In re Schacht, Civ. No. 2288.

Citation68 F. Supp. 216
Decision Date26 October 1946
Docket NumberCiv. No. 2288.
PartiesIn re SCHACHT.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

Woodville J. Rogers, of San Antonio, Tex., for petitioner.

William P. Fonville, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Fort Worth, Tex., for Immigration & Naturalization Service.

ATWELL, District Judge.

Helmut Karl Schacht entered the United States, from Germany, as a treaty trader, on August 4, 1939. That trading was to be in cotton between the United States and Germany.

Shortly after his entry, in 1939, Germany became involved in war and such trading could not be longer carried on. Thereafter the petitioner entered the employ of Eugene B. Smith & Co. of Dallas, Texas, a concern which was engaged in the exportation of cotton. Since the war with Germany, such employer has not exported cotton into Germany but has continued in that business in other foreign countries where permissible.

Schacht's treaty trading, under the Immigration Act, which permits the entry of an alien for such purpose, having terminated, and Schacht having engaged in a different activity, the Immigration Department, in accordance with the statutes relating to such matters, held a hearing and ordered Schacht deported. The deportation order was made after Schacht had been here five years. Schacht now contends that the five-year limitation period provided for in the Act, bars deportation. He also claims that his refusal to enter the Armed Forces of the United States should not deprive him of the grace which could be exercised in his favor by the Department of Justice in permitting him to go to Canada or some other contiguous country and re-enter the United States under quota regulations for regular citizenship.

There are some borderline cases, with a shade of difference as to facts, which would seem, at first glance, to support his third position, that is, that what he is doing now is the same sort of business that he was permitted to enter the United States in order to do. Likewise, a careless reading of the statute would seem to make his contention as to limitation, forceful.

A more thoughtful attitude convinces that each of his positions is erroneous. He is no longer a treaty trader with Germany. He is not even working for a firm as an employee, which is engaged in that activity. The Japanese and Chinese cases cited a little later are not authority to the contrary.

Treaties with Germany were terminated when war began. They have not been renewed. Nor does his employer export cotton into Germany.

The discretionary exit of an alien into another country for re-entry provided for, is solely for the Department of Justice, and may not be inquired into by a court, save and except for a manifestly erroneous exercise of that discretionary power. One who declines to take part in defense of the United States, may not, with a very sound platform, thereafter seek such a favor.

The five-year limitation period...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Porter v. Tureen, 4369.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • 1 Noviembre 1946
  • Re Martinez
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • 13 Julio 1947
    ...deferment from military service on the basis of alienship, is debarred from citizenship if an application is made. In In re SchachtUNK, 68 F. Supp. 216, decided by the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, on October 26, 1946, the Court held that the discretion......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT