Speech #930001213

President. I introduce for apppropriate reference a measure which would give the U.S. Attorney General the discretion to determine whether aliens who have been convicted for illegal possession of marihuana should be admitted to the United States or whether those already living here as permanent residents should be deported after a conviction for possession of marihuana. As the law stands today. no such discretion is vested in the Attorney General. Under section 212(a) (23) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. he must deny admission to an alien who has been convicted of a violation of. or a conspiracy to violate. any law or regulation relating to the illicit possession of or traffic in marihuana. Under section 214 (a) (11). he must deport an alien who at any time has been convicted of a violation of. or a conspiracy to violate. any law or regulation relating to the illicit possession of or traffic in marihuana. The present law is cruelly insensitive and inflexible. The failure to give the Attorney General discretion in determining the admissibility or deportability of aliens convicted for illegal possession of marihuana can at times result in the unjust treatment of certain aliens and can work hardships on their families. Recently. I was contacted by two California residents. one a friend. the other a relative of a 22yearold Canadian national who was deported from the United States following a conviction for illegally possessing marihuana. At the time of his arrest in Nevada. he was 18 years old. At that time. he had lived in this country with his parents for more than 6 years and was attending a college in California. After his conviction and sentence. he was deported to Canada where he married an American citizen and took a job. He sought to return to the United States to continue his education and reunite with his family. However. he was barred by the Immigration and Naturalization Act from returning as an immigrant. He was eventually admitted for the sole purpose of continuing his education. but he must return to Canada upon finishing his studies. The young man n question had been sentenced to 4 months in jail. It was his first offense and one which he says he deeply regrets. In ordering his deportation. the Attorney General had no choice. He was precluded by law from considering any mitigating factors. such as the young mans prior criminal recordif anyhis family connections in the United States. the relative leniency of his sentence. the nature of the offense he committed. or even the changing public attitudes toward the illegal possession of marihuana. And in denying him admission. the Attorney General was likewise precluded by law from taking into consideration the young mans postconviction record. his reasons for seeking admission. or even the fact that under our Federal laws illegal possession of marihuana has been reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor for first offenders. Mr. President. I do not know whether or not this young man should be entitled to renew his immigrant status. But I do believe that he and others similiarly situated should be entitled to an opportunity to demonstrate their admissibility or nondeportability. My amendment would cure the insensitivity and inflexibility embodied in the Immigration and Naturalization Act by giving the Attorney General the discretion to determine. after hearing and under such terms and procedures as he prescribes. whether an alien. otherwise admissible. should be admitted after conviction for illegal possession of marihuana. It would also give him the discretion to determine. after a similar hearing. whether an alien who has been admitted should be deported on account of a conviction for the illegal possession of marihuana. The amendment would leave untouched those sanctions imposed for trafficking in marihuana or for engaging in activities which violate laws or regulations governing other more dangerous substances. such as opium or heroin. But with respect to an admittedly lesser offensethe illicit possession of marihuanagiving the Attorney General some discretion in the matter would vindicate the cherished principle of affording a penitent offender an opportunity to prove that he should be given another chance.