Speech #770110957

They and their ilk and their sponsors are the very ones I am shooting at and talking about. Some gentlemen are alarmed by the fear that the right of review provided in this bill is insufficient. May I remind them that before any alien may be ordered deported an affidavit must be made charging him with a deportable offense? This is reviewed by the immigration authorities and if deemed sufficient a warrant of arrest is issued and the deportation proceedings then begin. Deportation proceedings include a hearing before an immigration commissioner. who hears the evidence both for and against the defendant. At this hearing the defendant has the right to be represented by counsel. After the commissioner makes his findings and reports that the evidence warrants the deportation of the alien. his report together with the evidence upon which it is based is transmitted to a board of review here in Washington. composed of seasoned veterans of the Immigration Service. They review the findings and the evidence and either affirm or send the case back for further hearing. Finally. after the proceedings have been approved by the board of review. the Attorney General takes the record. goes over it carefully. and if satisfied that the decision of the commissioner. as affirmed by the board of review. is in accordance with the law and the evidence. a warrant of deportation is issued. From beginning to end of these proceedings any alien has the right to appeal to the courts for a writ of habeas corpus to test the validity of the proceedings. or of his detention by virtue thereof. He may then. if the decision of the lower court be adverse. appeal to the circuit -court of appeals. and if not satisfied with the decision of that court. may apply for the writ of certiorari which. if granted. will entitle him to a review by the Supreme Court of the United States. Take the case of Joe Strecker. for illustration. After due hearing before the Immigration Commissioner. the Commissioners report and the evidence upon which it was based were sent up to the board of review. The � board of review did not think there was sufficient evidence of the character and purposes of the Communist Party to warrant the affirmance of the Commis* sioners report recommending the deportation. So the board of review ordered the case sent back to the Commissioner for further hearing. Another hearing was had. further vidence adduced. both pro and con. and the Commissioner again recommended his deportation. A second time the case came to the board of review. This time the board affirmed the decision or recommendation of the Commissioner. The Secretary of Labor or. in that case. one of her assistants. duly authorized by law. reviewed the record and in due course issued the warrant of deportation. Two years ensued. during which the immigration authorities and the State Department sought a passport from the Government of Poland which would permit the deportation of Joe Strecker to be effectuated. Finally the passport was forthcoming. Then Joe Strecker appealed to the United States district court in Arkansasthe State in which he livedfor a writ of habeas corpus. After due hearing the United States district judge denied Streckers petition for freedom and remanded him to the custody of the immigration authorities for deportation. Strecker then went to New Orleans. La.. surrendered himself to the immigration authorities. but immediately sued out a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus before the United States district court there. Again there was a hearing and Judge Borah rendered the same judgment which the Arkansas district judge had handed down. Strecker took an appeal from this decision to the United States circuit court of appeals.