Speech #680193363

So long as our public policy protects even the worst criminal from prosecution for a wrong committed against society after the lapse of time specified in our criminal legislation. it is awful to contemplate that one who is claimed to belong to one of the classes excluded by law from admission to the United States. and whose sole dereliction has been a desire to come to this country and has carried out that design. is to be regarded as having committed an offense punishable for all eternity. one which the lapse of time will not mitigate or alleviate and which. like a charge of murder against an individual. will never be wiped out no matter how much time may elapse. Under the terms of this bill it is immaterial whether he was entirely honest and free from fraud. deceit. and misrepresentation. He may have been passed by immigrant inspectors and physicians in due course. who acted in good faith and honestly believed that he should be admitted. He may have been admitted in consequence of an appeal to the Secretary of Labor. or to his predecessor. the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. A court may have legally established his right to admission. The deportation of all aliens guilty of any crime or offense Involving moral turpitude has our sincere approval. But we deprecate the removal of time limit in all causes. as well as the placing the burden of proof upon the alien. and forcing him not only to prove himself innocent but also compelling him to disprove many groundless charges that may be made against him by any unscrupulous person who might make them because of a dislike or grudge. or for the purpose of extortion or blackmail and vesting our immigration inspectors with power to override the findings and judgments of our courts. To make our position clear and to familiarize the unbiased members more fully with what we term unnecessarily harsh provisions of this bill. I will set forth our views and objection. not in the order of their importance but in the order in which they appear in the bill. (1) Section 19 materially changes the present deportation act. It provides tMat "at any time after entering the United States. whether the entry was before or after the enactment of the deportation act of 1925. the following aliens shall be taken into custody and deported." Then follows an enumeration of 14 classes. the first of which is exceedingly comprehensive. It includes all aliens who at the time of entry belonged to one or more of the classes excluded by law from admission to the United States. That harks back to section 3 of the immigration act of 1917. and includes. among others. illiterates. persons suffering from a physical defect of a nature which may affect the ability of such alien to earn a living. and persons of constitutional psychopathic inferiority. While section 19 of the present law fixes a limitation of five years after entry within which the aliens affected may be deported. the section as sought to be amended removes all time limitation and permits such deportation proceedings to be taken at any time. first. after the alien has entered the United States. and secondly. whether such entry was before or after the enactment of the deportation act of 1925. Therefore. if a person was admitted into this country 10 years ago and is an illiterate. or is regarded as likely to become a public charge. or is of constitutional psychopathic inferiority. he may be deported. regardless of whether he has been admitted by a judgment of the court or has been selfsupporting. lawabiding. and otherwise unobjectionable. While it is true that the literacy test was not enacted until 1917. yet the language of the amendment is so broad as to invite an interpretation that if the alien at the time of entry belonged to one or more of the classes excluded by law from admission to the United States. which means belonging to one of the categories set forth in section 3 of the act. he may be deported. regardless of the time when he entered the United States. It may well be that the immigration inspectors regarded the alien as sufliciently literate to warrant admission. the alien may have been here many years and he is now thoroughly literate. yet under the proposed measure he could be deported if it were now found that he was illiterate at the time of his entry. Yet if it Is charged 10. 15. or 20 years after the event that a mistake was made. or that the inmigrant in fact should not have been admitted and could have been excluded under the then existing law. the dire decree of banishment may be pronounced and carried into effect. and the decision rendered by the Secretary of Labor. in the language of the bill (p. 10. lines 1820). "shall be final." If this feature of the bill becomes a law. then immigrant huntIng as a sport will take the place of witch hunting and heresy hunting. Subdivision 9 provides for the deportation of "an alien who was convicted. or who admits the commission. prior to entry. of an offense involving moral turpitude." Here. again. it is to be borne in mind that the statute does not relate to exclusion at the time of arrival. but to deportation at any time after entry. What seems to me objectionable in the phrase which permits the deportation of an alien "who admits the commission. prior to entry. of an offense involving moral turpitude." That means that. even though there may be no actual proof of conviction. if an enemy of an alien or a Secret Service agent should state that an alien has admitted to him the commission of such an offense before he came to this country. he may be deported. regardless of corroboration of the alleged confession or admission and regardless of the time when the alleged offense is claimed to have been committed. Twenty years after coming to this country.it might be claimed that an alien who has become the father of a family and has gained an excellent