« ÎnapoiContinuă »
Mr. DIES. Is there any change on page 4 of the bill in the existing law?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes. On page 4, line 8. It provides in lines 4 to 7:
In deciding whether such alien is subject to deportation, a conviction of crime shall not be considered if (1) the alien has received a pardon for that crime. That is the present law. And then in line 8 on page 4 it reads:
(2) The judge before whom, or the presiding judge of the court in which the conviction was secured, within 6 months after such conviction (or within 6 months after the passage of this act, whichever occurs later) and after giving due notice to representatives of the State, makes a recommendation that the conviction shall not be considered, and if the Secretary of Labor approves that recommendation.
In a few words, the law today is that if at the time of sentence, or within 30 days from that, the judge recommends to the Secretary of Labor that deportation be not effected, that recommendation is binding upon the Secretary of Labor, and she has no authority to deport. This provision shifts the power in the matter of deportation so that it no longer rests on the judge of the court but on the Secretary of Labor.
Mr. DIES. Why do you make the time in this clause 6 months instead of 30 days?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. May I say that there is another difference there? The judge can within 6 months after sentence, recommend against deportation, but his recommendation in this bill is not binding upon the Secretary of Labor. She can be guided and assisted by the judge's recommendation. We frequently find that judges in sentencing aliens do not know of this authority to recommend, and if they do not do it within 30 days they cannot do it at all. And this gives them up to 6 months in which to watch aliens and keep them under their surveillance, and to think the matter over and make their recommendation regarding deportation to the Secretary. And the Secretary of Labor is not bound by it; but, naturally, she will be assisted in reaching her decision by the recommendation of the judge who has had an opportunity to view the alien.
Mr. DIES. I still do not see any good reason for extending the time to 6 months. If you give the judge 6 months after the alien is sentenced to hold up the deportation, it seems to me that that is too long and that 30 days is sufficient time.
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Well, it gives the judge a little more time to investigate as to the alien's habits, family, and so on.
Mr. LANZETTA. You do not hold up anything. You can deport them only after they have served a year.
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. You do not hold up anything; but you are giving the judge further time to investigate the environment, and so on, and to send his recommendation to the Secretary of Labor. The next important feature of this bill is found in section 5 of the bill
Mr. DIES. Before you get to that, let me ask you whether there are any other changes on page 4 in the existing law?
The CHAIRMAN. No.
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Well, we can discuss section 3 of the bill. It gives the Secretary of Labor authority to
designate persons holding supervisory positions in the Immigration and Naturalization Service to issue warrants for the arrest of aliens believed to be subject to deportation under this or any other statute, provided that no person shall act under a warrant issued by himself.
The CHAIRMAN. You are talking now about section 3 of this bill, H. R. 9518. That is something new, is it not?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. That is something new; yes. It amends the present law. It gives authority for our responsible officers in the field to issue warrants of arrest. At the present time it is confined solely to the authority of the Secretary of Labor. And we feel that we should have better enforcement of the law and prevent more escapes of aliens subject to deportation if warrants could be issued by responsible officers in the field.
Mr. DIES. In other words, if an alien is on the border of Mexico, and you want to arrest him, you have got to apply to the Secretary of Labor for a warrant; whereas under this provision of section 3, you are authorized to do that by the proper officer.
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes, under this section. And under section 4 of the bill, we have another provision that will apply principally to border cases. That section provides:
SEC. 4. Any employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, under regulations prescribed by the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, with the approval of the Secretary of Labor, shall have power to detain for investigation any alien whom he has reason to believe entered the United States without inspection. Any alien so detained shall be immediately brought before any immigrant inspector designated for that purpose by the Secretary of Labor, and shall not be held in custody for more than 24 hours thereafter unless prior to the expiration of that time a warrant for his arrest is issued. That is, where the alien is practically in the act of entering illegally. He is a migratory sort of a fellow, and he is gone before we can get a warrant of arrest for him.
Mr. DIES. In other words, this would be new law.
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. This would be new law.
The CHAIRMAN. And it strengthens the whole structure of your deportation?
Mr. SHAUGNESSY. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN (continuing). In the capture of aliens who ordinarily would have a tendacy to get away?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes. It should be a tremendous aid in effecting the deportation of aliens illegally in this country.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. You may proceed.
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Coming now to section 5 of the bill, part of which is new, it starts out as follows:
SEC. 5 (a). The Secretary of Labor is authorized to order by warrant the deportation of aliens found by him to be subject to deportation under this or any other act. He may, in his discretion, allow an otherwise deportable alien to remain in the United States if he is of good moral character, and has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, and has not engaged in subversive political agitation or conduct, and if he—
enumerates the classes, Mr. Dirksen, answering one of your questions, where the Secretary of Labor has authority to waive deportation.
Mr. DIES. Well, you have got now under that heading those six classes specified in which the Secretary of Labor can use discretion in the matter of deportation. But in all the six classes of cases they must be cases in which it does not involve moral turpitude, and in which the man is of good moral character and has not engaged in subversive political agitation or conduct?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Those three elements have to be shown in every one of these six classes of cases before the Secretary can exercise that authority.
Mr. DIES. But in any case, if you want to make the deportation discretionary with the Secretary of Labor, are there any of those classes that do not have to conform to the requirements of good moral character, nonconviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or engaging in subversive political agitation?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. No, sir; the six classes of cases enumerated below that are the only ones
Mr. DIES (interposing). The six classes of cases enumerated are the only classes in this bill where a person otherwise subject to deportation is allowed to remain, with the exception of
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY (interposing). With the exception of one or two that we have discussed.
