Mr. REES. Upon the hearing of the petition.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. And that is generally not a negative assumption, but from information which he has received from a source on which he had a right to rely; for instance, from a judge or from an attorney of record.

Mr. REES. Do you have quite a number of people who find themselves in this situation?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Not so many. But they are coming up practically all the time. The law was primarily designed to cover people in those States where they voted on first papers, and the children seeing their fathers exercising the rights of citizenship, coming along and reaching their majority assumed that they were citizens and proceeded to exercise the rights of citizenship, and when the law was passed requiring them to be citizens they suddenly found out that they were not citizens, and this law was designed to aid them.

Mr. REES. All right. Section 320.

Mr. SHOEMAKER (reading):

SEC. 320. A person not a citizen who owes permanent allegiance to the United States, and who is otherwise qualified may, if he becomes a resident of any State, be naturalized upon compliance with the requirements of this chapter, except that in petitions for naturalization filed under the provisions of this section, residence within the United States within the meaning of this chapter shall include residence within any of the outlying possessions of the United States.

Mr. REES. Tell us about that.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. That is practically a restatement of existing law, which was first enacted in 1906 when the basic naturalization law was passed. Many persons had lived in, say, the Philippines and Puerto Rico and in some cases Hawaii, and were unable to acquire citizenship because they were unable to prove the necessary residence in continental United States, and it was felt that those people who were practically what might be termed nationals should be given the opportunity to become citizens of the United States, and in those cases, in the first place, they had to come over here to the United States and stay for a year. Now they can come over here and stay 6 months, and their residence in the outlying possessions is regarded as residence in the United States.

Mr. REES. Do I understand that this covers those persons who are residents or rather who were born as nationals, we will say, and now

wish to become citizens?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes.

Mr. REES. That is practically all there is to it?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes, that is practically all there is to it. Nationals

to become citizens.

Mr. FLOURNOY. A Filipino could not take advantage of this.

Mr. REES. A Filipino would not be a national.

Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes, he would.

Mr. REES. Yes; that is right. He would. All right.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Section 321:

A person born in Puerto Rico of alien parents, referred to in the last paragraph of section 5, act of March 2, 1917 (U. S. C., title 8, sec. 5), and in section 5a of the said Act, as amended by section 2 of the Act of March 4, 1927 (U. S. C., title 8, sec. 5a), who did not exercise the privilege granted of becoming a citizen of the United States, may make the declaration provided in said paragraph at any time, and from and after the making of such declaration shall be a citizen of the United States.

This is simply an extension of the privilege of the recognition of citizenship in these Puerto Rican cases which have always been to some extent perplexing or where they presented unusual circumstances, but these cases are almost elementary.

Mr. REES. Who are they?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. They are Puerto Ricans. Perhaps I could give you that clause which would make it more evident to you. Here is the clause:

That any person who is born in Puerto Rico of an alien parent and is permanently residing in that island may, if of full age, within six months of the taking effect of this Act, or if a minor, upon reaching his majority or within one year thereafter, make a sworn declaration of allegiance to the United States before the United States District Court for Puerto Rico, setting forth therein all the facts connected with his or her birth and residence in Puerto Rico and accompanying due proof thereof, and from and after the making of such declaration shall be considered to be a citizen of the United States.

That was the original section 5 of the 1917 act, and I think was carried over in that other clause which is referred to in the act of March 4, 1927, which reads: "Sec. 2. That a new section is hereby inserted between sections 5 and 6 of the act entitled 'An act to provide a civil government for Puerto Rico, and for other purposes,' approved March 2, 1917, as amended, as follows:

SEC. 5a. That all citizens of the United States who have resided or who shall hereafter reside in the island for one year shall be citizens of Puerto Rico: Provided, That persons born in Puerto Rico of alien parents, referred to in the last paragraph of section 5, who did not avail themselves of the privilege granted to them of becoming citizens of the United States, shall have a period of one year from the approval of this act to make the declaration provided for in the aforesaid section: And provided further, That persons who elected to retain the political status of citizens of Puerto Rico may within one year after the passage of this act become citizens of the United States upon the same terms and in the same manner as is provided for the naturalization of native Puerto Ricans born of foreign parents.

This is simply extending that opportunity to take the oath of allegiance and those cases of Puerto Ricans who, you might say, have not been very active in attempting to establish their status in the past. We have almost constantly questions arising as to whether or not a person born in Puerto Rico is a citizen of the United States. Some of them had been out at the time the act of 1917 was passed, some of them went out afterwards, they have stayed out and then come back, and they claim they are still residents of Puerto Rico, so that the cases have not been particularly easy to determine. However, this clause is simply carrying on, as I said, the opportunity to these people who were born of foreign parents to become citizens of the United States by taking the oath of allegiance, and many of them have been careless and have not done anything which they had the privilege to do.

Mr. REES. This means, then, that any Puerto Rican born of foreign parents may become a citizen of the United States by filing a declaration of intention to become a citizen.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Well, it is not particularly dealing with Puerto Ricans as such. It is dealing more, for instance, with the person who, if born in the United States, would be a citizen of the United States under the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution. It is dealing with persons who are born down there, let us say, of German parents, or English parents, or French parents, who might have claimed to be citizens of one of those respective countries, but who, by reason of the

fact of birth down there, should be given the opportunity to claim a status which they could have claimed had they been born in the United States. It is the extension of that privilege which was granted back in 1917; that is all.

Mr. REES. The only thing that I am concerned about is that we have not been more liberal with the person born in Puerto Rico than we have with the person born in the United States who may have gone out and stayed a citizen.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. You say that we have not been?