reputation. adnitted that when a boy in England. Ireland. or in Germany committed a theft. And yet under this clause of the bill he would be subject to deportation. Subdivision 10 deals with the deportation of an alien who has violated or conspired to violate the white slave traffic act or the narcotic act " whether or not convicted of such violation or conspiracy." In other words. a person may have been arrested or indicted for a violation of these acts and may have been acquitted by a court or a jury. yet he may be deported if an immigrant inspector desires him to be deported. Without seeking in any way to minimize the importance of these laws. it is a matter of common knowledge that advantage is often taken of both of them by blackmailers. Is it intended to convert the deportation act of 1925 into a royal road for the accomplishment of the vile purposes of blackmailers? Why select these two crimes from the myriad of others upon our statute books? If the provision were general as applicable to all crimes. our Immigration department would become a court of last resort in criminal cases and would be enabled to convict after a jury has acquitted or after a public prosecutor has concluded that there is a lack of sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction. In the case of previous acquittal it is clear that this provision would be unconstitutional. because it would violate that part of the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States which declares. " nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." as construed by the courts. Coining now to the proceedings for the deportation of an alien. the provisions for which are to be found in lines 15 to 25. on page 9 and on page 10. it is properly provided (p. 10. lines 141.8) that "no alien shall be deported unless before the issuance of the order of deportation he was afforded. at the hearing before the immigration Inspector. an opportunity to be heard after notice upon the grounds stated in the order of deportation." There is. however. a significant absence of the provision affording him the right to be represented by counsel at such a hearing. That is implied in the requirement of the Constitution that no person shall be deprived of life. liberty. or property without due process of law. The nature of the proceeding is likewise one which comes within the spirit of the sixth amendment. which entitles an accused to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. While it is not technically a "criminal prosecution." it is in Its effect the equivalent of one. The fact that the decision of the Secretary of Labor is to be final makes it essential. for the protection of the alien who is proceeded against under the drastic provisions of this bill. that he be represented by counsel in these proceedings. Referring to section 20. which provides for the actual deportation of aliens. attention is directed to lines 3 to 8 of page 13. which provide that if the aliens entered the United States "from foreign contiguous territory" they are to be returned to such territory or to the country of which such aliens are citizens or subjects or to the foreign port at which they embarked for such territory. irrespective of whether such aliens have acquired a domicile in such territory. In other words. if an alien acquired a domicile in Mexico or Canada 5 or 10 years ago and came to the United States from there. he may be returned. not to Mexico or Canada. but to the country of which he is a citizen or subject prior to acquiring any domicile in Mexico or Canada. or to the foreign port at which he embarked for Mexico or Canada. This is highly punitive. unreasonable. and inhuman. The same is true of the following subdivision. lines 8 to 14 of page 13: Section 8 (a). on page 20. provides that if an alien has been arrested and deported in pursuance of law. he shall be excluded from admission to the United States. whether such deportation took place before or after the enactment of this act. and if he enters or attempts to enter the United States after the expiration of 30 days from such enactment he shall be guilty of a felony. subject to fine and imprisonment. As this section reads. it could be made to apply to persons who attempted to come to this country but were deported because of the exhaustion of quotas under the act of 1921 or the immigration act of May 26. 1924. It is a matter of common knowledge that there were many who sought to enter the United States who were deported because on the very day on which they arrived the quotas from their countries were exhausted. In fact. in November. 1923. several hundred were deported. although the quotas for Russia had not been exhausted. It certainly can not be contemplated that such persons shall be excluded from admission or be subject to conviction for felony should they again attempt to come to the United States. I also call attention to the fact that. although under the present section 19 it Is declared that its provisions relating to the deportation of aliens convicted for a crime involving moral turpitude shall not apply to one who has been pardoned. there is no equivaleit of this character in the bill now under discussion. It woul] seem that such a provision is fair. I have given considerable thought to this subject because of my anxiety that our legislation in respect to the drastic and summary remedy of deportation shall not involve unfair. unjust. or unreasonable provisions. I recognize the wisdom of having a clear and unambiguous codification of the law on this subject. but it should not be harsh or tyrannical or contrary to the best traditions of America. Now. another point: If a man has been convicted of a crime. we will say. under the socalled Volstead Act. and his punishinent is a sentence of one year. the act. under section 18. subdivision 5. gives the department the right to deport him.