Mr. DIES. That is all?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes, sir; that covers the entire classes in this bill.
Now, do you want to go through those six classes? It will take considerable time, if there are any questions about them.
Mr. LANZETTA. With regard to subdivision 2 in that enumeration of six classes, it says
has lived continuously in the United States for a period of not less than 10 years.
Under the present law, you could not deport that class of alien, could you?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Under the present law we could deport an alien who enters the United States without inspection if he lives here for 50 years if he entered subsequently to 1924.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. DIES. In other words, in summarizing these six classes of cases, the effect of the bill is to give the Secretary of Labor discretion to order or hold up deportation, in any case, except in cases where the alien has committed a crime involving moral turpitude, or in cases where the alien has a bad moral character, or where the alien has engaged in subversive political agitation.
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes
Mr. DIES (interposing). Which is still discretionary, because it is still up to the Secretary of Labor to say whether a man is of good moral character?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes.
Mr. DIES. It is still up to the Secretary of Labor to determine whether a man has engaged in subversive political agitation.
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes; as to those classes of cases where they may be, at least, technically subject to deportation, as against those cases where they are inherently desirable, as to which we ask for no discretionary authority.
Mr. DIES. The point I want to make is this. Those are very general limitations. Take the limitation "if he is of good moral character." You might say that one man has a good moral character, and I might say another one has.
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. I do not think the interpretation of that term is subject to much difference of opinion.
Mr. DIES. I am not trying to analyze it. Now, in reference to the question of a crime involving moral turpitude, that is still a matter under the discretion of the Secretary of Labor under this bill; is it not?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. There is not much discretion under this bill, because if an alien has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, that is fairly well defined, and in most cases there is a fairly well-accepted interpretation. For instance, take the crime of murder: There is no question as to moral turpitude there.
Mr. DIES. You mean, how are you accustomed to determine whether a crime involves moral turpitude or not? Is it your practice to follow the decisions of the courts, or do you make your own interpretation as to moral turpitude now?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. In doubtful cases, we go to the legal authority to determine what moral turpitude means. You know it is one of the most disputed terms there are.
Mr. DIES. It is disputed and indefinite.
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. It is disputed and indefinite.
Mr. DIES. But under existing law, you have really discretionary power in determining moral turpitude?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes, in border-line cases.
Mr. DIES. I mean in border-line cases.
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. But there would be discretion as to the finding of moral turpitude in very few cases.
Mr. DIES. And as to the question of engaging in subversive political agitation, that is a question which is very general in its
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes.
Mr. DIES. For example, if the attitude of the Democrats was taken as to certain conduct of their own party, their decision would be favorable; whereas if it rested with the Republicans, the decision might be unfavorable. [Laughter.] So that that is discretionary? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Those are discretionary.
Mr. DIES. Is there anything else new in this bill remaining in the page and a half of the bill that we have not specifically taken up that changes existing law?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Practically nothing. It just joins up existing provisions of law.
The CHAIRMAN. The language beginning "has not engaged", on page 6 of the bill, line 5, has not engaged in subversive political agitation or conduct ", is new, is it not?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. It is new.
The CHAIRMAN. And does your Department find, in cases where the alien agitates for un-American standards, that you are helpless to deport them?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Where the alien would be attempting to undermine the Government, for instance.
The CHAIRMAN. And this provision would be a material aid in the enforcement of the law?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Undoubtedly, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DIES. But you do not do away with the law under which we now operate, which enables the Department to exclude or deport aliens engaged in subversive political agitation?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. The act of October 16, 1918, remains the same. I know you are very much interested in that, Mr. Dies. It remains the same.
Mr. DIES. There is no change in that?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. There is no change in that. We would have no discretion in that to waive deportation at all.
Mr. DIRKSEN. On the other side of the picture, let us take this supposed case: Here is John Jones. He has a good moral character. He has never been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. He has never preached any subversive propaganda, and, under subsection 1 of section 5, he was lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. Now, I want to know just what John Jones could do, or how he could exhibit himself to make himself a candidate for deportation?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. It says one who "has at any time been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence." He may have gone to Canada and stayed a week or so, and come back; and technically he would be subject to deportation. And this provision would enable the Secretary of Labor to waive deportation in that kind of cases.
Mr. DIRKSEN. And any others that involve the same principle? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes, sir.
Mr. WEIDEMAN. Well, let us be more specific.
They have an
island near Detroit called Belle Isle, which is Canadian territory. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes.
Mr. WEIDEMAN. And people go over there on picnics.
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes, I know they do.
Mr. WEIDEMAN. And whenever they pick up an alien coming back from there, they can deport him.
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes. Or he could be a visitor and subject to deportation as having remained longer. In such case, he would become subject to deportation, but under this bill, with those elements enumerated in that section existing, the Secretary would have authority to waive deportation.
Now, Mr. Chairman, may I proceed to the next bill? There are no further changes left in this bill to discuss.
The CHAIRMAN. We have practically disposed of the changes in this bill?
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Now which bill do you want to discuss next?
Mr. DIES. Pardon me, but I should like to ask one question: Perhaps you would not care to answer this question: In your experience and you have had a very wide and varied experience in this work-do you think it is advisable to leave to the discretion of the Secretary of Labor this matter, or do you think it ought to be made mandatory-or perhaps you do not want to go on record on that question.