In the 1931 case United States ex rel. Polymeris et al. v. Trudell, Immigration Inspector, the Supreme Court of the United States addressed a dispute over immigration law and its application to seamen who had deserted their ships while in U.S ports. The petitioners were Greek nationals who had left their ship in Detroit and sought to remain in America permanently. They argued that under existing immigration laws they should be allowed to stay because they entered through Canada which was not considered an "entry" as per US law at that time. The court ruled against them stating that even though they initially arrived via Canada, once they abandoned their ship with intent to reside within the country it constituted an entry into America subjecting them to immigration laws including deportation if found ineligible for admission. This decision clarified how "entry" is defined under U.S immigration law - not just by physical crossing of borders but also considering factors like intention behind such actions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States ex rel. Polymeris et al. v. Trudell, Immigration Inspector argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation and application of immigration law, particularly with regard to the admission of aliens into the country who were likely to become public charges due to their lack of financial resources or employment prospects. The dissenters contended that such a broad interpretation could potentially lead to an influx of immigrants who would be unable to support themselves financially and thus place an undue burden on American society and taxpayers. They also expressed concern about potential abuses by unscrupulous individuals or groups seeking entry under false pretenses or through fraudulent means.