Jump to content

Yancin Motsi a Ƙarƙashin Dokar Amurka

Daga Wikipedia, Insakulofidiya ta kyauta.
Yancin Motsi a Ƙarƙashin Dokar Amurka
constitutional right (en) Fassara

Yancin motsi a ƙarƙashin dokar Amurka ana gudanar da shi ne da farko ta Dokokin Gata da Kariya na Kundin Tsarin Mulki na Amurka wanda ya ce, " Jama'ar kowace Jiha za su sami 'yancin samun duk wata gata da kariya ta 'yan ƙasa a cikin jihohi da dama." Tun bayan hukuncin kotun da'ira a Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), 'yancin motsi an amince da shi ta hanyar shari'a a matsayin ainihin haƙƙin Tsarin Mulki. A cikin Paul v. Virginia, 75 US 168 (1869), kotu ta ayyana 'yancin motsi a matsayin "yancin kutsawa cikin wasu Jihohi, da fita daga gare su." Duk da haka, Kotun Koli ba ta saka hannun jari ga gwamnatin tarayya da Iƙon kare 'yancin motsi ba. Ƙarƙashin sashe na "gata da kariya", an ba da wannan Iƙon ga jihohi, matsayin da kotu ta ɗauka tsawon shekaru a lokuta kamar Ward v. Maryland, 79 US 418 (1871), shari'o'in Gidan yanka, 83 US 36 (1873) da Amurka v. Harris, 106 US 629 (1883). [1] [2]

Tafiya cikin Amurka

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Tun da Kundin Tsarin Mulki Majalisar ta amince da 'yancin motsi (Mataki na 4), kodayake ana tunanin haƙƙin yana da mahimmanci yayin rubuta kundin tsarin mulkin kamar yadda ba a buƙatar ƙidayar bayyane. [3]

Kotun Koli ta Amurka a Crandall v. Nevada, 73 Amurka 35 (1868) ya bayyana cewa 'yancin motsi wani hakki ne na asali don haka wata ƙasa ba za ta iya hana mutane barin jihar ta hanyar saka su haraji ba. A Amurka v. Wheeler . 254 US 281 (1920), Kotun Koli ta sake nanata matsayinta cewa Kundin Tsarin Mulki bai bai wa gwamnatin tarayya ikon kare 'yancin motsi ba. Duk da haka, Wheeler yana da tasiri mai mahimmanci a wasu hanyoyi. Shekaru da yawa, tushen sashe na “gata da kariya” na Kundin Tsarin Mulki ba a fayyace kawai ba. A cikin shekara ta 1823, kotun da'ira a Corfield ta ba da jerin haƙƙoƙin (wasu na asali, wasu ba) waɗanda sashin zai iya rufewa. [4] [5] Kotun Wheeler ta canza wannan sosai. Ita ce farkon gano haƙƙin tafiye-tafiye a cikin jigon gata da kariya, yana ba da haƙƙi tare da takamaiman garantin kariyar tsarin mulki. [6] Ta hanyar yin la'akari da cewa juzu'in da aka samo daga Mataki na IV na Labaran Tarayyar, shawarar ta ba da shawarar tsarin haƙƙin waɗanda aka lissafta a Corfield, amma kuma sun fi bayyana waɗancan haƙƙoƙin a matsayin ainihin asali. Kotun Koli ta fara ƙin yarda da tunanin Wheeler a cikin ƴan shekaru. A ƙarshe, a Amurka v. Bako, 383 US 745 (1966), Kotun Koli ta yi watsi da matakin Babban Mai Shari'a White na cewa gwamnatin tarayya na iya kare 'yancin yin balaguro kawai daga cin zarafi na jihohi. [1] [2] [7]

Kotun Koli ta yanke hukunci musamman cewa Crandall baya nufin 'yancin yin amfani da kowane nau'in tafiye -tafiye, kamar tuƙin mota. A cikin Hendrick v. Maryland (1915), wanda ya shigar da kara ya bukaci kotu da ta ɓata dokar motar Maryland a matsayin cin zarafin 'yancin motsi. Kotun ta sami "babu wani tushe mai tushe" ga gardamar mai shigar da kara kuma gaba ɗaya ta ce "idan babu dokar kasa da ta shafi batun, wata kasa na iya yin daidai da ƙa'idojin bai daya da suka wajaba don kare lafiyar jama'a da oda dangane da aiki a kan manyan hanyoyinta na kowa da kowa. ababan hawa - waɗanda ke motsawa a cikin kasuwancin jihohin da sauransu." [8]

