CHAPTER III

Federal Action in Deportations

One of the most effective means of dealing with aliens resident in this country who urge the violent, forcible or unlawful overthrow of the institutions of this government, or of organized government elsewhere, is deportation. The statutes dealing with this subject are broad and comprehensive, and if properly enforced, deportation is probably the most effective way of dealing with the alien agitator who comes to this country and, without a proper comprehension of our institutions, seeks to impress upon others the idea that our form of government should be overthrown and some other form of government, such as the type illustrated by the Soviet government of Russia, substituted in place thereof. We give at the close of this chapter those portions of the United States Immigration Laws bearing upon deportation which should be read in connection with this chapter.

There has been considerable agitation on the part of liberals, including some well-meaning, but misinformed ministers of the gospel, concerning the right of the United States to order the deportation of undesirable aliens; and though, in the case of these deportations notably among those on what has been termed the "Soviet Ark," the Buford, every right of the deportees was safeguarded, and the provisions of law pertaining to these cases, strictly complied with these misguided critics of the right to deportation would have it appear that the deportees in question were not accorded every right that they were entitled to.

In the Japanese Immigration case (189 U. S. 86-97), Mr. Justice Harlan, speaking of the laws providing for the deportation of aliens, said:

"The constitutionality of the legislation in question in its general aspects is no longer open to discussion in this court. That Congress may exclude aliens of a particular race from the United States, prescribe the terms and conditions upon which certain classes of aliens may come to this country, establish regulations for sending out of the country such aliens as come here in violation of the law, and commit the enforcements of such provisions, conditions and regulations exclusively to executive officers without judicial intervention are principles firmly established by decisions of this

court."

In the case of Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S., 711, the Supreme Court of the United States said:

"The power to exclude aliens and the power to expel them rest upon one foundation, are derived from one source, are supported by the same reasons, and are in truth but parts of one and the same power."

And in the same case:

"The order of deportation is not a banishment for crime, it is not a banishment in the sense in which that word is often applied to the expulsion of the citizen from his country by way of punishment. It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of the alien who has not complied with the conditions upon the performance of which the government of the nation, acting within its constitutional authority, and through the proper departments, has determined that his continuing to reside here shall depend. He has not, therefore, been deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; and the provisions of the Constitution securing the right of trial by jury and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and unusual punishments have no application."

Of particular interest is the case of United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279, in which the Supreme Court of the United States, Mr. Chief Justice Fuller writing the opinion, reviewed the laws pertaining to deportation and the theory upon which this very salutory method of ridding this country of unde sirable aliens is put into effect. In the hearing before the Board of Inquiry which was had on October 24, 1903, it appeared that Turner was an Englishman who had then been in the United States but ten days. He delivered a lecture in New York City on October 23 in which he declared himself to be an anarchist, and in the course of which he urged the general strike in the following language:

"Just imagine what a universal tie-up would mean. What would it mean in New York City alone if this idea of solidarity were spread through the city? If no work was being done, if it were Sunday for a week or a fortnight, life in New York would be impossible, and the workers, gaining audacity, would refuse to recognize the authority of their

employers and eventually take to themselves the handling
of industries.
All over Europe they are preparing
for a general strike, which will spread over the entire indus-
trial world. Everywhere the employees are organizing, and
to meet, at any rate, as an anarchist, as one who believes that
the people should emancipate themselves, I look forward to
this struggle as an opportunity for the workers to assert the
power that is really theirs."

Among the papers found on Turner when he was arrested was one dealing with "The legal murder of 1887," meaning the Chicago anarchist trial, of that date, another one on "The Essentials of Anarchism," and notices of meetings, one of a mass meeting for November 9th at which "speeches will be delivered by John Turner in English, John Most in German, and several other speakers."

Excerpts from the opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Fuller in this case are here quoted:

"Whether rested on the accepted principle of international law that every sovereign nation had the power, as inherent in sovereignty and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe; or on the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, which includes the entrance of ships, the importation of goods, and the bringing of persons into the ports of the United States, the act before us is not open to constitutional objection. And while we held in Wong Wing v. United States, supra, a certain provision of an immigration law invalid on that ground, this act does not come within the ruling.

