Task: songer_othadmis

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile, (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed". If the court answered the question in the affirmative, but the error articulated by the court was judged to be harmless, answer "Yes, but error was harmless". 

CHASE, Circuit Judge.
The authority for the order of deportation is found in 8 USCA § 137 (c) and (g). The Communist Party is well known to be a group which advocates tho overthrow of organized government by foi'ee. No claim is made that aliens who are members of it axe not subject to deportation. The appellant contends, however, that, as he was not a member at the time of his arrest, he could not be deported because of his previous membership ; that he was not shown to be affiliated with tho proscribed organization; and that tho proceedings which led to the order of deportation were unfair.
It is true that he was not a member of the Communist Party when arrested. He had recently been expelled because of bis attitude toward negroes, but that did not remove him from the reach of the statute. We have nothing to do with shaping the policy of the law toward aliens who come here and join a proscribed society. Congress has provided that “any alien who, at any time after entering the United States, is found to have been at the time of entry, or to have become thereafter, a member of any one of the classes of aliens enumerated in this section” shall be deported. 8 USCA § 137 (g). This alien concededly did become after entry a member of “one of the classes * * * enumerated” and from that time became deportable. Wo are urged to ameliorate the supposed harshness of the statute by reading into it words that Congress saw fit to leave out and interpret it to apply not to aliens who become members, but only to those who become and continue to the time of their arrest to bo members, of ong of the enumerated classes. If the words used in the statute were equivocal or the intention of Congress for any reason uncertain, there might be room for such a construction as that for which the appellant now contends. Perhaps the sufficient answer is that had Congress intended membership at the time of arrest to be the criterion it would have said so. It has the power to determine what acts of an alien shall terminate his right to remain here. Skeffington v. Katzeff et al. (C. C. A.) 277 F. 129. What it did do was to make the act of becoming a member a deportable offense without’ regard to continuance of membership and it did that in language so plain that any attempt to read in any other meaning is no less than an attempt to circumvent the law itself.
Since the appellant admittedly had, after entry, become a member of a proscribed organization, the undisputed evidence required the order from which this appeal was taken. All proof upon which he was held to be affiliated with the Communist Party was unnecessary, and while we do not mean to intimate that any evidence on that phase of the case was unfairly received and considered, in any. event it did him no harm.
Order affirmed.

Question: Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Yes, but error was harmless
D. Mixed answer
E. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: C