Chairman. I desire to be heard just a he has property. but if the contention of the gentleman from moment. It seems to me. in offering my views on the question Washington is right he iaay not have the right. in the law of sustaining the point of order. that the bill in question seeks which provides for his deportation. to set up any claim. merely to enact new regulations for deportation. I take it that the matter of which the gentleman from Pennsylvania has spoken might be properly contained in the phrase as it appears on page 1In addition to those for whose expulsion from the United States provision is made in the existing law. This particular bill now offered for enactment goes beyond that. and provides that deportation may be had. in addition to the existing law. in the event of certain acts beingdone by aliens. for which conviction Is had after trial in proper course. I assune that everybody will agree with that. that if an alien is tried. is afforded a fair trial and is convicted. then he is a proper subject for deportation. In this bill. however. retention is made of the existing laws. and additional safeguards for American property are incorporated by the finding that after a man is convicted of some of these acts. that fact may be. offered as a reason for his deportation in the hearing before the Secretary of Labor. but there is no provision in this bill sought to be incorporated deporting a man because he has owned any property. I assume that the ownership of property and its application toward any detriment of the United States is cared for in the existing law. and it is not sought to be cared for in this law. I contend therefore that the point of order made by the gentleman from Washington is well taken.
Keywords matched
deporting deportation