tion as an alien who has been, after entering the United States, a member of the Communist Party.

To decide the question presented it is necessary to examine and construe the statutes involved. It seems plain that the reference in § 4 (a) to the "classes of aliens enumerated in § 1 (2)" incorporates only the classes enumerated in subsections (A) through (H),' and that the only one of those classes which is applicable here is class "(C)," namely, "Aliens who are members of ... the Communist Party of the United States." (Emphasis added.) There being no question about the fact that petitioner was not a member of the Communist Party at the time of entering the United States on October 8, 1938, or at any time thereafter, the question is whether that entry-as affected, if at all, by his re-entry as a returning resident alien after his one-day trip to Mexico in September 1939 or the one of November 1, 1923, constituted "the time of [his] entering the United States," within the meaning of § 4 (a), as amended by § 22 of the Internal Security Act of 1950. If it was the latter he is deportable, but if the former he is not.

It is obvious that Congress in enacting these statutes did not contemplate the novel factual situation that confronts us, and that these statutes are, to say the least, ambiguous upon the question we must now decide. Our study of the problem, in the light of the facts of this case, has brought us to these conclusions: The first phrase of § 4 (a)—“Any' alien who was at the time of entering the United States"-necessarily refers to "the time" of petitioner's adjudicated lawful admission, as affected, if at

7 Cf. Berrebi v. Crossman, 208 F. 2d 498, and Klig v. Brownell (dissenting opinion), 100 U. S. App. D. C. 294, 299-300, 244 F. 2d 742, 747-748 (certiorari granted, 355 U. S. 809; judgment of the Court of Appeals vacated and case remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss the cause as moot, sub nom. Klig v. Rogers, 355 U. S. 605).

691

Opinion of the Court.

all, by his re-entry as a returning resident alien after his one-day trip to Mexico in September 1939, under which he claims the right to remain. The next phrase "or has been at any time thereafter"-necessarily refers to all times subsequent to such lawful admission. Thus the two phrases, when read together, refer to the particular time the alien was lawfully permitted to make the entry under which he claims the status and right of lawful presence that is sought to be annulled by his deportation, and to any time subsequent thereto. Inasmuch as petitioner claims no right of lawful presence under his entry of November 1, 1923, and respondent does not by the deportation order here seek to annul any right of presence acquired under that entry, we must hold that petitioner's entry of October 8, 1938-as affected, if at all, by his returning from Mexico in September 1939-constituted "the time of entering the United States," within the meaning of § 4 (a). Since petitioner was not a member of the Communist Party "at the time of entering the United States" on October 8, 1938, and has not been a member "at any time thereafter," including, of course, the time of his returning entry from Mexico in September 1939, he is not deportable under § 4 (a), as amended by § 22 of the Internal Security Act of 1950.

In a different context this Court has said that the word entry "includes any coming of an alien from a foreign country into the United States whether such coming be the first or any subsequent one." United States ex rel. Volpe v. Smith, 289 U. S. 422, 425. While that holding is quite correct, it is not here apposite or controlling, for the question here is not whether petitioner's coming to the United States in 1923 constituted an entry. Admittedly

Cf. Lewis v. Frick, 233 U. S. 291; United States ex rel. Claussen v. Day, 279 U. S. 398; United States ex rel. Stapf v. Corsi, 287 U. S. 129.

458778 0-58- -48

it did. Rather, our question is whether it was that entry, or the adjudicated lawful entry of October 8, 1938, as affected, if at all, by petitioner's re-entry as & returning resident alien in September 1939, which constituted the time of petitioner's entry upon which his present status depends. In the novel circumstances here we think it evident that it could not be his entry of November 1, 1923, since petitioner had abandoned all rights of residence under that entry. Volpe did not involve any question of abandonment.

