About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

6 Immigration B. Bull. 1 (1953)

handle is hein.immigration/immigbbu0006 and id is 1 raw text is: 1V VoL VI JANUARY-MARCH, 1953 No. 1 MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT EDWARD L. DUBROFF During the first ninety days of the existence of the 83rd Congress approximately sixty bills and resolutions have beeh introduced in the field of immigration and nationality. Many of them, of course, are duplicates of others. Some would call for the repeal of the Immigration and Nationality Act and a return to the statutes which were in existence be- for the effective date of that Act. Others would merely amend a section of the Act, or add a new section. To date, no omnibus bill, which would revise the McCarran-Walter Act, has been introduced. The indications are, however, that such a bill will be placed in the hopper very soon. In the light of the fact that only two or three of the bills already introduced have had any forward progress, it is safe to assume that any omnibus bill introduced at this time could receive no active consideration before the Congress recesses for the summer. In the meantime, public interest in this legislation has not waned. Hardly a day passes without some speech or article on the subject appearing in the Congressional Record. The daily press carries reports of public meetings, as well as meetings of organized groups, at which discussions have been had on the revision of the Act. Our own Association has taken the position that the only practical way that adequate, proper and necessary changes in the Act can be accomplished is by way of revision, rather than by piece-meal amendment. Many other groups, after a study of the problem, are coming to the same conclusion. It is our hope that with this accumulation of protests sub- stantial changes will be made in the Act. In the meantime the Immigration and Nationality Act is the law of the land and must be respected and obeyed. However, as lawyers, we must be vigilant and alert to see to it that the Act is not used as a weapon against honest, loyal, sincere, lawabiding aliens and naturalized citizens. The present statute is so full of ambiguities that it could easily be turned into a means of intimidation and a policy of harshness towards those affected by it. As good citizens, as lawyers, as officers of the courts of justice, we must see to it that this new statute is properly and fairly enforced. Fun- damentally, the words uttered by George Washington are applicable here - The True Administration of Justice is the Firmest Pillar of Good Government. FROM THE EDITOR'S DESK GEORGE MOERMAN This issue marks the beginning of the sixth year of the Immigration Bar Bulletin. Since its inception it has had the primary purpose of keeping our members advised of the continuous changes in the laws, regulations, policies and personnel of the governmental agencies and courts with which our specialized occupation brings us into daily con- tact. It is our hope that this publication has served such purpose. The Immigration & Nationality Act of 1952 changed, in our opinion, the entire concept of our immigration policy. I, for one, do not agree with the statements issued by the authors of that Act that it is only a recodification of our im- migration laws. There are so many varied changes in the law and its basic philosophy that they cannot be set forth in this circumscribed space. It is my intention, however, to statt, in this and future issues my disagreement with individual portions of the Act. The hardships now created by the inflexible provisions of the present Act relating to possible suspension of deporta- tion should be modified. For twelve years prior to the en- actment of the new Act the policy was to grant such relief to persons of good character who do not have criminal rec- ords and whose residence in the United States would not be detrimental to the best interests of this country if their de- portation would result in a serious economic detriment to close citizen or legal resident relatives. This was later fur- ther modified to permit certain people who have established a comparative long residence in this country to remain. The grant of this relief was discretionary and was only exercised in truly deserving cases. The entire purpose of this benefi- cial legislation was the maintenance of the family life or the grant of relief to persons whose character and actions we had an opportunity to observe. The Senate Committee Report contains the clear state- ment that our philosophy has changed from generosity to cruelness in that it says that the relief should only be granted where its denial would be unconscionable. Hard- ship or even unusual hardship to the alien or his spouse, child or parent is not sufficient to justify the relief. To se- cure the relief the alien must satisfy the Attorney General that his deportation would result in exceptional and ex- tremely unusual hardship. What such a phrase requires is beyond my ken or understanding. IMMIGRATION BAR BULLETIN Published by THE ASSOCIATION OF IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALTV'LAWYERS Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe jree ....... I lift my lamp beside the golden door. /

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most