Matter of S----

• Decision Date: 05 May 1961
• Docket Number: A-1138079.
• Citation: 9 I&N Dec. 252
• Parties: MATTER OF S----. In DEPORTATION Proceedings.
• Court: U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals

9 I&N Dec. 252

MATTER OF S----.

In DEPORTATION Proceedings.

A-1138079.

Board of Immigration Appeals.

Decided by Board May 5, 1961.

Deportability — Subversive organization — Membership in Socialist Workers Party ground for deportation under section 241(a)(6).

(1) Evidence of record establishes that Socialist Workers Party between 1938 and at least February 1947 advocated overthrow of the Government of the United States by force or violence or other unconstitutional means.

(2) Alien who was member of Socialist Workers Party from 1938 to 1955, whose activities within the Party show that his membership was "meaningful," held deportable under section 241(a)(6) of the 1952 Act.

(3) That Socialist Workers Party is permitted to engage in political activity in State of Wisconsin which forbids such activity by any organization advocating forcible overthrow of the Government is not controlling in immigration proceeding where determination of deportability is based upon record created at the deportation hearing.

CHARGES:

Order: Act of 1952 — Section 241(a)(6) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(6)] — After entry was a member of an organization that advocates or teaches the overthrow by force or violence or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States. (First charge)

Lodged: Act of 1952 — Section 241(a)(6) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(6)] — After entry a member of an organization that advocates or teaches the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism. (Second charge)

BEFORE THE BOARD

DISCUSSION: This is an appeal from the order of the special inquiry officer requiring respondent's deportation; respondent's application for suspension of deportation was denied on discretionary grounds. The appeal will be dismissed.

The facts have been set forth in great detail by the special inquiry officer and need not be repeated. Briefly, respondent is a 52-year-old single male, a native and citizen of Canada, who has been a resident of the United States since 1933; he was legally admitted for permanent residence on June 1, 1940, and has made brief visits to Canada since that time. He has admitted that he had been a member of the Socialist Workers Party from about 1938 to 1955. The issue is whether the Socialist Workers Party (Party, hereafter) advocates the overthrow of this Government by force and violence or other unconstitutional means. We find it does.

The special inquiry officer sustained the first charge. He held that the Party advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force or violence or other unconstitutional means from January 1938 to at least February 1947. The special inquiry officer sustained the second charge insofar as it related to the advocacy by the Party of the doctrines of world communism. Respondent denies that the Party comes within either of the two charges.

The genesis of the Party was in 1928 when the Communist Party of the United States expelled the supporters of Trotsky. After various attempts¹ to find a vehicle of expression and action, these supporters of Trotsky formed the Party in 1938.

The Party is committed to the theory of Marxism as laid down by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky. In brief, it believes that the capitalist exploits the wage earner and uses the state as a means of repressing him; that capitalism must result in unemployment, war and other problems; and that these problems will become more intense with the passage of time. The Party believes that a scientific (Marxist) analysis of history reveals that capitalism will be unable to solve these problems but that they can be solved by socialism, the inevitable and only valid alternative. Socialism contemplates elimination of private ownership of the means of production, replacing it with state ownership and control. The Party finds that the obstacle to the flowering of socialism out of the "decay" of capitalism is the refusal of the capitalist class to give up its privileges; therefore, the Party urges the vanguard of the workers to build a strong revolutionary party to seize power, overthrow capitalism, and replace it with a dictatorship of the proletariat which will institute the forms of socialism. The Party believes that after the dictatorship has performed its function and all classes have been abolished, the dictatorship and the state itself will disappear.

The Party believes that socialism cannot exist in one country alone, but that it must be established throughout the world, and until 1940 was a member of the "Fourth International", an international organization composed of parties in other countries which follow the same beliefs. The Party quit the international organization in 1940, because such membership was made unlawful, but is still one in spirit with it.

While the Party follows the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, it is opposed to the Soviet Government insofar as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union exercises dictatorial control over the workers of the Soviet Union instead of permitting the workers themselves to exercise control, and insofar as the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R. believes that socialism can exist in one country.

We may now discuss the record as to whether the Party advocates force or violence or other unconstitutional means to institute its program of socialism.

Respondent's case is that the Party seeks to achieve its aims by convincing the majority of the need for change. He holds that the Party does not advocate the use of force, but expects to use force because the scientific analysis of history has revealed that as the proletariat become a real threat to the privileges of the government, the government will use force to prevent the proletariat from obtaining a legal majority. Also, if the government has been dispossessed, it will use force to regain its privileges.² It seems to us that this very attempt at justification for the use of force is an admission that the Party advocates the use of force to overthrow this Government. The change of government by peaceful and legal means is not barred by the Constitution. Change may be based upon the will of the people, expressed in majorities, under the proper forms of law, at the ballot box (Article IV, section 4, Constitution of the United States; see Hopkins v. Duluth, 83 N.W. 536). The Party's certitude that force will nevertheless be used against it condemns it to look upon parliamentary means as futile and leaves it dependent upon a program of force and violence. Refusal by the Party to confine itself to the ballot and to the time it achieves a formal majority envisions unconstitutional means.

However, we need not rest upon the self-serving statements of the Party as to the use of force. We will examine other statements which reveal that force is a positive policy of the Party. Before we do this, we must determine what effect to give the statements on this issue in Party literature. This Party literature consists not only of the official program of the Party, the "Declaration of Principles" and the program of the international organization to which it belonged, but articles, papers, books, and magazines published by the Party. The "Declaration of Principles" was the Party's platform and thus can be relied upon as representing the Party's view; however, a question exists as to whether the other matters can be relied upon as stating the Party view or whether they presented points of view which, although of interest to members, were not necessarily the Party's.

We find that the Party view is stated in Party publications. The theory that official Party publications were instruments of discussion was specifically rejected by the Party. Trotsky, the leading theoretician of the Party, advised the majority of the National Committee of the Party on this very issue in the following terms:

The New International [Party monthly, p. 24] and 65 Socialist Appeal [[official paper, exh. 11, p. 17] are not instruments of the discussion under the control of a special discussion committee, but rather instruments of the party and its National Committee. In the discussion bulletin the opposition can ask for equal rights with the majority, but the official party publications have the duty to defend the point of view of the party and the Fourth International until they are changed. A discussion on the pages of the official party publications can be conducted only within the limits established by the majority of the National Committee. It is so self-evident that arguments are not necessary. (exh. 13, p. 65, Dec. 26, 1939)

* * * * * * *

Second, if the National Committee finds it necessary to devote one issue of the New International to the discussion (I don't propose it now), it should be done in such a way that the reader sees where the party position is and where the attempt at revision, and that the last word remain with the majority and not with the opposition. (exh. 13, pp. 65-66, Dec. 26, 1939)

The Party followed the proposed policy (exh. 13, p. 65, footnote).

Our belief that Party policy could have been learned from official publications of the Party is supported by the fact that members of the Party did learn in this way. Two witnesses presented by respondent revealed under questioning by counsel for respondent that their familiarity with the political philosophy of the Party was obtained through reading the publications of the Party; both these witnesses mentioned the weekly and monthly journal published by the Party as source material, and one of the witnesses added the "available writings of Leon Trotsky and James P. Cannon."³ Respondent stated that "The Militant," a Party weekly, expressed the views of the Party although some articles may not have represented the Party view. Cannon also stated that articles on current events in Party publications did not necessarily reflect the view of the Party but indicated that there was less leeway permitted as to whether the revolution would be...