A-8499300
Decided by Board January 18, 1957
Deportability — Section 241 (a) (12), Immigration and Nationality Act — Includes procuring male persons for the purpose of sexual intercourse with prostitutes.
An alien who has solicited, procured, and transported male persons for the purpose of sexual intercourse with prostitutes is deportable under section 241 (a) (12) of the act.
CHARGE:
Order To Show Cause: Act of 1952-Section 241 (a) (12) ( 8 U.S.C. 1251 (a) (12)-Procured or attempted to procure persons for purpose of prostitution (section 212 (a) (12) of 1952 act).
BEFORE THE BOARD
Discussion: Respondent, a 26-year-old married male alien, a native and citizen of Mexico, whose last entry to the United States occurred at Hidalgo, Texas, on June 17, 1953, at which time he was admitted for permanent residence, appeals from a decision of a special inquiry officer on July 17, 1956, which directed deportation on the charge in the order to show cause. Deportability is challenged.
Briefly, the evidence shows that on April 30, 1956, respondent approached several men in a certain bar in Detroit, Michigan, and suggested that he could direct or lead them to "a girl" (a 16-year-old girl and an 18-year-old girl), for the purpose of sexual intercourse. The men agreed, and the alien took 4 of them in his automobile to a certain apartment occupied by 2 "girls," where such girls suggested sexual intercourse. It developed that the persons the alien had approached in the bar (customers) were patrolmen in civilian clothing. One of such persons has testified that the alien approached him and his companions while they were seated at a bar and asked if the witness was looking for a good time, stating that he had a 16-year-old girl and an 18-year-old girl that could be had for "$10.00." The witness testified that the respondent was given no money but that he transported the patrolmen to the rear of an apartment where they were greeted by 2 women who proposed sexual intercourse for a price. Respondent was arrested and convicted in Recorder's Court of the City of Detroit, Michigan, of the offense of "aiding and abetting in prostitution" (section 750.450 of the Compiled Laws of Michigan, 1948), on May 2, 1956. He was sentenced to a term of 1 month in the Detroit house of correction.
The special inquiry officer has summarized the facts in detail. He has not relied upon the record of the respondent's conviction "for aiding and abetting in prostitution" to sustain the allegation in the order to show cause. Deportability is based on the testimony of the respondent, a policewoman, a patrolman and a Service investigator. The pertinent testimony of respondent is that he met 2 women (girls) at a dance on April 30, 1956, at which time he suggested a sex act to one of them and was told that the price was $10.00. He alleges that he did not have the money and the girl suggested that if he would bring one of his friends over to the apartment where she and her companion resided the favor (money) would help her to pay her rent. It was then that the respondent, according to his testimony, approached certain men at a bar and inquired if they were interested in a good time, etc. The men, he later discovered, were policemen. Respondent denies that he entered into any agreement with the girl or girls in question concerning any payment or compensation to be made to him by the prostitutes, or by men he would invite to visit the girls, or by any other person. He admits that he told the policemen at the time he approached them at the bar that he wanted one dollar or some money to pay for gasoline and that the men said, "O.K." Respondent disclaims any knowledge of what the "girls" intended to charge the men customers he transported to the apartment as a "favor" to them.
One patrolman, a witness, testified that respondent approached him and his 3 companions in a bar and that he asked them if they were looking for a good time, and, if so, he had a 16-year-old girl and an 18-year-old girl they could have for $10.00. The witness admits that he gave respondent no money but that when they arrived at the apartment of the 2 women the latter proposed sexual intercourse for a price. He asserted that respondent told him that he had met the pertinent girls at a dance and that he suggested to them that they commit an act of sexual intercourse. The witness states that respondent admitted that he made an arrangement with the pertinent girls whereby he agreed to find and bring someone up to their apartment for the purpose of committing acts of sexual intercourse.
A policewoman interviewed the respondent on May 1, 1956, at police headquarters, at which time the respondent is alleged to have stated that he was to be paid for his services in bringing male customers to the pertinent women (girls) and that according to the understanding his payment was to be cash in the sum of $3.00 (for each customer), the money to be used to pay for gasoline in his car. This fact was corroborated by the statements of the "girls," one of whom added that she agreed to have sexual relations with the alien if he would bring customers to her. There is no evidence that respondent ever received money for his services in procuring customers for the "girls" (prostitutes).
Counsel, admitting the pertinent facts which show that respondent did solicit, procure and transport men customers to the apartment or rooms of certain girls who were prostitutes for the purpose of having sexual intercourse, asserts that respondent's acts do not bring him within the provisions of section 212 (a) (12) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, because the persons procured were men and not prostitutes or females.
Section 241, Immigration and Nationality Act:
"(a) Any alien in the United States * * * shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be deported who — * * *
"(12) by reason of any conduct, behavior or activity at any time after entry became a member of any of the classes specified in paragraph (12) of section 212 (a); or is or at any time after entry has been the manager, or is or at any time after entry has been connected with the management, of a house of prostitution or any other immoral place."
The pertinent provisions of section 212 (a) (12), Immigration and Nationality Act reads:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the following classes of aliens shall be ineligible to receive visas and shall be excluded from admission into the United States: * * *
(12) * * * aliens who directly or indirectly procure or attempt to procure, or who have procured or attempted to procure or to import, prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution * * *. [Emphasis added.]
