Speaker. I want to add my voice to the compelling and cogent argument of the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I am opposed to H.R. 187. which would amend the present system of judicial review of administrative orders for the deportation and exclusion of aliens. At present such orders are reviewable by the U.S. district courts by either declaratory judgments or habeas corpus proceedings. depending upon whether the alien is at liberty or in custody. There is no time limit for bringing such actions. H.R. 187 would abolish the declaratory judgment action in both exclusion and deportation cases. In exclusion cases judicial review would be limited to habeas corpus proceedings in the Federal district court. Such proceedings would also be the sole method of securing judicial review from orders of deportation when the alien is in custody. In deportation cases where the alien is not in custody judicial review would be available only upon a petition to review to the U.S. court of appeals filed not later than 6 months from the final deportation order. H.R. 187 also contains provisions concerning the application of the theory of res judicata to immigration review cases. Before I comment on the merits of the separate provisions of the bill. let us look at one of its principal purposes. It is argued in support of this bill that it is necessary because ofthe growing frequency of judicial action being instituted by undesirable aliens whose cases have no legal basis or merit. but which are brought solely for the purpose of preventing or delaying indefinitely their deportation from this country. Committee report. page 2. The overwhelming number of deportation and exclusion cases were administratively handled. The minoilty report points out that the percentage of court cases is not even 2 percent of administrative proceedings. Of that 2 percent. only a small fraction of the cases can be said to have abused the judicial process. The minority report states on page 29: During these 12 years194751--of more than 200.000 aliens deported anti excluded. the Immigration and Naturalizat:.on Service can point to only 37 instances of possible dilatory use of judicial process. A close look at the purported need for this legislation leads one to the conclusion that "because of the derelictions of a few. we visit their sins upon the many"-committee report. page 28. We must remember that the judicial process is orderly and deliberate.
Identified stereotypes
Undesirable aliens are instituting judicial action to prevent or delay deportation.