In the 1933 Supreme Court case Hansen v. Haff, a Danish immigrant named Hans Peter Hansen challenged his deportation order on the grounds that he had been in America for over seven years and was therefore protected from expulsion under existing immigration law. The court ruled against him, stating that while he had indeed resided in the United States for more than seven years, this period of residence did not begin until after he was officially admitted into the country by immigration authorities. Since Mr. Hansen's official admission date occurred less than seven years prior to his deportation proceedings, it meant that he fell short of meeting the required residency duration stipulated by law to be exempted from deportation.

In the dissenting opinion for Hansen v. Haff, Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's decision to deport a Danish immigrant who had been living in America since he was five years old. He argued that it was unjust and unreasonable to expel someone from their adopted country based on a crime they committed as an adult, especially when they had lived most of their life in that country and were fully integrated into its society. Furthermore, he pointed out that the man had served his sentence for his crime and should not be punished further by deportation. Justice Cardozo believed this case highlighted flaws in immigration law which allowed such harsh punishments without considering individual circumstances or allowing any possibility of mercy or leniency.