56158/590
Decided by the Board June 26, 1944
Pauper — Definition — Admissibility to the United States — Section 3 of the act of February 5, 1917.
For the purpose of the immigration laws, a pauper is one who is actually dependent upon public funds for support and who, in addition, is unable to work by reason of mental or physical infirmity, or who is unwilling to work.
EXCLUDED BY BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY:
Act of 1917 — Pauper.
Act of 1917 — Likely to become a public charge
BEFORE THE BOARD
Discussion: The appellant, a 63-year-old woman, native of the British West Indies, citizen of Canada, applied for admission as a visitor for a period of 29 days on May 15, 1944, at Montreal, Quebec, Canada. She presented a valid nonresident alien's border-crossing identification card issued by the American Consulate at Montreal. A Board of Special Inquiry excluded her on the grounds above stated.
The Public Health Service certified the appellant to be afflicted with "B. Senility-defective vision, which may affect ability to earn a living." It also appears from the record that the appellant has not been able for several years to support herself by her own efforts. Prior to the war she received public aid. More recently her main source of support has been from funds received regularly from the Catholic Federated Charities. The appellant supplements this assistance by occasional small earnings from housework.
On the facts outlined above, the Board of Special Inquiry has found the appellant inadmissible as a person likely to become a public charge and as a pauper. It is clear that the appellant's inability to support herself and her dependence upon public or private aid renders her a person likely to become a public charge. The finding that she is a pauper, however, is not sustained.
A pauper is defined in Bouvier's Law Dictionary as "One so poor that he must be supported at the public expense." It has also been said that mere poverty does not constitute a pauper. One may be destitute of estate or ability to earn a living and not be a pauper if he is supported by others. Only when his support is cast upon the public does he join the pauper class. The earliest concept of a pauper contained a certain element of opprobrium. A pauper was not only dependent upon the public but was in addition one who was unable or unwilling to work. He was frequently classed in statutory association along with imbeciles, convicts and vagrants. This concept has prevailed although modern state poor laws and relief statutes frequently describe as paupers anyone who receives public assistance. For the purposes of the immigration laws a pauper is one who is actually dependent upon public funds for support and who in addition is unable by reason of mental or physical infirmity to work or is unwilling to work.
Weeks v. Mansfield, 64 Conn. 544, 549 (1911).
54 Harvard L. Rev. 1031.
Id at p. 1032. See also Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 177 (1941); Railroad v. Husen, 95 U.S. 465, 474 (1878); Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275, 280 (1876); Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283 (1849); State v. Osawakee Township, 14 Kan. 418, 422 (1875). West Virginia specifically provides that relief recipients shall not be deemed paupers (W.Va. Code Ann., sec. 626).
By definition, as well as by uniform and unbroken court interpretation, the prime prerequisite to pauperism has been dependence upon the public. The appellant, in the instant case, though unable to work, is not now supported by public funds. Her support is provided by a private charitable agency. The appellant is not therefore a pauper.
Findings of Fact: Upon the basis of all the evidence presented, it is found:
(1) That the appellant is an alien, a native of the British West Indies, citizen of Canada;
(2) That the appellant is applying for admission as a visitor for a period of 29 days;
(3) That the appellant is physically unable to support herself;
(4) That the appellant is being supported by funds given to her by the Catholic Federated Charities.Conclusions of Law: Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, it is concluded:
(1) That under section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1917, the appellant is inadmissible on the ground that she is a person likely to become a public charge;
(2) That under section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1917, the appellant is not inadmissible on the ground that she is a pauper.Other Factors: The appellant seeks admission to the United States for the purpose of attending the wedding of her goddaughter in New York City. She presented to the Board of Special Inquiry a letter from her goddaughter's fiance inviting her to visit with them. Her character is good. She has expressed the opinion that her goddaughter or goddaughter's husband-to-be would be willing to post a bond to assure against her becoming a public charge if admitted. We shall, therefore, authorize her admission under the 9th proviso to section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1917 on condition that she post a public-charge bond in a suitable amount.
Order: It is ordered that the appellant be admitted as a visitor for a period not exceeding 29 days under the ninth proviso to section 3 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, notwithstanding that she is inadmissible as a person who is likely to become a public charge, on condition that a public-charge bond in the sum of $500 is posted on her behalf.