Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-04-27

Heikkila. an admitted fol
returned to San Francisco FRI
Service came under fire from
the manner Of his deportation.
Heikkila's is only one OF many
cases where immigration agents
undergo severe tests OF pa
thence.
Another Case Recalled
A classic example is the case
of Carlos Marcello. big-shot
New Orleans racketeer and mar
cotics law violator. Marcello Isl
still in this country-more than
I'VE years after he was ordered
deported In February, 1855
and more than four months
after the Supreme Court denied
his plea. And there is a fair
chance that the gangster viii
be able 10 stay here indefinitely.
This is because Of q novel
legal caper Marcello pulled.
The Government cannot deport
a person unless there is some
country willing to receive him.
Under treaties. some countries
accept their own deported ma
tionals.
The Government contends
that Marcello, an alien. Is q
native Of Italy. AS q matter OF
fact, back in October, 1856.
the Italian government issued
travel documents granting him
admission. But on the same
day, Marcello filed. for the
third time, a Federal court
action challenging the deporta-
ton order and action was
further delayed.
The novel move was made by
Marcello after he lost In the
Supreme Court. He had at
torneys in Italy file an action
IN an Italian Court contesting
determination that he was q
native OF Italy. II the court
rules that he is not, no travel
papers will be issued by that
country and immigration au-
thorities again viii be stymied.
One Of Many
Marcello's case is only one
of a number Of such. according
to immigration authorities. In
which every quirk Of the law
is used and. they say. abused.
to ward on final determination.
This is done by holding back
certain legal arguments 30 that
II an action is lost at one point,
a new suit is filed which brings
in q new contention.
Some deportation dodgers Ale
different suits in different sec
tons Of the country,
At one time, they seek re-
view on q writ Of habeas corpus.
If they fail in this move for
freedom they bring q different
action. such as q suit for de-
claratory judgment to have the
court declare they are not eligi-
BILE for deportation. This may
be followed by suits for in
junction. applications for re-
straining orders and petitions
for review.
To combat this, the Justice
Department has sponsored leg
islation which would limit &C.
tons in deportation cases to
petitions for habeaS corpus or
for judicial review Of the de-
por.ation order.
In addition. the proposed
measure would bar the intro
duction Of new legal moves.
unless there Is new evidence
that could not have been pre-
scented in the previous lawsuit. |
The petition for review could
not be filed later than six
months after the original In
migration Service hearing was
held.
Flaws Seen
BA Jack WaSserman. a
Washington attorney who han
dies many deportation cases, |
sees flaws in the proposed leg
tslation.
He asks why there should be
Q six-month limit on the filing
Of the review petition when the
Government can bring deporta-
ton proceedings at any time
after a deportable offense.
AS to the bringing OF the
suit in the district where the
original inquiry was held, Mr.. |
Wasserman believes it works
an undue hardship on a man
who may have moved thou
sands of miles away in the
meantime.
The incidence OF cases such