentina; Bacque, Estatuto Legal del Extranjero (Buenos Aires, 1938), 71–73; Anzoategui, op. cit., 62 et seq.; Art. 72 (33), Constitucidn, and Art. 1, Lei Ntim. 1,641 (1907), Brazil; Art. 13, Ley Num. 48 (1920), Colombia; Art. 1 (4), Ley de Expulsiones, Costa Rica; Art. 9, Ley de Extranjeros, Ecuador; Art. 50, Ley de Extranjeria, Honduras; Art. 1, Ley de Expulsidn de Extranjeros, Peru.

65 Habeas Corpus de Rosa Press, supra., 89, 93.

66 Recurso de Nicolao Tairowich, 42 Revista de Direito, 198, 204 (Orphans’ Court, Rio de Janeiro).

67 Art. 1, Ley Num. 4,144 (1902), Argentina; Art. 2 (1), Lei Num. 1,641 (1907), Brazil; Arts. 1 and 3, Ley de Residencia, Chile; Art. 15, Ley de Extranjeria y Naturalizacidn, Costa Rica; Art. 52, Ley de Extranjeria (1906), Honduras; Art. 17, Ley Ntim. 32 (1914), Panama.

68 Art. 2 (2), Ley Num. 1,641 (1907), Brazil; Arts. 1 and 3, Ley de Residencia, Chile; Art.8 (d), Ley Num. 48 (1920), Colombia; Art. 1, Decreto Ntim. 13, Ley de Expulsiones, Costa Rica; Art. 15, Ley de Extranjeria, Costa Rica; Art. 27, Ley Ntim. 32 (1914), Panama; Art. 21,Ley de Extranjeros (1925), Venezuela.

69 Habeas Corpus de Vicente Vacirca, supra, 311, 315.

70 Art. 8 (d), Ley Num. 48 (1921), Colombia; Art. 9, Ley de Extranjeros, Ecuador.

71 Art. 2 (3), Ley Num. 1,641 (1907), Brazil; Recurso de Habeas Corpus de A. Berlhelot,supra.

72 Habeas Corpus de Rosa Press, supra.

73 Arts. 2 and 3, Ley de Residencia, Chile.

74 Habeas Corpus de Rosa Press, supra.

75 Id.

76 Habeas Corpus de A. Berlhelot, supra.

77 Arts. 1 and 3, Ley de Residencia, Chile.

78 Art. 2 (3), Ley Num. 1,641 (1907), Brazil; Art. 15, Ley de Extranjeria, Costa Rica; Art. 1(1), Ley de Expulsiones, Costa Rica; Arts. 1 and 3, Ley de Residencia, Chile.

79 Art. 9, Ley de Extranjeros, Ecuador.

80 Art. 8 (a), Ley Num. 48 (1920), Colombia; Art. 52, par. 2, Ley de Extranjeria, Honduras; Art. 6, Ley de Extranjeria (Ntim. 4J45, Sept. 22, 1920), Peru. In the interesting case of Habeas Corpus de Francisco Macia, et al., supra, the Supreme Court of Argentina said:“That entry into the country in violation of the decree of the Executive Power does not carry with it expulsion as a consequence, since such penalty is not specially provided for in any law in force.”

81 Art. 42, Ley de Exlranjeria (1906), Honduras; Art. 22, par. 2, Constitution, Mexico; Art. 26, Ley Num. 8% (1914), Panama. Some legislations call it“public affairs”(Art. 8, Ley Num. 145 (1888), as amended, Art. 8 (f), Ley Num. 48 (1920), Colombia; Art. 8, Ley de Extranjeros (1925), Venezuela; others call it“political activities”(Art. 7, Conventióre Condición de los Extranjeros, Havana (1929); still others“civildissensions”(Art. 9, Ley de Exiranjeros, Ecuador; Art. 46, Ley de Exlranjeria (1906),Honduras; Art. 38, Ley sobre Exlranjeria,Mexico).

82 Art. 8, Ley de Exiranjeros (1925), Venezuela.

83 Art. 7, Convención sobre Condiciones de hs Extranjeros, Havana (1929).

84 E.g., Art. 22, Constitution, Costa Rica; Art. 20, Constitution, Panama; Art. 18, Constitution, Paraguay; Vedia, Constilución Argentina (Buenos Aires, 1907), 77 (g); 1 Gonzalez (Joaquin V.), Derecho Constitutional Argentina (Buenos Aires, 1930), § 339, p. 409; 1 Montes de Oca, Lecciones de Derecho Constitutional (Buenos Aires, ed. Calandrelli, 1917), 412 et seq.

85 13 Revista Chilena, 231:“ Aún puede menos el Gobierno de Chile reconocer en los agentes diplomaticos o consulares de las potencias extranjeras una delegación o representación del Ministerio Público de su patria para proceder criminalmente contra los trasgresores de las leyes de ella.”

86 No. XXVIII, Appendix A, Report on the Results of the Conference, VHIth International Conference of American States, Havana (1929). Resolution on the“Political Activities of Foreigners.”

