Now. aside from the Wallis case. which points out the unconstitutionality of an act similar to the instant bill. as adverted to by the gentleman from New York [Mr. MARCANTONIOI. let me read to you briefly from the petition of Brooks. cited in Fifth Federal. second edition. page 233. a decision of the circuit court in the New England section. Pay attention to this. gentlemen. because it clearly indicates the unconstitutionality of this act: In the original returnSays the courtthe immigration authorities admit their utter inability to deport one Bonder to Russia. but venture the suggestion that the United States will shortly resume diplomatic relations with Russia. and that. therefore. this alien should be kept in imprisonment pending recognition of the Soviet Government. The court goes on to say this: It is too plain for argument that the court cannot entertain any such proposition. There is no power in this court or in any other tribunal in this country to hold indefinitely any sane citizen or allen in imprisonment. except as a punishment for a crime. In other words. the holding of the alien is not a mere incidentit is not a mere step in the deportation proceedings if you seek to imprison or deprive the alien of his liberty for an indefinite period. The Wallis case said you could hold an alien a reasonable time. and that 4 months was a reasonable time. but you could not go beyond the 4months period in any circumstances. The Brooks case holds that you cannot hold "indefinitely." The instant bill permits detention indefinitely-"for life" is possible under it.
Keywords matched
immigration deportation