Reviews
| Date | 01 October 1940 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1940.tb02741.x |
| Published date | 01 October 1940 |
REVIEWS
151
REVIEWS
OOMTROL
OF
ALIENS
IN
TEE
BRITISH
COMXONWEALTE
OF
#ATIOI?S.
By
C.
F.
FRASER.
London
:
The Hogarth
Press.
pp.
304.
I,&.
66.
net.
The
familiar
sentiment that “the foreigner’s
no
good,” with or without
the concomitant distinction between “Americans” and “foreigners”
so
dear
to
the sort of advertisements which
begin
“A
lady (titled), with large
house party, would consider.
. .”
has, one may be tempted in moments
of depression to think, a good deal of truth in
it.
True or not, it is deep
rooted
and wellnigh universal. Sensitive people
see
often a reflection of
it in that harsh archaism of the law, the term “alien”; how friendly and
welcoming do the words “6tranger” and
“
Auslander
”
sound by contrast!
Possibly the law, in the frigidity of the terms it employs and the arbi-
trariness
of the powers
it
confers in relation to these others of
God’s
creatures, but mirrors the feelings of the community it serves. And
possibly the text-book writers, who have hitherto neglected the subject
of treatment of aliens in
a
singular degree, are but observing the true
tradition of Englishmen. Yet
all
this
is hard
to
believe. Rather would
it
appear
that
there
is
a
deep and growing dissatisfaction with the state
of this
part
of the law.
This
dissatisfaction is difficult of expression
:
the
party
most concerned, the alien, cannot himself complain, and the
locus
stad
of others
is
impaired by the remoteness of their interest and often
by an inability to grasp the nature of the problem and of its effects.
If
this
be the true state of opinion, and
if
the chief obstacle in the way
of
its
expression is imperfect appreciation of the present position, then works
of the type of the one before
us
are most timely.
The picture painted by Mr. Fraser, in
so
far
as
it relates to the United
Kingdom, is not a pretty one. The fact
is
that
it
is
competent
to
the
Secretary of State
to
exclude any and every alien from the realm without
assigning any reason for
his
action. The position in regard
to
expulsion
is virtually the same, though where the deportation order
is
made on the
recommendation of
a
court of criminal jurisdiction, the recommendation
is
open
to
review upon appeal. And there does exist an appl tribunal
which advises-but only advises-the Home Secretary
in
cases where the
order
is
made otherwise than
upon
the recommendation of
a
court. Like-
wise
the Secretary of State
has
an absolute discretion
as
to whether or
not he will grant
a
certificate of naturalisation, notwithstanding
that
the
statutory requirements
have
been satisfied. An unfettered discretion
exists also in relation
to
the revocation of a certificate of naturalization
in
certain
classes of
cases.
In
these cases also
no
reasons for a particular
decision can
be
had of right. The Secretary of State
is
thus invested with
great
powers and, in the words of Mill,
“Whatever
are
the reasons for
conferring
powers,
these
also
are the grounds for erecting safeguards
against their abuse.”
In
fact there are
no
tangible safeguards.
This
is
well realised
by
a
great section of the people, but what is less fully
appreciated is
the
deliberate concealment of even the
main
principles of
administrative policy. Mr. Fraser, who
is
described
as
an official in the
service of the Canadian Government, was refused access even
to
the
pV-1914
instructions issued
to
immigration
officers
for
the express
reason
that
they might indicate
to
him
what were these principles
I
The few hints
he
was
vouchsafed were
far
from
encouraging. He
was
told, for
instance,
that,
at
a
time
when difliculty
was
experienced with foreign
waiters
landing
and
Becufipg
employment without labour
permits,
immigration
To continue reading
Request your trial