Of course, if petitioner had become a member of the Communist Party after the entry of October 8, 1938, or the re-entry of September 1939, he would have been deportable under § 4 (a). Galvan v. Press, 347 U. S. 522. But it is admitted that he was not a member of that party at those times or "at any time thereafter." Likewise, if he had applied for entry after June 27, 1952, he would be excludable under § 212 (a) (28) (C) (iv) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. 66 Stat. 182, 8 U. S. C. § 1182 (a) (28) (C) (iv).

The Government argues that the construction which we adopt would enable a resident alien, who after lawfully entering the United States for permanent residence became a member of the Communist Party, to avoid deportation for that cause simply by quitting the party and thereafter stepping across the border and returning. While a resident alien who leaves the country for any period, however brief, does make a new entry on his return, he is then subject nevertheless to all current exclusionary laws, one of which, at present, excludes from admission any alien who has ever been a member of the Communist Party. Section 212 (a) (28) (C)(iv) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, supra. If he enters when excludable, he is deportable, even though he would not have been subject to deportation if he had

691

Opinion of the Court.

not left the country. Hence, our construction of the statutes here involved does not enable an alien resident to evade the deportation laws by leaving the country and returning after a brief period, for if at the time of his return he is within an excluded class he would be excludable, or, if he nevertheless enters, he would be deportable. It is admitted that when petitioner returned from Mexico after his one-day trip in September 1939 he was not excludable under then current exclusionary laws. That entry, being lawful, can only support our conclusion in this case.

Though §§ 1 and 4 (a) of the Anarchist Act of 1918, as amended by the Internal Security Act of 1950, are quite ambiguous in their application to the question here presented, we believe that our interpretation of them is the only fair and reasonable construction that their cloudy provisions will permit under the rare and novel facts of this case. "When Congress leaves to the Judiciary the task of imputing to Congress an undeclared will, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity. And this not out of any sentimental consideration, or for want of sympathy with the purpose of Congress in proscribing evil or antisocial conduct. It may fairly be said to be a presupposition of our law to resolve doubts against the imposition of a harsher punishment." Bell v. United States, 349 U. S. 81, 83. And we cannot "assume that Congress meant to trench on [an alien's] freedom beyond that which is required by the narrowest of several possible meanings of the words used." Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan, 333 U. S. 6, 10. Cf. Barber v.

'Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U. S. 206; United States ex rel. Volpe v. Smith, 289 U. S. 422; Un ted States ex rel. Stapf v. Corsi, 287 U. S. 129; United States ex rel. Claussen v. Day, 279 I. S. 398; Lapina v. Williams, 232 U. S. 78; Leuis v. Frick, 233 U. S. 291; Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U. S. 581.

Gonzales, 347 U. S. 637, 642-643; Delgadillo v. Carmichael, 332 U. S. 388, 391.

As applied to the circumstances of this case, we hold that the phrase in § 4 (a), “Any alien who was at the time of entering the United States, or has been at any time. thereafter," refers to the time the alien was lawfully permitted to make the entry and re-entry under which he acquired the status and right of lawful presence that is sought to be annulled by his deportation. Petitioner's entry of October 8, 1938, as affected, if at all, by his subsequent entry in September 1939 as a returning resident alien, constituted "the time of entering the United States" within the meaning of § 4 (a). Inasmuch as petitioner was not on October 8, 1938, or at any time thereafterincluding September 1939-a member of the Communist Party, he is not deportable under §§ 1 and 4 (a) of the Anarchist Act of October 16, 1918, as amended by § 22 of the Internal Security Act of 1950, and the judgment must be reversed for that reason.

Reversed.

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, with whom MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN concur, dissenting.

Petitioner entered the United States in 1923, being admitted for permanent residence at that time. From 1932 to 1936 he was a member of the Communist Party. In 1937 he voluntarily left the country to fight in the Spanish Civil War. A year later, in 1938, he returned and again was admitted. At that time our law did not exclude members or past members of the Communist Party.

In 1950 the Congress passed the Internal Security Act, § 22 of which required the Attorney General to deport all aliens who were Communist Party members "at the time of entering the United States, or . . . at any time there