Speech #820209922

Mr. President. I am deeply concerned not only about the provisions of the McCarran bill which would so unjustly deal with immigration. but also with its provisions which would endanger the millions of lawabiding foreignborn now in this country. Should this bill become law. the traditional judicial protection of the alien in our midst would be swept away. Administrative officials would be given broad indefinite powers to pick and choose among our alien population. to harass them. and to inflict upon them the terrible punishment of exile from the United States. It is. of course. necessary to protect ourselves against the criminal element in our midst. whether among citizens or noncitizens. The present law does. therefore. provide for the deportation of aliens who have committed serious crimes. But listen to what S. 2550 would do: It would permit the deportation of any alien convicted of any criminal offense. Should any future administrative immigration official form a dislike for a noncitizen. he has only to search the latters record. If the alien was once convicted of killing a deer out of season. of spilling garbage on the street. of the violation of a municipal antinoise ordinance. of reckless drivingand all these are criminal offenses according to our courtsthe Attorney General has only to declare. in his opinion. such an alien undesirable to find i legal basis for deportation of the unfortunate. What a terrible power to place in the hands of one man. I do not say that every Attorney General would be so lacking in reasonable discretion as to deport every alien who was subjected to a $5 fine. but I do say that he could do so. should the temper of the times so induce him. This is a power that no Attorney General should have over any individual. wherever born. It is statism. to which I believe no Member of this body wishes to submit anyone living in the United States. Another dangerous power of the same sort is revealed by the new provision in the McCarran bill for the deportation of any alien who. in the opinion of the Attorney General hereafter and at any time after entry. shall be a public charge from causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen after entrysection 241 (a) (8). This would allow the inhuman deportation by the Attorney Generals office of a man who came here 20 years ago. if 20 years from now he goes on relief. and cannot prove in the opinion of the Attorney General. one member of the Presidents Cabinet. that the cause of his unfortunate state arose after his entry into this country. It can be a very difficult thing to prove to an unsympathetic administrative official the reasons for ones going on relief. Mr. President. this is the most puzzling bill to come before the Senate in many years. A codification of our immigration laws is long overdue. but that is certainly not what this bill does. Frankly. I cannot understand what it is trying to accomplish. The committee has worked long and hard on the subject matter. and although the proponents of the bill say it codifies the immigration laws. yet it does not do so. Why should this bill add more than 20 new grounds for deporting displaced persons and other immigrants admitted in past years? Why does it create 13 new grounds for excluding future immigrants. and an undetermined number of new ways of losing ones American citizenship? Is this codification and simplification? Of course. it is not. Why should anyone want to eliminate the exemption of such groups as professors from the quotaexempt immigrant group? What is the purpose of such a provision? Why recognize the actions and decisions of Nazi kangaroo courts? Why should a person convicted twice of violating a Communist law against religious worship become ineligible to enter the United States? Can there be any rhyme or reason to such legislation? Why should the existing statute of limitations in deportation cases be abolished? Has the country been harmed. by the statute as it exists? Why should anyone seek to bring about a series of neighborhood investigations of applicants for naturalization and set hordes of new Government officials prowling in our neighborhoods? What is the indication of the need for this new set of invasions of privacy? Mr.