O'Keefe v Calwell

Last updated

O’Keefe v Calwell
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Decided18 March 1949
Citation(s) [1949] HCA 6, (1949) 77 CLR 261
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Latham CJ, Rich, Dixon, McTiernan, Williams and Webb   JJ

O'Keefe v Calwell [1] is a High Court of Australia case.

Annie O'Keefe was a Dutch subject born in the Netherlands East Indies and one of 15,000 people who were evacuated to Australia from nearby countries during World War II and given sanctuary. She arrived in Australia in September 1942 and settled in the outer Melbourne community of Bonbeach. She married an Australian, believing that the marriage would also allow her to remain, but the government issued a deportation order for Annie and her children in January 1949. Public support allowed her to challenge the deportation order. [2]

The High Court ruled in favour of O'Keefe. This was because she had not formally been given the status of a prohibited immigrant when she was allowed to enter Australia with a certificate of exemption, so the expiration of the certificate did not make her liable to deportation as a prohibited immigrant. Nor could she be declared a prohibited immigrant more than five years after being allowed into the country. The case proved the Aliens Deportation Act 1948 a failure, leading the Minister for Immigration Arthur Calwell to push forward with the War-time Refugees Removal Act 1949. [3]

The action in the High Court was the first successful legal challenge to the White Australia Policy. [2]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">White Australia policy</span> Historical racial policies in Australia

The White Australia policy was a set of racist policies that aimed to forbid people of non-European ethnic origins – especially Asians and Pacific Islanders – from immigrating to Australia in order to create a "white/British" ideal focused on but not exclusively Anglo-Celtic peoples. Pre-Federation, the Australian colonies passed many anti-Chinese immigration laws mainly using Poll Taxes, with Federation in 1901 came discrimination based on the Dictation Test, which effectively gave power to immigration officials to racially discriminate without mentioning race. The policy also affected immigrants from Germany, Italy, and other European countries, especially in wartime. Governments progressively dismantled such policies between 1949 and 1973. At first these changes were due to international pressure and were token modifications designed to maintain a white Australia until the Whitlam government removed the last racial elements of Australia's immigration laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arthur Calwell</span> Australian politician

Arthur Augustus Calwell was an Australian politician who served as the leader of the Labor Party from 1960 to 1967. He led the party through three federal elections, losing each one in turn.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Security certificate</span>

In Canada, a security certificate is a legal mechanism by which the Canadian government can detain and deport permanent residents and all other non-citizens living in Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration Restriction Act 1901</span> Australian legislation

The Immigration Restriction Act 1901 (Cth) was an Act of the Parliament of Australia which limited immigration to Australia and formed the basis of the White Australia policy which sought to exclude all non-Europeans from Australia. The law granted immigration officers a wide degree of discretion to prevent individuals from entering Australia. The Act prohibited various classes of people from immigrating and provided for illegal immigrants to be deported.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian immigration and refugee law</span>

Canadian immigration and refugee law concerns the area of law related to the admission of foreign nationals into Canada, their rights and responsibilities once admitted, and the conditions of their removal. The primary law on these matters is in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, whose goals include economic growth, family reunification, and compliance with humanitarian treaties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Post-war immigration to Australia</span> Large-scale migration after WWII

Post-war immigration to Australia deals with migration to Australia in the decades immediately following World War II, and in particular refers to the predominantly European wave of immigration which occurred between 1945 and the end of the White Australia policy in 1973. In the immediate aftermath of World War II, Ben Chifley, Prime Minister of Australia (1945–1949), established the federal Department of Immigration to administer a large-scale immigration program. Chifley commissioned a report on the subject which found that Australia was in urgent need of a larger population for the purposes of defence and development and it recommended a 1% annual increase in population through increased immigration.

During the 18th and most of the 19th centuries, the United States had limited regulation of immigration and naturalization at a national level. Under a mostly prevailing "open border" policy, immigration was generally welcomed, although citizenship was limited to “white persons” as of 1790, and naturalization subject to five year residency requirement as of 1802. Passports and visas were not required for entry to America, rules and procedures for arriving immigrants were determined by local ports of entry or state laws, and processes for naturalization were determined by local county courts.

<i>Plaintiff M70 v Minister for Immigration</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Plaintiff M70 is a decision by the High Court of Australia. The lawsuit concerned an injunction sought by multiple Afghan asylum seekers against immigration minister Chris Bowen. The injunction was to prevent Bowen from deporting the plaintiffs to Malaysia, pursuant to s198A of the Migration Act. The purpose of the deportation was to avoid their asylum application from being assessed by Australia.

Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903), popularly known as the Japanese Immigrant Case, is a Supreme Court of the United States case about the federal government's power to exclude and deport certain classes of alien immigrants under the Immigration Act of 1891. The Supreme Court held that the courts may not interfere with a pending deportation unless the administrative hearing was unfair. However, deportation procedures are subject to constitutional scrutiny, under the Due Process Clause.

Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876), was a US Supreme Court case that ruled that the powers to set rules surrounding immigration and to manage foreign relations rest with the US federal government, rather than that of the states. The case has been cited in other Supreme Court cases related to government authority on matters relating to immigration policy and immigration enforcement, most recently in Arizona v. United States (2012).

Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893), decided by the United States Supreme Court on May 15, 1893, was a case challenging provisions in Section 6 of the Geary Act of 1892 that extended and amended the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The provisions in question required Chinese in the United States to obtain certificates of residency and allowed for the arrest and the deportation of Chinese who had failed to obtain these certificates, even if they had not violated any other laws. The case involved writs of habeas corpus from Fong Yue Ting and two other Chinese citizens residing in New York City who were arrested and detained for not having certificates. The Supreme Court decision was in favor of the United States government, upholding the Geary Act and denying the writs of habeas corpus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration policy of Donald Trump</span> Policies regarding immigration of the Trump administration

Immigration policy, including illegal immigration to the United States, was a signature issue of former U.S. president Donald Trump's presidential campaign, and his proposed reforms and remarks about this issue generated much publicity. Trump has repeatedly said that illegal immigrants are criminals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal challenges to the Trump travel ban</span> Legal disputes

Executive Order 13769 was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017, and quickly became the subject of legal challenges in the federal courts of the United States. The order sought to restrict travel from seven Muslim majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The plaintiffs challenging the order argued that it contravened the United States Constitution, federal statutes, or both. On March 16, 2017, Executive Order 13769 was superseded by Executive Order 13780, which took legal objections into account and removed Iraq from affected countries. Then on September 24, 2017, Executive Order 13780 was superseded by Presidential Proclamation 9645 which is aimed at more permanently establishing travel restrictions on those countries except Sudan, while adding North Korea and Venezuela which had not previously been included.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive Order 13768</span> Executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump

Executive Order 13768 titled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 25, 2017. The order stated that "sanctuary jurisdictions" including sanctuary cities that refused to comply with immigration enforcement measures would not be "eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes" by the U.S. Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive Order 13780</span> 2017 executive order by U.S. President Trump placing travel restrictions on several countries

Executive Order 13780, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, was an executive order signed by United States President Donald Trump on March 6, 2017. It placed a 90-day restriction on entry to the U.S. by nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and barred entry for all refugees who did not possess either a visa or valid travel documents for 120 days. This executive order—sometimes called "Travel Ban 2.0"—revoked and replaced Executive Order 13769 issued on January 27, 2017.

<i>War-time Refugees Removal Act 1949</i>

The War-time Refugees Removal Act 1949 was a piece of Australian legislation that formed part of the White Australia policy. It was introduced by the Chifley government in July 1949, in order to give the federal government the explicit authority to deport non-white foreigners who had arrived in Australia during World War II.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lorenzo Gamboa</span> Filipino-American barred from Australia

Lorenzo Abrogar Gamboa was a Filipino-American man who was excluded from Australia under the White Australia policy, despite having an Australian wife and children. His treatment sparked an international incident with the Philippines.

<i>Aliens Deportation Act 1948</i>

The Aliens Deportation Act 1948 (Cth) was an Act of the Parliament of Australia which formed part of the White Australia policy. The Act gave the government sweeping powers to deport aliens.

Federal policy oversees and regulates immigration to the United States and citizenship of the United States. The United States Congress has authority over immigration policy in the United States, and it delegates enforcement to the Department of Homeland Security. Historically, the United States went through a period of loose immigration policy in the early-19th century followed by a period of strict immigration policy in the late-19th and early-20th centuries. Policy areas related to the immigration process include visa policy, asylum policy, and naturalization policy. Policy areas related to illegal immigration include deferral policy and removal policy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration policy of the Joe Biden administration</span>

Joe Biden's immigration policy is primarily based on reversing many of the immigration policies of the previous Trump administration. During his first day in office, Biden reversed many of Trump's policies on immigration, such as halting the construction of the Mexican border wall, ending Trump's travel ban restricting travel from 14 countries, and an executive order to reaffirm protections for DACA recipients. The Biden administration and Department of Homeland Security, under leadership of Alejandro Mayorkas, dramatically reined in deportation practices of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), prioritizing national security and violent crime concerns over petty and nonviolent offenses. However, Biden has also faced criticism for extending Title 42, a Trump administration border restriction that arose due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as restarting the use of expediting families in Central America, which can cause families to be sent back in weeks, compared to years for an average immigration case. In the fiscal year 2021, the US Border Patrol confirmed more than 1.6 million encounters with migrants along the US-Mexico border, more than quadruple the number in the previous fiscal year and the largest annual total on record. In January 2023, Biden announced a program to strengthen the admission of immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, while at the same time his administration will crack down on those who fail to use the plan's legal pathway and strengthen border security. In May 2023, the Biden Administration approved sending 1,500 more troops to the U.S.-Mexico border following Title 42's expiration.

References

  1. O'Keefe v Calwell [1949] HCA 6 , (1949) 77 CLR 261(18 March 1949), High Court
  2. 1 2 Power, Paul (18 March 2014). "How one refugee signalled the end of the White Australia policy". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 29 January 2020.
  3. "Immigration control and deportation". press-files.anu.edu.au. Retrieved 29 January 2020.