United States. President's Commission on Immigrati.

Hearings online

. (page 21 of 35)
Online LibraryUnited States. President's Commission on ImmigratiHearings → online text (page 21 of 35)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


Unable obtain travel doeoments-,. . _




5


17


8


30


Private bill pendius;_._ __






Administrative stay - _ .




1
25

9






1


Serving seatence or in institution ...




56
20




81


Pending documents and/or transporra-




12


41








16. Los Angeles . ...


9


39


183


38


269






Unable obtain travel doc iments

Private bill pending.


9


30

1
1
5

2


76

40

25

2

40


7

18

1

12


122
41






44


Servine sentence or in institution. .




8


Pending documents and/or transporta-




54








17. Honolulu . ..


2


3






5








Unable obtain travel documents












Private bill jjending ...
























Serving sentence or in institution












Pending documents and/or transporta-


2


3






5










Grand total ...


127


2,124


688


2,020


4,959






Unable obtain travel documents. ._.

Private hill pending


75
2
3
3

44


875
15
43

562

629


208
67
76
99

238


4a3

184
208
173

972


1,641
268
330


Serving sentence or in institution

Pending documents and/or transporta-


837
1,883







INFORMATION PROVIDED BY UNITED STATES DEPAKTMENT OF
JUSTICE, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, CON-
CERNING EXCLUSION OF ALIENS WITHOUT A HEARING ON THE
BASIS OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

United States Department of .TtrsTicE,
Immigration and Naturalization Service,

Office of the Commissioner,
Washington, D. C, October 23, 1952.
Mr. Harry N. Rosen field,

Executive Director, President's Commission on Immigration and
Naturalization, Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. RosiiNFiELO : This is in response to your letter of October 3, 1952,
requesting information from this Service concerning the practice of excluding
aliens without a hearing on the basis of confidential information. Each question
propounded by you will be set out by number for clarity, followed by the Service
answer. It is desired to jpoint out that the statistical and proportional figures
requested by you are, in most instances, approximate since they do not fall within
the normal pattern of statistics maintained by this Service.

1. When was the practice of ordering exclusion without a hearing inaugurated?
Describe the instructions or regulations which initiated this practice.

Your attention is invited to the act of May 22, 1918, as amended by the act of
June 21, 1941 (40 Stat. 559; 55 Stat. 252; 22 U. S. C. 223-'>-2C), conferring upon
the President the power to impose additional restrictions on aliens desiring to
enter the United State-s when the United States was at war or during the existence



\



COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 1965

of a national emergency. Pursuant to such authority, on November 14, 1041,
Presidential Proclamation No. 2523 (0 F. II. 5821) authorized the promuliiation
of the necessary re.uuUitious by the Secretary of State and the Attorney General
jointly. These regulations authorized the Attorney (leneral, after consultaticm
with the Secretary of State, where he determined that an alien came within
one of the categories set forth in the regulation, to oriler exclusion of the alien
without a hearing before a board of special imiuiry on the basis of conlidential
information, the disclosure of which would be iirejudit-ial to the public interest.'
The Attorney General still retains that authority ; the regulation is found in
8 Code of Federal Regulations 175.r»7 (10 F. K. 8!)95, .July 21, 1945). President
Truman, on August 17, 1949, by proclamation No. 2,sr>0 (14 V. li. r>17;i, August 19,
1949) eliminated the necessity for the Attorney (ieneral to consult w-ith tlie
Secretary of State before excluding an alien. The constitutionality of thus
excluding an alien without hearing was upheld by the United States Supreme
Court in United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnestm (338 U. S. 537, January 16,
1950), when the Court found no legal defect in the manner of Mrs. Knauff's
exclusion.

The change effected by proclamation No. 2850 was incorporated in section 5
of the act of October l(j,'l91S. as amended by the Internal Security Act of 1950.
As the result, the need for consultation with the Secretary of State no longer
exists. Pursuant to such legislative enactment, regulations were issued to
implement the act (S C. F. K. 174.4; 15 F. R. 8110, November 28, 1950).

2. In how many cases was this procedure utilized prior to 1946? How many

aliens (other than .seamen) were excluded from the United States without
a hearing prior to 1946V

For the reasons stated in the opening paragraph of this letter, the Service
is unable to furnish any statistical breakdown of the number of cases falling
within this procedtire prior to 1940. The number, in any event, would be
negligible because of the restricted travel during the war years and other pro-
cedures which were utilized during the war emergency to prevent the entry into
the United States of those applicants whose entry might be deemed to be
prejudicial to the United States, such as the use of the Inter-Departmental Com-
mittee procedure and the so-called panel system. I shall not attempt to describe
these procedures in detail since I am sure that you or your staff are familiar
with them. Generally, they were screening groups including members of various
Government agencies.

3. In how many cases during the fiscal years 1948 through 1952 have aliens

been temporarily excluded without a hearing under the provisions of
8 Code of Federal Regulations 175.57 or section 5 of the act of October 16,
1918, as amended?

It has been possible to determine that from December 1948 to July 1, 1952,
approximately 2,000 aliens, other than seamen, were temporarily excluded under
the provisions of 8 Code of Federal Regulations 175.57 or section 5 of the 1918
act, as amended.

4. In how many of such cases has exclusion been finally ordered without a

hearing? Indicate what proportion of these have been at seaports and
w'hat proportion at land ports of entry.

Of the above number of persons temporarily excluded, approximately 500 were
ordered excluded and deported without a hearing. Xinety-two percent of these
occurred at land ports of entry while 8 percent occurred at seaports of entry.

