Yes. property rights are involved. but here we have human rights involved. And I think we should pause before we invoke what I consider is a rather drastic remedy with reference to this new bill. Beyond that I endeavored to find out how many were these cases that caused such vexations and frustrations to the Immigration Service. I asked the Department of Immigration to give us the figures. and Commissioner Swing indicated before the Committee on Appropriations of this House that in 1956 there were something like 15.285 cases involving exclusion and deportation. and there were only 298 court cases. Even in those court cases all were not those involving dilatory tactics. In the next year there were 21.728 which used the administrative machinery. and only 363 that used the courts. and only a few of those cases involved dilatory tactics. In one instance the percentage of court cases was 1.9 and in the second instance it was 1.6. so that we are not overwhelmed with these cases. these bad cases. Bad cases often make bad law. and we must be very careful in that regard. Now. beyond that. in the case of deportation. again there is a change of remedy. Instead of going to the district court you compel the humble alien to go to the court of appeals. This is what the minority report said on that: Curtailing judicial review by compelling the average alien to go into the court of appeals places an undue burden upon him.
Keywords matched
Immigration deportation