Speech #870078247

Mr. Speaker. there is a pressing need for legislation which will provide a single form of review of immigration and nationality cases after the administrative process has been completed. It has been demonstrated that the existing legal structure permits repetitious appeals to the courts. testing over and over again the same subject matter. long after the alien has had his full day in court. This has only served to delay and confound. At the same time. it is important that review procedures be sound. I have. therefore. one strong and important reservation about the committee bill. The committee bill provides that judicial review of final orders of deportation shall be governed by the procedures prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 1031 et seq. These sections provide that the courts of appeals shall have exclusive jurisdiction of review of such final orders. In my judgment. the better practice. and the better policy. would be to retain original judicial review of immigration cases in the Federal district courts. The reasons set forth in the committee report for the circumvention of the district courts seem to me inadequate. The nature of the deportation case at the administrative level is entirely different from the usual proceeding before the Federal Communications Commission. Atomic Energy Commission. or the other regulatory agencies listed in section 1032 of title 5. The volume of immigration cases is substantially greater. and the facts to be found are less buried in questions of policy. There is far less reason. if any at all. to deviate from the more normal course. Nor can I credit the argument thatsince deportation proceedings deal with the liberty of persons rather than mere property an initial review in an appellate court gives the alien greater rights. greater security. and more assurance of a close study of his case by experienced judges. If the alien is in custody. his remedy has been and will continue to be habeas corpus. The writ is returnable in the district court. and in the average case will involve the same kind of issue as in the noncustody case.