Opinion ID: 708223
Heading Depth: 7
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Deportation Differs Significantly From Exclusion

Text: 73 The Government's reliance on Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 92 S.Ct. 2576, 33 L.Ed.2d 683 (1972), is misplaced. Nor do we find dispositive our earlier decision to apply the Kleindienst standard to review the Attorney General's decision to require listing of all organizations of which an applicant for naturalization is a member: we noted that aliens at naturalization are not necessarily entitled to the full protection of the First Amendment arguably afforded in deportation hearings. Price, 962 F.2d at 843 n. 7. 74 In Kleindienst, the Court merely upheld the Attorney General's discretion to deny a waiver to allow an entry visa to a Marxist professor from Belgium who had violated the restrictions on his visa during an earlier visit. 408 U.S. at 756-60, 92 S.Ct. at 2578-80. 75 The Kleindienst analysis expressly rests upon the Attorney General's discretionary power to determine who may enter the country from abroad, a power exercised by the political branches as a derivative of the sovereign power to defend[ ] the country against foreign encroachment and dangers. Kleindienst, 408 U.S. at 765, 92 S.Ct. at 2582-83; see also Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 28, 103 S.Ct. 321, 326, 74 L.Ed.2d 21 (1982). The essential distinction between exclusion and deportation rests on this territorial concept of a diverse national community within which citizens and resident aliens interact. See Kwong Hai Chew, 344 U.S. at 597 n. 5, 73 S.Ct. at 477-78 n. 5 (noting that constitutional protection of aliens stems from the alien's presence within [the] territorial jurisdiction) (quoting Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 771, 70 S.Ct. 936, 940, 94 L.Ed. 1255 (1950)). The Framers explicitly recognized that aliens within this country participate in a reciprocal relationship of societal obligations and correlative protection. As [aliens] owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their protection and advantage. James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions, reprinted in Jonathan Elliot, 4 Debates on the Federal Constitution 546, 556 (1907). The Supreme Court has also acknowledged a longstanding distinction between exclusion proceedings, involving the determination of admissibility, and deportation proceedings that corresponds to the basic difference between protected status within the national community and unprotected status at the threshold of admission. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 212-13 n. 12, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 2392 n. 12, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982). Accordingly, we decline to extend Kleindienst to apply to the deportation context. 76