Kotun kolin Amurka ta kuma yi magana game da 'yancin yin balaguro a cikin shari'ar Saenz v. Roe, 526 US 489 (1999). A wannan yanayin, Mai Shari'a John Paul Stevens, yana rubutawa ga mafi rinjaye, ya gudanar da cewa Kundin Tsarin Mulki na Amurka ya kare nau'o'i daban-daban guda uku na 'yancin yin tafiya a tsakanin jihohi:

(1) Haƙƙin Shigar da Jiha ɗaya kuma ku bar wani (muhimmin dama tare da tallafi na tarihi daga labaran Confederation),

(2) haƙƙin da za a bi da shi azaman baƙo maraba maimakon baƙo mai ƙiyayya (kare ta hanyar "Gata da Immunities" a cikin Mataki na IV, § 2), da kuma

(3) (ga waɗanda suka zama mazaunin dindindin na wata jiha) haƙƙin a bi da su daidai ga ƴan ƙasar da aka haifa (wannan yana kiyaye shi ta 14th Amendment's Gata ko Immunities ; yana ambaton mafi rinjaye ra'ayi a cikin Kisa-House Cases, Adalci). Stevens ya ce, "Gata ko Kariya na Tsarin Kwaskwarima na Goma sha huɗu ... a ko da yaushe ya kasance alƙawarin gama gari cewa wannan Fassara ta kare kashi na uku na haƙƙin tafiye-tafiye." ).

Dokar Mann

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Dokar Mann ta 1910 (Dokar zirga-zirgar Bawan Bawa ) a tsakanin sauran abubuwa ta haramta safarar mata a cikin jihohi don in ba haka ba "abubuwan lalata" waɗanda ba a bayyana su ba, waɗanda aka ɗauka sun haɗa da jima'i na yarda da juna. An yi amfani da wannan doka, baya ga kararrakin da ba a samu sabani ba, don ba da damar gurfanar da ma’auratan da ba su yi aure ba a gwamnatin tarayya, wadanda bisa wasu dalilai suka zo wurin hukuma; ma'auratan (misali ɗan dambe Jack Johnson ) da mutanen da ke da ra'ayi na hagu (misali An gurfanar da Charlie Chaplin . Tun daga lokacin an gyara dokar don zama tsaka-tsaki tsakanin jinsi kuma yanzu ta shafi yin jima'i ne kawai wanda ya sabawa doka (kamar karuwanci da jima'i da yarinya).

Ƙaddamar da kotun ta kafa ƙwaƙƙwarar 'yancin walwala da kundin tsarin mulkin ƙasar ya ba shi ya yi tasiri mai yawa. Misali, Kotun Koli ta soke haramcin jihohi kan biyan jindadi ga mutanen da ba su zauna a cikin hurumin akalla shekara guda ba a matsayin nauyi mara izini kan Haƙƙin tafiya ( Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 US 618 (1969)). Kotun ta kuma soke sharuddan zama na shekara guda don kada kuri'a a zabukan jihohi ( Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 US 330 (1972)), lokutan jira na shekara guda kafin samun kulawar jinya ta jihar ( Asibitin Memorial v. Maricopa County, 415 US 250 (1974)), abubuwan da ake so na ma'aikatan gwamnati don tsoffin sojoji na jiha ( Lauyan Janar na New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 US 898 (1986)), amma ya ba da ƙarin kamun kifi da kuɗin lasisin farauta ga mazaunan waje ( Baldwin v. Kifi da Hukumar Wasan Montana, 436 US 371 (1978)). [9] [10] [11]

Lambar Amurka ta yanzu tana magance balaguron iska musamman. A cikin 49 USC § 40103, "Mallaka da amfani da sararin samaniya", kundin ya ƙayyade cewa "Dan ƙasar Amurka yana da haƙƙin jama'a na wucewa ta sararin samaniyar kewayawa."

