In  view  of  the  cases  which  we  have  cited  it  seems  no  longer  open  to
discuss  the  question  propounded  as  a  new  one.  Therefore  we  do  not
analyze  the  nature  of  the  right  of  a  person  presenting  himself  at  the
frontier  for  admission.  In  re  Ross  (Ross  v.  Mclntyre),  140  U,  S.  453,
464,  11  Sup.  Ct.  897,  35  L.  Ed.  581,  586.  But  it  is  not  improper  to
add  a  few  words.  The  petitioner,  although  physically  within  our
boundaries,  is  to  be  regarded  as  if  he  had  been  stopped  at  the  limit  of
our  jurisdiction,  and  kept  there  while  his  right  to  enter  was  under
debate.  If,  for  the  purpose  of  argument,  we  assume  that  the  fifth
amendment  applies  to  him,  and  that  to  deny  entrance  to  a  citizen  is  tO
deprive  him  of  liberty,  we  nevertheless  are  of  opinion  that  with  re-
gard to  him  due  process  of  law  does  not  require  judicial  trial.  That  is
the  result  of  the  cases  which  we  have  cited,  and  the  almost  necessary
result  of  the  power  of  Congress  to  pass  exclusion  laws.  That  the  de-
cision may  be  intrusted  to  an  executive  officer,  and  that  his  decision
is  due  process  of  law,  was  affirmed  and  explained  in  Nishimura  Ekiu
V.  United  States,  142  U.  S.  651,  660,  12  Sup.  Ct.  336,  35  L.  Ed.  1146,
1149,  and  in  Fong  Yue  Ting  v.  United  States,  149  U.  S.  698,  713,  13
Sup.  Ct.  1016,  37  L.  Ed.  905,  913,  before  the  authorities  to  which  we
already  have  referred.  It  is  unnecessary  to  repeat  the  often-quoted  re-
marks of  Mr.  Justice  Curtis,  speaking  for  the  whole  court  in  Den
ex  dem.  Murray  v.  Hoboken  Land  &  Improv.  Co.,  18  How.  272,  280,
15  L.  Ed.  372,  376,  to  show  that  the  requirement  of  a  judicial  trial
does  not  prevail  in  every  case.  Lem  Moon  Sing  v.  United  States,  158
U.  S.  538,  546,  547,  15  Sup.  Ct.  967,  39  L.  Ed.  1082,  1085 ;  Japanese
Immigrant  Case  (Yamataya  v.  Fisher),  189  U.  S.  86,  100,  23  Sup.  Ct.