87 Art. 43, Ley de Extranjerla (1906), Honduras; Art. 7, Convenció sobre Condiciones de los Extranjeros, Havana (1929).

88 Art. 15, Ley de Extranjerla, Costa Rica; Art. 9, Ley de Extranjeros, Ecuador; Art. 38, Ley sobre Extranjerla, Mexico; Art. 13, Ley Num. 145 (1888), as amended Art. 8 (f), Ley Núm. 48 (1920), Colombia; Art. 46, Ley de Extranjerla (1906), Honduras.

89 Arts. 2 and 3, Ley de Residencia, Chile; Art. 8 (b), Ley Núm. 48 (1920), Colombia:“such as anarchism, or communism, which assail the right of property”; Art. 51, Ley de Extranjerla (1906), Honduras.

90 Arts. 2 and 3, Ley de Residencia (1919), Chile.

91 Art. 25, Ley Núm. 82 (1914), Panama.

92 Art. 26, ibid.

93 Art. 17, Ley de Extranjeria, Venezuela.

94 Art. 51, Ley de Extranjeria, Honduras.

95 Art. 20, Ley de Extranjeria, Venezuela.

96 Art. 2, Ley sobre Expulsidn de Extranjerós, Argentina; Art. 72 (33), Constitution, Brazil;Art. 7, Lei Núm. 1,641 (1907), Brazil; Art. 53, Ley de Extranjeria (1906), Honduras; Art. 27, Ley Núm. 82 (1914), Panama; Art. 100 (22), Constitution, Venezuela; Arts. 17 and 22, Ley de Extranjeros, Venezuela. In Habeas Corpus de A. Berthelot, supra, the Supreme Court of Panama held that“the decrees of deportation are issued by the Executive Power.”

97 Art. 15, Ley de Extranjeria, Costa Rica.

98 Ibid.; Art. 31, Ley Núm. 32 (1914), Panama.

99 Art. 53, Ley de Extranjeria, Honduras.

100 Art. 27, Ley de Extranjeros, Venezuela. Villegas-Pulido, op. cit., p. 80, writes:“The intervention of the judicial authority would deprive the expulsion of its administrative character: the very essence of judicial functions runs counter to the object sought to be attained by the expulsion, since it would delay its being carried out to the detriment of the interests which the Executive Power seeks to safeguard.”

101 Arts. 1 and 8, Lei Núm. 1,641 (1907), Brazil. Law No. 2,741, of Jan. 8, 1913, revoked Arts. 3 and 4, only paragraph, and 8, of Lei Núm. 1,641 (Habeas Corpus de Adelino Gianelli,supra.).

102 Art. 54, par. 2, Ley de Extranjerla (1906), Honduras.

103 Art. 15, Ley de Exlranjeria, Costa Rica.

104 Art. 8, Ley Núm. 48 (1920), Colombia.

105 Habeas Corpus de Alfredo Rossi, supra.

106 12 Revisla de Direito, 311, 315. See also, Habeas Corpus de Rosa Press, 89 Revista de Direito, 63, 69, Brazil.

107 In Habeas Corpus de Francisco Macia, el al., supra, the Supreme Court of Argentin a said:“Article 14 of the Constitution confers upon all the inhabitants of the country,in keeping with the laws which regulate its exercise, the right, among others, to enter, remain, move about and leave Argentine territory. The term ‘inhabitant,’ which includes nationals as well as aliens, refers to persons who reside in the territory of theRepublic with the intention to remain in it, who inhabit it even when they have not established exactly a domicile, with all its legal effects.”Vedia (Constitucidn Argentina [Buenos Aires, 1907], Sec. 72, p. 72) writes that the expression“all inhabitants of the country”necessarily comprises citizens and aliens.

108 Arts. 2 and 8, Lei Núm. 1,641 (1907), Brazil.

109 Arts. 3 and 8, Lei Núm. 1,641 (1907), Brazil. In Habeas Corpus de Adelino Oianelii,supra, the Supreme Court of Brazil held that“as a matter of law, upon proof of the residence of the alien in accordance with the concept of residence in civil law, thereis no room for an expulsion. In all that is said respecting the guarantees of liberty and of individual security given by the Constitution, resident aliens in Brazil are ona footing of equality with natives and naturalized Brazilians (Pedro Lessa, Do Poder Judiciario, § 65).”

110 Habeas Corpus de Rosa Press, supra:“But if a deportee appears before the courts alleging that he is a Brazilian, there is no reason why he should not be protected if he can establish his claim. The Executive is authorized to deport aliens, and he cannotextend the measure to citizens.”

111 Art. 4, Ley de Residencia (1919).

112 In Habeas Corpus de Len Sen et al., supra, the Supreme Court said that since petitioners were“domiciled in the country,”they had“the right to remain in the Republic according to law.”

l13 Art. 1, Ley de Expulsión de Extranjeros.

114 Art. 28, Ley de Extranjeros.

115 Art. 18, Ley de Exlranjeria.

116 Habeas Corpus de Rosa Press, supra.