Ƙaƙƙarfan haƙƙin 'yancin motsi na iya samun ma'ana mai zurfi. Kotun koli ta amince da cewa 'yancin motsi yana da alaƙa da 'yancin yin ƙungiyoyi da 'yancin faɗar albarkacin baki . Ƙarfin kariyar tsarin mulki don haƙƙin tafiye-tafiye na iya yin tasiri ga yunƙurin jihohi na iyakance haƙƙin zubar da ciki, hana ko ƙin amincewa da auren jinsi, da kafa dokar hana aikata laifuka ko kariyar mabukaci . Yana iya ma lalata tunanin tsarin tarayya na zamani na kotu. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

Yankunan magana kyauta

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Wani batu mai alaka da shi ya shafi yankunan 'yancin fadin albarkacin baki da aka kebe yayin zanga-zangar siyasa. Kodayake ana amfani da irin waɗannan yankuna a shekarun 1960 da shekara ta 1970 saboda zanga-zangar zamanin Vietnam, ba a ba da rahotonsu sosai a kafafen yada labarai ba. Koyaya, takaddamar amfani da su ta sake kunno kai a lokacin shugabancin Bush na shekara ta 2001-2009. Mahimmanci, Yankunan Magana na Kyauta suna hana mutum samun cikakkiyar motsi sakamakon amfani da haƙƙinsa na yin magana kyauta . Kotuna sun amince da takunkumin lokaci, wuri, da kuma hanyoyin hana 'yancin faɗin albarkacin baki a Amurka, amma irin wadannan hane-hane dole ne a daidaita su kaɗan, kuma yankunan 'yancin fadar albarkacin baki sun kasance batun shari'a.

Tafiye-tafiye zuwa ƙasashen duniya

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Tarihi

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Daga shekara ta 1776 zuwa 1783, babu gwamnatin jiha da ke da buƙatun fasfo. Labaran gwamnatin tarayya (1783-1789) ba su da buƙatun fasfo. Daga 1789 zuwa ƙarshen 1941, gwamnatin da aka kafa a ƙarƙashin Kundin Tsarin Mulki na buƙatar fasfo na Amurka na 'yan ƙasa kawai a lokacin yakin basasar Amurka (1861-1865) da kuma lokacin da jim kadan bayan yakin duniya na (1914-1918). Bukatar fasfo na zamanin yakin basasa ba shi da ikon doka. Bayan barkewar yakin duniya na daya, ana buƙatar fasfo ta hanyar zartarwa, ko da yake babu wata hukuma ta doka don abin da ake bukata. Dokar Kula da Balaguro ta Mayu 22, shekara ta 1918, ta ba wa shugaban ƙasa, lokacin da Amurka ke yaƙi, ya yi shelar fasfo, kuma an ba da sanarwar a ranar 18 ga Agusta, 1918. Ko da yake Yaƙin Duniya na ɗaya ya ƙare a ranar 11 ga Nuwambar shekara ta, 1918, buƙatun fasfo ɗin ya daɗe har zuwa Maris 3, 1921. Akwai rashin buƙatun fasfo a ƙarƙashin dokar Amurka tsakanin shekara ta 1921 da shekara ta 1941. Yaƙin Duniya na II (1939-1945) ya sake haifar da buƙatun fasfo a ƙarƙashin Dokar Kula da Balaguro na 1918. Canje-canjen 1978 ga Dokar Shige da Fice da Ƙasa ta 1952 ya sa ba bisa doka ba shiga ko fita Amurka ba tare da fasfo ba ko da a lokacin zaman lafiya. A lura cewa gyaran ya ba wa shugaban kasa damar yin keɓancewa; a tarihi, an yi amfani da waɗannan keɓancewar don ba da izinin tafiya zuwa wasu ƙasashe (musamman Kanada) ba tare da fasfo ba. Kamar yadda na 2016-08-10, wuraren yawon shakatawa har yanzu suna tattauna waɗanne wasu takaddun da aka yarda da su, kuma waɗanda suka daina isa a 2007 ko 2008.

Ƙuntatawa

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Dangane da § 215 na Dokar Shige da Fice da Ƙasa ta 1952 (a halin yanzu an daidaita shi a 8 USC § 1185 ), haramun ne ga ɗan ƙasar Amurka shiga ko fita Amurka ba tare da ingantaccen fasfo na Amurka ba.

Kamar yadda Haig v. Agee da Dokar Fasfo na 1926 (a halin yanzu an tsara shi a 22 USC § 211a et seq.), Gwamnatin shugaban kasa na iya hana ko soke fasfo don manufofin kasashen waje ko dalilan tsaron kasa a kowane lokaci. Sakatariyar Harkokin Wajen ta tarihi a lokacin zaman lafiya ya ƙi fasfo saboda ɗaya daga cikin dalilai uku: zama ɗan ƙasa ko aminci, aikata laifuka, ko lokacin da mai nema ke neman "gujewa ayyukan doka". Dokoki da ƙa'idoji kan ƙuntata fasfo gabaɗaya an kasafta su azaman ƙuntatawa na sirri ko ƙuntatawa yanki kuma gabaɗaya an ba su barata don tsaron ƙasa ko dalilan manufofin ƙasashen waje. Wataƙila mafi kyawun misali na aiwatar da wannan ikon shine 1948 hana fasfo ga Wakilin Amurka Leo Isacson, wanda ya nemi zuwa Paris don halartar taro a matsayin mai sa ido ga Majalisar Amurka ta Demokradiyyar Girka, ƙungiyar gurguzu ta gaba . saboda rawar da kungiyar ta taka wajen adawa da gwamnatin Girka a yakin basasar Girka . [17]

A cikin Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958), Sakataren Harkokin Wajen Amurka ya ƙi ba da fasfo ga wani ɗan ƙasar Amurka bisa zargin cewa mai shigar da ƙara yana zuwa ƙasashen waje don inganta tsarin gurguzu (hana kai / tsaron ƙasa). Ko da yake kotun ba ta kai ga batun tabbatar da tsarin mulki ba a wannan shari’ar, kotun, a wani ra’ayi na mai shari’a William O. Douglas, ta ce gwamnatin tarayya ba za ta tauye ‘yancin yin tafiye-tafiye ba ba tare da bin ka’ida ba :

Haƙƙin tafiye-tafiye wani ɓangare ne na 'yanci' wanda ba za a iya hana ɗan ƙasa ba tare da bin ka'idar doka a ƙarƙashin Kwaskwarima ta biyar. Idan ana so a daidaita wannan "'yancin", dole ne ya kasance daidai da ayyukan kafa doka na Majalisa. . . . 'Yancin tafiya ta kan iyakoki ta kowane bangare, da kuma iyakoki ma, wani bangare ne na gadonmu. Tafiya zuwa ƙasashen waje, kamar tafiya cikin ƙasa. ... na iya zama kusa da zuciyar mutum kamar zabin abin da yake ci, ko sawa, ko karantawa.[18] [19][20][21] [22][23][24][25][9]


Shekaru shida bayan haka, kotu ta soke dokar hana tafiye-tafiye daga 'yan gurguzu ( Aptheker v. Sakataren Gwamnati, 378 US 500 (1964)) (hani na sirri, Tsaron ƙasa, Gyaran Farko). Amma kotun ta yi ta faman nemo hanyar da za ta kare muradun kasa (kamar tsaron kasa) bisa la’akari da wadannan hukunce-hukuncen. Shekara guda bayan Aptheker, Kotun Koli ta tsara gwajin tushen ma'ana don tsarin mulki a cikin Zemel v. Rusk, 381 US 1 (1965) (ƙananan yanki, manufofin ƙasashen waje), a matsayin hanyar daidaita haƙƙin mutum tare da buƙatun jihar. [9]

Ƙuntatawa azaman hukunci

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Matsayin Nauyin Mutum da Dokar Sasanci Dama na Aiki na 1996 (PRWORA), wanda aka tsara a 42 USC 652 (k), ya ga farkon hane-hane akan 'yancin motsi a matsayin hukunci ga masu ba da bashi tallafin yara. Ƙalubalen tsarin mulki ga waɗannan hane-hane ya zuwa yanzu sun gaza a cikin Weinstein v. Albright da Eunique v. Powell . Kotunan daukaka kara ta tarayya da ke da'ira ta biyu da ta tara, duk da cewa sun nuna damuwarsu kan yadda ya kamata, amma sun yi imanin cewa tara tallafin yara wani muhimmin al'amari ne na gwamnati, cewa 'yancin yin balaguro zuwa ƙasashen duniya ba wani muhimmin hakki ba ne, kuma dokokin da suka tauye wannan hakki ba su da tsaiko. dubawa . A cikin wani ra'ayi na rashin amincewa a cikin Eunique, Alkalin kotun Andrew Kleinfeld ya rarraba ma'aunin a matsayin hukunci na basussukan da ba a biya ba. “Wannan haramcin fasfo an fi ganinsa a hankali, idan aka yi la’akari da hukuncin da ake bukatar jihohi su sanya na rashin biyan kudin tallafin yara. ... ba a matsayin hanyar sauƙaƙe tarawa ba, amma a matsayin hukunci na rashin biyan kuɗi na baya." “Duk wanda ake bi bashi ya biya basussukansa. Bashi don tallafawa yara yana da ƙarfin ɗabi'a na musamman. Amma wannan ba ya ba da hujjar kawar da 'yancin tsarin mulki mai mahimmanci da ya kasance rikodi na dokokin Anglo-Amurka tun Magna Carta, da kuma tunanin wayewa tun daga Plato."

Da yawa daga cikin malaman tsarin mulki da masu fafutukar kawo sauyi suna adawa da tauye hakkin dan Adam na yin tafiye-tafiye ga mutumin da bai aikata wani laifi ba, suna masu cewa hakan ya saba wa muhimman hakkokin tsarin mulki. Hakazalika, duk wanda ke da’awar cewa yana bin bashin tallafin yaro na iya soke wasu nau’ikan lasisin tukin mota ko kuma a dakatar da shi, suna tauye musu ’yancin yin tafiye-tafiye sosai. Masu sukar sun yi nuni da lamuran da rashin aikin yi ya haifar da gazawar biyan tallafin amma duk da haka martanin soke haƙƙin yin tafiye-tafiye

Dokar Kare Hakkokin Dan Adam ta Duniya

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Ƙididdiga na Haƙƙin Dan Adam na Ƙasashen Duniya suna ne na yau da kullum da aka ba wa Yarjejeniya ta Duniya ta Haƙƙin Dan Adam (wanda aka karɓa a cikin shekara ta 1948), Yarjejeniya ta Duniya akan 'Yancin Bil'adama da Siyasa (1966) tare da ka'idoji guda biyu na Zaɓuɓɓuka, da Yarjejeniyar Kasa da Kasa akan Tattalin Arziki, zamantakewa da zamantakewa. Hakkokin Al'adu (1966).

Mataki na 13 na Yarjejeniyar Kare Haƙƙoƙin Ɗan Adam ta Duniya tana karantawa kamar haka:

(1) Kowane mutum na da hakkin yin tafiya da zama a cikin iyakokin kowace jiha.
(2) Kowane mutum na da hakkin ya bar kowace ƙasa, ciki har da nasa, kuma ya koma ƙasarsa.

Mataki na 12 na yarjejeniyar kasa da kasa kan 'yancin jama'a da siyasa ya kunshi wannan hakki cikin dokar yarjejeniya:

(1) Duk wanda ke cikin ƙasa bisa doka, a cikin wannan yanki, yana da 'yancin yin motsi da 'yancin zabar wurin zama.
(2) Kowane mutum yana da 'yancin barin kowace ƙasa, ciki har da nasa.
(3) Haƙƙoƙin da aka ambata a sama ba za su kasance ƙarƙashin kowane hani sai waɗanda doka ta tanadar, waɗanda suka wajaba don kare lafiyar ƙasa, zaman lafiyar jama'a (ordre publique), lafiyar jama'a ko ɗabi'a ko haƙƙi da ƴancin wasu, kuma sun daidaita. tare da sauran haƙƙoƙin da aka gane a cikin wannan alkawari.
(4) Ba wanda za a tauye masa haƙƙin shiga ƙasarsa ba bisa ƙa'ida ba.

