Speech #890138008

It was an American environment that produced him. When I think of all the authorities we have for the proper surveillance of this person. I am not at all moved by the administrative ruling of the immigration authorities that such a person could become a danger to the body politic of the United States. Shame on us. to think we could be guilty of such an injustice to a human being. I cite this as an example of what can and does go on in the Immigration Service without a statute of limitations. The senior Senator from Oregon is pleading for a statute of limitations. and he is pleading with the Senator from Massachusetts to take his amendment to conference because it is an eminently fair amendment and ought to go to conference. and we ought to write It on the statute books. I see on the floor the great former Attorney General of the State of New York . Senator JAVITS included in his immigration bill of 1963. a bill I joined him in cosponsoring. a 10year limitation on the bringing of these proceedings. Also in 1963. I introduced my own measure. S. 1500. imposing a 5year limit on the bringing of proceedings for deportation or loss of nationality. I used 5 years in my bill because that is the standard for Federal crimes. But in 1963. I also introduced. with Senator HART as a cosponsor. S. 1501. which sought to approach the matter differently by prohibiting deportation proceedings from being brought against any person who was lawfully admitted for permanent residence before his 14th birthday. and establishing a 10year limitation for all other cases. The objective of this bill was to consider that young people who lawfully entered the country before the age of 14 should not be subject to deportation at all. The several bills introduced in the last 10 years on this subject. and I have mentioned only a few of them. indicate considerable interest in the subject among Members of Congress. Although the subject matter does not affect as many as does the obnoxious national origins quota. it is nonetheless a bad provision of law and deserves to be remedied. Page 26 of the report of the Senate Judiciary Committee states. and I quote: As previously indicated. the instant bill does not embody a comprehensive revision of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However. the Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization did give consideration to many proposals contained in other bills pending before the subcommittee which would have amended the Immigration and Nationality Act in other respects. Included in the suggested changes were proposals to establish a Board of Visa Appeals and to establish a statute of limitations in deportation cases. In the course of the subcommittees consideration of those two proposals. it was indicated by the Attorney General that while he did not think it appropriate at this time to institute such changes without further study. he expressed his willingness to undertake a complete study of the proposals. to discuss the desirability of the establishment of a Board of Visa Appeals with the Secretary of State and to report seasonably on the above matters.