5. How many of those finally excluded without a hearing have been: (a) sea-

men: {h) aliens returning to residences in the Ignited States, including a
specification of any in possession of I'eentry iiermits who were so excludeil ;
(c) spouses of American citizens; and {d) residents of Canada or Mexico?

Again, in the light of my opening statement concerning statistics, I regret to
inform you that I do not have a statistical breakdown of the number of seamen
and spouses of American citizens who were tinally excluded wit bout a hearing.
I can state, however, that of the approximate 500 finally excluded. 403 were resi-
dents of Canada or Mexico. Further, 12 persons finally excluded alleged that



18 C. F. R. 17.'.. 50 (h) (G F. R. 5916, offoctive Decembor 1, 1941).



1966 COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

they were ret urn in .a residents of which 5 were in possession of resident alien
border-c-rossini; cards, 1 was in possession of a reentry permit, 1 was in posses-
sion of a visa "issued pursuant to section 4 (b) of the Ininiitiration Act of 1924,
and 5 were returning resident seamen who were not required to have visas under
the waiver provided by the regulations.

6. Ill what proportion of cases involvin.'j; denials of hearing on the basis of con-

!-dential security information have such denials been based on informa-
ti(m supplied by: ('/) official intelligence agencies of the United States;
(h) official intelligence agencies of foreign governments; (c) private
individuals?

It is necessary to again refer to my opening statement concerning statistics.
The information called for liy this question does not fall within the normal pat-
tern (tf statistics maintained by this service, and, therefore, it is not possible to
furnish the inforniatidii sou.Liht. Experietice has shown, however, that the per-
centage based on information from private individuals is quite small.

7. ^Vhat steps do you take to verify or evaluate the information supplied l)y for-

eign agencies or by private individuals before an order of exclusion on the
basis of such information is entered V What steps do you take to verify
or evaluate such information when supplied by official intelligence agen-
cies of the United States?

Information supplied by foreign agencies, private individuals, or official intel-
ligence agencies of the United States which is used as the basis for orders of
exclusi(m is evaluated in the light of all of the facts in the case and any other
information which the Service may have in a particular case as a result of
investigatious conducted by it.

Specifically, before information supplied by a private individual is relied upon,
it must be established that the informant is of known reliability. This is accom-
plished by obtaining corroborating infcn-mation from other sources and, as the
occasion arises, obtaining reports from the field offices of this Service or some
other Mgr-ncy of the United States as to the competency and reliability of the
informant and as to other facts or circumstances that might support or discredit
the information furnished. I think it is well to emphasize that information
emanating from private sources is closely scrutinized and given its proper weight
and consiileration in relation to other information of record in the case.

Likewise, information furnished by foreign agencies must be of proven reli-
ability before it will be accepted. In many cases, other agencies of this Govern-
ment are requested to furnish opinions as to the reliability of the information
furnished by the foreign agency.

Information furnished by oflScial intelligence agencies of the United States
is generally evaluated by the agency at the time the information is submitted
and generally the agency evaluation is accepted. On occasion, further investi-
gation is retpiested of the agency submitting the reiwrt so that information
contained in the reitort may be clarified and properly evaluated. In some cases,
attempts are made to have the informants mentioned in the report interviewed
by a representative of this Service, where possible, but only after clearance l)y
the agency furnishing the report. Information supplied by one source is fre-
quently corroborated by another.

8. What proportion of exclusions without hearing have been ordered on the ba.sis

of evidence showing (a) direct participation in espiimage, sabotage, or
other activities iuiinediately related to the internal security, military
operations, or external affairs of the United States; (/)) membership in
the Communist Party of the United States; (c) membership in the Com-
munist Party of any foreign country ; (d) membership in any otlier organi-
zation in the United States; (e) membership in any other organization in
any foreign country ; (/) other factors?

The approximate proportion of exclusions without hearing ordered on the

basis of particular evidence adduced is as follows:

Pcrce7it

Membarship in the Communist Party of the United States 1

Membership in the Communist Party of any foreign country 37

.M'^iiil)ership in any other organization in any foreign country 48

Other factors — __' 14

Again, in the light of my opening statement concerning statistics, I regret that
I do not have the statistical breakdown to show the proportion of exclusions
without hearing which have been ordered on the basis of evidence showing direct



COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATl'RALIZATION 1967

participation in t^sijioiiafic, sabotajic, or otlu'V activities iniiucdiately related to
the internal security, niiiitai'y operations, or external affairs of tlie United St;ites,
and niembersliip in any otiier organizations in the United States. Any such cases,
tlierefore, are inclnded in the 14 percent representinj? other factors.

It is desiied to eniiihasize that tiie use of this pi'ocess has not been automatic
but is resorted to only in those ca.ses where the establishment of membership was
ba.sed uimiu reliable and trustworthy information from sources which could not
be disclosed without jeoiiardizinj;- the effectiveness of inteliifrence ajiencies and
fources so imporlant to remain concealed in the interest of national security.

V. Has exclusion without hearing finally been ordered on the basis of past mem-
bership in any of the organizations describi-d in paragraph SV If so, specify
what proportion of cases involve such past memt)ership.

Since jiast membership in a proscribed organization automatically brings a
I)erson within the inhibitions of section "> of the act of October 10, 1918, as
amended, we do know from exjK'rience that final exclusion orders have b;'en
entered on the basis of past membership in the organizitions mentioned in para-
graph s above. However, the exact proportion cannot be specifie



Online LibraryUnited States. President's Commission on ImmigratiHearings → online text (page 21 of 35)