The Service representative contends that the evidence establishes respondent was working with 2 "girls" (prostitutes) for the purpose of receiving some of the monetary consideration or some favor from the benefits they derived from sexual intercourse with the persons he procured. To support the contention that the evidence shows behavior, conduct and activity within the statute, the representative has referred to the case of Spadaro v. Nabors, 229 F. (2d) 190, in which evidence showing that an alien had been convicted of certain acts of conduct in violation of state law, and certain city ordinances (New Orleans), was held to be substantial evidence, and to bring the alien within the terms of the pertinent statute.
The special inquiry officer is of the opinion that the act of respondent in soliciting men for the purpose of the business of 2 girls (practicing prostitution or engaging in acts of prostitution) brings him within the statute as an alien who directly or indirectly procured or attempted to procure "persons" (men) for the purpose of prostitution. The issue to be resolved is whether individuals procured for the purpose of prostitution must be "prostitutes" or female "persons" to come within the part of the statute under which the allegation in the order to show cause is based.
It is clear that the provisions of section 212 (a) (12), Immigration and Nationality Act, quoted above, designate 2 classes of individuals that may be procured, one such class being prostitutes for the purpose of prostitution. It is well established that the term "prostitute" relates solely to a person of the female sex. The term "person" as used in section 212 (a) (12) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is not defined by section 101 (b) (3) of such act. Nor do we find from the discussions and debates in the Congress, which led to the enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, any definition of the term "person" as used in this provision of law. However, it is noted that the wording in the current law is exactly the same as the provision in the parallel statute of preexisting law, namely, section 3 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, except that the first word "persons" was changed to "aliens."
The pertinent provision of section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1917 reads:
"* * * persons who directly or indirectly procure or attempt to procure or import prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral purpose * * *."
A study of the history of the pertinent and similar provisions of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, supra, shows that it was a revision or modification of the Act of February 20, 1907 ( 34 Stat. 898) as amended in 1910 ( Lewis v. Frick, 233 U.S. 291). The Act of February 20, 1907, as amended, condemned procuration of certain individuals. They were definitely described as "prostitutes," "women or girls" (females). However, under the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, successor to the Act of February 20, 1907, it was held that an alien who brought a woman into the United States for the purpose of retaining her as his mistress, came within the term "persons who procure," etc. "for the purpose of prostitution," within the statute ( United States v. Curran, 12 F. (2d) 639 (1926)). In other words, the term "persons," the first word of the pertinent statute, was interpreted to refer to and include male alien procurers. In the current statute that word "persons" was changed to "aliens."
Section 2 of the Act of February 20, 1907, reads as follows:
"That the following classes of aliens shall be excluded from admission into the United States: * * * persons who procure or attempt to bring in prostitutes or women or girls for the purpose of prostitution * * *." [Emphasis added.]
We find that the statute under consideration is broad in scope. It embraces all activity, conduct and behavior in connection with the procuration of persons for the purpose of (to bring about) prostitution, not merely procuring or importing prostitutes. In fact, there is nothing in the context of the pertinent provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( 8 U.S.C. 1251 (a) (12) and 8 U.S.C. 1182 (a) (12)) to indicate that the reason for the change of the words "women or girls," as used in the act of 1907, to the term "persons" as used in the act of 1917, and current law, was other than to include individuals of both sexes in the category of individuals who may be procured for the purpose of prostitution. We are of the opinion that such was the intention of the writers of the pertinent statutes. Accordingly, we hold that the individuals who may be procured for the purpose of prostitution within section 212 (a) (12), Immigration and Nationality Act, are prostitutes, and persons of the male sex to have sexual intercourse with prostitutes.
Prostitute is one who practices prostitution, and in the vocabulary of the underworld may be known, among other things, as a "sporting woman" ( Johnson v. Weedin, 16 F. (2d) 105 (1926)). Practicing prostitution is the sale of one's body for common and indiscriminate sex intercourse ( United States ex rel. Mittler v. Curran, 8 F. (2d) 355). Procure is to obtain for illicit intercourse or prostitution (Webster's Dictionary).
Admittedly, this respondent knowingly procured certain male customers at the request, and in collaboration with, prostitutes (girls) who, to further their trade and business, desired to commit acts of sexual intercourse for monetary consideration. Such conduct, behavior and activity brings respondent within the class of aliens who directly procured and attempted to procure persons (men) for the purpose of prostitution ( 8 U.S.C. 1182 (a) (12) and 8 U.S.C. 1251 (a) (12); also Sparado v. Nabors, supra). The allegation in the order to show cause is supported by reasonable and substantial evidence. The decision of the special inquiry officer will be affirmed.
Finding of fact (3), conclusion of law (1), and the order for deportation will be amended to show specifically the conduct, behavior and activity of the respondent, also, the applicable provision of law upon which deportability is based.
Finding of fact (3):
That subsequent to the entry of the respondent on June 17, 1953, namely, on April 30, 1956, he procured male customers for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with prostitutes.
Conclusion of law (1):
That the respondent is subject to deportation under section 241 (a) (12) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, in that, by reason of conduct, behavior and activity at any time after entry he became a member of a class specified in section 212 (a) (12), to wit, an alien who directly and indirectly procured and attempted to procure persons for the purpose of prostitution.Order: It is ordered that the respondent be deported from the United States under section 241 (a) (12) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, in that, by reason of conduct, behavior and activity at any time after entry he became a member of a class specified in section 212 (a) (12) of such act, to wit, an alien who directly and indirectly procured and attempted to procure persons for the purpose of prostitution.