Speech #840094124

I It was also later revealed that Yugo6lavia had addressed. in March 1951. a demand to our State Department for extradition of Artukovic as a "war criminal" under the Moscow Declaration of October 1943. At the same time certain sections of the Los Angeles press. notably the Hollywood Daily Worker and the Los Angeles Daily News. took up the hue and cry against Artukovic. The Service. its tender skin spurred by lurid press accounts. leaped into the breach. held hearings on May 7 and 8 under the displaced person application and. without drawing breath. or notifying counsel. and before announcing its preconceived decision on such application. immediately arrested Artukovic in deportation proceedings on May 9. and scheduled deportation hearings for May 16. Such hearings were postponed. upon counsels protest. when the then Commissioner realized that prejudice would be too apparent if Artukovics deportation was ordered before his application for permanent residence as a displaced person could be acted upon. It is interesting to note the charges under which Artukovic was arrested in deportation proceedings and so rapidly pressed for hearing. Translated into plain language. they were twofold: First. that he remained longer than permitted as a visitor. and. second. that his entry as a visitor was unlawful because he had not presented a valid passport or other document in lieu thereof showing his identity and origin at time of entry. The facts supporting such charges had been known to the Service since January and April 1949. more than 2 years before the arrest in deportation. Despite the lurid allegations against Artukovic asserted in certain quarters. the Service has charged him with no other violation of law because it has no evidence in support of any other charge. Thus the Government had to use disputed technical infractions of our immigration laws to -deport a man whose crime was and is that he was. and is. as a Croat patriot. ready to lead his countrymen in rebellion against a foreign authority. Briefly. in relation to the deportation charges. the following should be noted. For the period that Artukovic remained longer than permitted as a visitor. he was conducting himself in accord with the policy of the Immigration and Naturalization Service that applicants under section 4 of the Displaced Persons Act should not be granted further extensions of temporary stay nor should they be .required to depart while their applications were pending.. Thus the final application of Artukovic for extension of -visitor stay. made in March 1949. more than a month- after filing section 4 application. was not acted upon by the Service until after deportation proceedings were commenced in May 1951. It is not believed that the Service can show another case where deportation proceedings -were begun against a section 4 ap.plicant before decision upon his applica.tion had been taken and opportunity .given for voluntary departure. if such decision was adverse. I The charge that Attiikovics entry as a visitor was unlawful because he had not presented a valid passport or other document showing his identity and origin is predicated upon the disputed fact that his use of the name Alois Anich was unlawful. This very charge was the sole basis for the denial of Artukovics section 4 application. although it Is believed that the House Judiciary Committee records will reflect the approval of many displacedperson applications wherein the alien entered the country under one name and had been known by another name prior to entry which had not been revealed. It is the theory of the Government as revealed in the Service memorandum that had the Service and consular officers known that Alois Anich was also Andrija Artukovic an investigation would have followed and he would have been denied visa or excluded at entry. But this is not borne out by the actions of the Government when in asking for further visitor stay in January 1949 Artukovic revealed his full birth name to the Service. To the contrary. his application was granted. and the Service continued to treat him as Anich. I believe that the foregoing presents substantially the position of Artukovic in relation to administrative displaced person and deportation proceedings. I would add. however. that in deportation proceedings based upon noncriminal charges. Artukovic asked for discretionary relief of suspension of deportation or voluntary departure. In a punitive gesture. because of its disapproval of his political conduct in the period 194145. well beyond the statutory period required for good conduct. the Board of Immigration Appeals as well as the Service denied him relief. It is to the eternal discredit of the Immigration and Naturalization Service that in a panicky action it ordered deported. and denied discretionary relief to. Ana Maria Artukovic. the mother of 5 children. none older than 10. and 2 American citizens by birth. against whom not a breath had been raised. solely because she was the wife of a threetime official of the Croatian Cabinet in 194145. I have introduced H.