Duba kuma

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Manazarta

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]
  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Duster, Michael J. "Criminal Justice System Reform Symposium: Note: Out of Sight, Out of Mind: State Attempts to Banish Sex Offenders". Drake Law Review. 53:711 (Spring 2005).
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 "Note: Membership Has Its Privileges and Immunities: Congressional Power to Define and Enforce the Rights of National Citizenship". Harvard Law Review. 102:1925 (June 1989).
  3. ↑ [1] Mount, Steve; "Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution"
  4. ↑ Wadley, James B. "Indian Citizenship and the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the United States Constitution: An Alternative to the Problems of the Full Faith and Credit and Comity?". Southern Illinois University Law Journal. 31:31 (Fall 2006).
  5. ↑ Dunlap, Frank L. "Constitutional Law: Power of States to Prevent Entry of Paupers from Other States". California Law Review. 26:5 (July 1938).
  6. ↑ Foscarinis, Maria. "Downward Spiral: Homelessness and Its Criminalization". Yale Law & Policy Review. 14:1 (1996).
  7. ↑ United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 759, n.16.
  8. ↑ Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610 (S. C. 1915).
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Mode, Gregory J. "Comment: Wisconsin, A Constitutional Right to Intrastate Travel, and Anti-Cruising Ordinances". Marquette Law Review. 78:735 (Spring 1995).
  10. ↑ Porter, Andrew C. "Comment: Toward a Constitutional Analysis of the Right to Intrastate Travel". Northwestern University Law Review. 86:820 (1992).
  11. ↑ Zubler, Todd. "The Right to Migrate and Welfare Reform: Time for Shapiro v. Thompson to Take A Hike". Valparaiso University Law Review. 31:893 (Summer 1997).
  12. ↑ Simon, Harry. "Towns Without Pity: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis of Official Efforts to Drive Homeless Persons From American Cities". Tulane Law Review. 66:631 (March 1992).
  13. ↑ Kreimer, Seth F. "The Law of Choice and Choice of Law: Abortion, the Right to Travel, and Extraterritorial Regulation in American Federalism". New York University Law Review. 67:451 (June 1992).
  14. ↑ Rosen, Mark D. "Extraterritoriality and Political Heterogeneity in American Federalism". University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 150:855 (January 2002).
  15. ↑ Kreimer, Seth F. "Territoriality and Moral Dissensus: Thoughts on Abortion, Slavery, Gay Marriage and Family Values". Bridgeport Law Review/Quinnipiac Law Review. 16:161 (Spring/Summer 1996).
  16. ↑ Hemmens, Craig and Bennett, Katherine. "Out in the Street: Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Curfews, and the Constitution". Gonzaga Law Review. 34:267 (1998/1999).
  17. ↑ Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981), at 302
  18. ↑ Samfuri:ExecutiveOrder of December 15, 1915; Samfuri:ExecutiveOrder of March 13, 1916.
  19. ↑ Samfuri:ExecutiveOrder of August 18, 1918
  20. ↑ Act of May 22, 1918, Samfuri:USStat; Proc. No. 1473, Samfuri:USStat; Act of March 3, 1921, Samfuri:USStat.
  21. ↑ Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981). § 707(b) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1979 (Samfuri:USStatute), amended § 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 making it unlawful to enter or depart the United States without a passport even in peacetime.
  22. ↑ "Kwafin ajiya". Archived from the original on 2022-08-18. Retrieved 2022-03-15.
  23. ↑ Capassakis, Evelyn (1981). "Passport Revocations or Denials on the Ground of National Security and Foreign Policy". Fordham Law Review. 49 (6): 1178–1196.
  24. ↑ Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981), at 302
  25. ↑ "Foreign Relations: Bad Ammunition". Time. April 12, 1948. Archived from the original on February 1, 2011.
Daga "https://ha.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yancin_Motsi_a_Ƙarƙashin_Dokar_Amurka&oldid=175202"