"In that case Mr. Justice Shiras, speaking for the court, said: 'We regard it as settled by our previous decisions. that the United States can, as a matter of public policy, by congressional enactment, forbid aliens or classes of aliens from coming within their borders, and expel aliens or classes. of aliens from their territory, and can, in order to make effectual such decree of exclusion or expulsion, devolve the power and duty of identifying and arresting the persons. included in such decree, and causing their deportation, upon executive or subordinate officials.'

The language of the act is 'Anarchists, or persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States or of all government or of all forms of law or the assassination of public officials." If this should be construed as defining the word 'anarchists," by the words which follow, or as used in the popular sense above given, it would seem that when an alien arrives in this country, who avows himself to be an Anarchist, without more, he accepts the definition. And we suppose counsel does not deny that this government has the power to exclude an alien who believes in or advocates the overthrow of the government or of all governments by force or the assassination of officials. To put that question is to answer it.

"And if the judgment of the board and the secretary was that Turner came within the act as thus construed, we cannot hold as a matter of law that there was no evidence on which that conclusion could be rested. Even if Turner, though he did not so state to the board, only regarded the absence of government as a political ideal, yet when he sought to attain it by advocating, not simply for the benefit of workingmen, who are justly entitled to repel the charge of desiring the destruction of law and order, but at any rate, as an anarchist,' the universal strike to which he referred, and by discourses on what he called The Legal Murder of 1887,' Spies v. People, 122 Ill. 1, and by addressing mass meetings on that subject in association with Most, Reg. v. Most, 7 Q. B. Div., 244; People v. Most, 171 N. Y. 423, we cannot say that the inference was unjustifiable, either that he contemplated the ultimate realization of his ideal by the use of force, or that his speeches were incitements to that end.

"If the word 'anarchists' should be interpreted as including aliens whose anarchistic views are professed as those of political philosophers innocent of evil intent, it would follow that Congress was of opinion that the tendency of the general exploitation of such views is so dangerous to the public weal that aliens who hold and advocate them would be undesirable additions to our population, whether permanently or temporarily, whether many or few, and, in the light of previous decisions, the act, even in this aspect, would not be unconstitutional, or inapplicable to any alien who is opposed to all organized government.

"We are not to be understood as deprecating the vital importance of freedom of speech and of the press, or as suggesting limitations on the spirit of liberty, in itself unconquerable, but this case does not involve those considerations. The flaming brand which guards the realm where no human government is needed still bars the entrance; and as long as human governments endure they cannot be denied the power of self-preservation, as that question is presented here.”

By a recent ruling of the Department of Commerce and Labor based upon an analysis of the manifesto of the Communist Party of America, very ably prepared by Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Francis P. Garvan, the members of that party are subject to deportation upon proof of membership therein. This follows a similar ruling with regard to the Union of Russian Workers. A number, both of the Union of Russian Workers, and members of the Communist Party, have recently been deported, some of whom have been turned over to the immigration authorities. through the efforts of this Committee.

The Congress of the United States has been much concerned with reference to this question of deportation. In the course of a hearing held before the committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the House of Representatives on October 22, 1919, the Hon. Walter H. Newton, a representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota, in discussing a bill proposed by him used the following language:

"Gentlemen of the committee, in common with a great many other Americans I have noticed that during the late war, whereas a great bulk of our citizens of foreign birth loyally supported the Government, there were some who did not do so. Of that number a percentage of them spent their time in endeavoring to get others to avoid military service, and as the result of the efforts of those agitators, including some who were of native birth, quite a number of aliens living in this country, and who had lived in this country for some time, enjoying all of our privileges and benefits, early besought themselves to find out some way of getting out of performing the obligations and duties that they owed to a country in which they lived and enjoyed the protection of its laws and benefits and opportunities.