Speech #750168517

The amendment of the gentleman from Georgia should not be adopted. It provides: Provfted further. That no part of this appropriation shall be expended for any expense incident to any procedure. by suggestion or otherwise. for the admission to any foreign country of any alien unlawfully In the United States for the purpose of endeavoring to secure a visa for readmission to the United States or for the salary of any employee charged with any duty In connection with the readmission to the United States of any such alien without visa. It would appear that the sponsors of the amendment have merely intended it to prevent the socalled preexamination practice now followed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service in permitting certain classes of aliens who are more or less technically subject to deportation to be preexamined and to proceed to Canada for the purpose of securing immigration visas with the end in view of entering the United States in a legal manner. These classes are designed to care for nonquota or first preference under the quota. and those designed to be benefited by the present arrangement are the wives. and minor children. and husbands where the marriage occurred prior to July 1. 1932. of citizens who petition for immigration visas. and the parents and husbands where the marriage occurred after July 1. 1932. of citizens. However. the language of the amendment is so broad that it may involve a complete change in deportation policy. which has existed for at least a score of years. This will be discussed later. but it might be well to cite one example of a case that at present comes under the preexamination rule: "A" entered the United States as a visitor shortly after July 1. 1924. He made business connections while here and neglected to leave the country in accordance with the provisions of his admission. In the past 131/2 years of his residence in the United States he has married an Americancitizen woman and has four or five Americancitizen children. His constant presence here is required for their continued support. Having married a citizen prior to July 1. 1932. he is entitled to a nonquota visa upon petition by his wife. By granting him the preexamination privilege to go to Canada. his absence from his family is reduced to a minimum of a few days. Under this amendment any employee in the Immigration and Naturalization Service would not only be estopped from preparing any correspondence by way of advising this man but would even be estopped from discussing on official time such a policy. It would mean that because the man is technically here in violation of law he would have to be formally deported from the United States to his home country. which may be located at the other end of the earth. and under this order of deportation he would be required to remain out of the United States for a period of 1 year. As a matter of fact. he would never be eligible for readmission unless under the 1929 act the Secretary of Labor had granted him permission to reapply for admission following 1 year from the date of his deportation. So much for the preexamination. As previously stated. the Service has throughout many years granted aliens subject to deportation permission to leave the United States voluntarily at their own expense. This practice has not been followed in the case of aliens who are subject to deportation on the grounds that they are criminals. of the immoral classes. and so forth. but is limited principally to aliens who are here more or less in violation of technical laws and are otherwise of good character. This practice has not only resulted throughout the years in the saving of millions of dollars to the United States but has effected the purposes of the immigration law by requiring the departure of a deportable alien from the United States. In addition. it has worked out in a most humane manner. by not requiring the formal deportation of certain aliens to countries where they might be persecuted for one reason or the other. and has given them the opportunity to leave voluntarily to any country of their choice that would accept them. As an example of cost last year we expelled from the country. under formal order of deportation. 8.829 aliens and gave the voluntarydeparture privilege to 8.788 aliens found to be subject to deportation. Of the first number. 460 voluntarily departed under an order of deportation. and. therefore. when we add the 460 to the 8.788 who voluntarily left. we have a total of 9.248 aliens at an average cost of deportation of $65 per alien. Therefore. if it had been necessary for the Government to formally deport this group the cost to the Government would have been an additional $601.120. to say nothing of the additional personnel cost incident to a formal completion of this large group of cases. because under the present practice an alien will frequently leave voluntarily as soon as detected without the necessity of the Government going to the expense of working the case out. With pending increased cost of transportation and detention costs. and so forth. it may be that the average cost of deportation for the next fiscal year will reach $75. If that be so. it would be necessary to add approximately 15 percent to last years costs. thus running the additional cost of deportations up close to a million dollars. This amendment would also prevent the immigration and naturalization officials from advising aliens unlawfully In the United States who. however. are not subject to deportation because of the statute of limitations. to correct their illegal status by proceeding abroad and obtaining an immigration visa. For example. an alien seaman who came to the United States unlawfully in 1923 is not now subject to deportation. However. an immigration officer could not. under the amendment. advise him to go abroad to obtain the necessary papers to effect his reentry. There is an additional thought I would like to advance on this subject. This amendment is so sweeping in its terms that it may have the effect of vitally changing a deportation policy which has been in existence for many years. In the circumstances. It would appear that it Is not the province of the Appropriations Committee to recommend legislation changing radically the policy of a branch of the Government when we have a standing committee for that express purpose. It would. therefore. appear to me that a matter of this kind should be referred to the standing Committee on Immigration and Naturalization for their most earnest consideration.