Mr. REES. I want to say that we have not been as liberal as we should have been. Isn't it true that most every other race come over there and they have their children and then they leave and go to some other country, probably somewhere around the world, and the fellow comes back to Puerto Rico and has not lived there very much, but nevertheless, because he was born in Puerto Rico, can become a citizen of the United States without anything except the filing of a declaration?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. That is true. He can become a citizen, but those cases are not numerous at all.

Mr. REES. The situation, it seems to me, is a little different from an individual born in the United States.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Unquestionably you are right, Congressman.

Mr. REES. I realize that we are taking Puerto Rico on as a part of the United States, and we have got to go along and permit those people to have rights similar to those of American citizens, but I can see probably where that sort of thing might be abused more than it was if those persons were born in the United States. I may be wrong.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. You might be right, too. I do not think there are many cases, however, where individuals have left Puerto Rico and have come back-perhaps they have gone to Santo Domingo and then have come back-but in the large majority of cases this would cover the individual who was born of European parentage and never realized that he had the opportunity to take the oath of allegiance to the United States, and now, having been given back that right in 1917, he has not taken advantage of it and now finds that he can do so and proceeds to do so.

Mr. REES. You do not think it is necessary to even have a hearing before a court in a case of that kind?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Well, as I recall it, that practically is a hearing, and is done almost entirely in court.

Mr. REES. The section says that all he does is just file his declaration. Mr. SHOEMAKER. No, but under the practice which has been established, as I recall it, he must go into court and make that declaration. Mr. REES. No examination, though, of any kind is provided, is there?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes, there is. There has been a practice that there must be an examination, I think, in those cases. I may be wrong in that, but I am almost certain that that is the fact, that when the plan was first started in 1917, any time it was thought advisable to adopt the practice, we had that man appear before our representative and then go in court and make his declaration. I do not want to assert that that is the fact, but I am almost confident that the practice is that he goes into court and has a hearing.

Mr. BUTLER. The court could not deny it.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. The court really does not have any authority and yet exercises it upon administrative request.

Mr. REES. It seems to me that there should be some kind of procedure in which that individual, who is really interested in becoming a citizen of the United States, since you are giving him this right to become a full-fledged citizen, the least we can do is to require some kind of a hearing before a court, rather than just say that all that is necessary for him to do is to file his declaration of intention, which is merely a formality and really, in my judgment, does not amount to very much, unless there is a hearing.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. You say this says he should make a second declaration of allegiance?

Mr. REES. That is all.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. To the United States, before the United States District Court for Puerto Rico?

Mr. REES. That is all. A second declaration of allegiance would be just a second statement signed by the individual before the clerk or the third assistant clerk of the court, and that is all there would be to it. That is the way I read it.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. I am confident that under the administrative procedure that was adopted at that time that he should file a petition to make that declaration, and that our representative in Puerto Rico then went before the court and told the court the circumstances, and the court did not act until he had those circumstances related by our man. That is my impression, and I am almost certain it is the fact.

Mr. REES. I do not want to delay on that particular section, but I am sure, if that matter is brought before a larger group than we have here this morning, attention will be directed to that and I think I will agree that there should be some kind of a hearing before this matter is finally passed upon.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. I think I would agree with your view of it, Con

gressman.

Mr. REES. All right.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Section 322:

A person who, while a citizen of the United States and during the World War in Europe, entered the military or naval service of any country at war with a country with which the United States was then at war, who has lost citizenship of the United States by reason of any oath or obligation taken for the purpose of entering such service, may be naturalized by taking before any naturalization court specified in subsection (a) of section 301, the oath prescribed by section 334.

That is following existing law, as you can see by reference to the opposite column, except that I believe they have left out that portion which enables a man to go before a consul and take the oath of allegiance. So far as I was able to find out in looking at it, they have taken from the consul the opportunity to have the man appear before him and take the oath of allegiance.

Mr. FLOURNOY. This provides that they go before the court.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. This provides that they go before the court, yes. Under the old law, section 4, they could go before the consul as well as the court. This is merely a restriction of existing law.

Mr. REES. This means that no matter how long an individual has been gone from the United States, if he took part in the military

service with the allied forces in the World War, he may regain his citizenship by going into court.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. This individual may. That is provided under section 322.

Mr. REES. File his petition. He just files a petition?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. No. He files his petition for naturalization and does not file a declaration of intention. Under existing law a man who gets any of these exemptions by reason of service in the military forces is required to have been residing in the United States for some time past by the average court. In fact, the law once provided 2 years at least, but I do not know what it provides now. I cannot recall offhand just what that does provide, but the latest provision expired by limitation and I do not recall now whether that was 2 years' or more than 2 years' residence in the United States immediately prior to the filing of the petition.

Mr. REES. We will say that during the World War there were a number of naturalized Italians in this country who joined the Italian Army, and they have been away ever since. Now, after 20 years' time, they can come back and file their petitions for citizenship and become citizens again?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. That is correct.

Mr. REES. Of course, since this country saw fit to permit them to be citizens, there is no particular harm in that?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Congress generally has been very free to give exemptions to those persons who fought, not only in the American Army, but in any of the Allied armies, and it was felt that if a fellow offered to put his life in jeopardy for the cause he was entitled to some exemption and therefore they relieved him of the usual formalities.

Mr. REES. All right. Section 323:

(a) A person, including a native-born Filipino, who has served honorably at any time in the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard for a period or periods aggregating three years and who, if separated from such service, was separated under honorable conditions, may be naturalized without having resided, continuously immediately preceding the date of filing such person's petition, in the United States for at least five years and in the State in which the petition for naturalization is filed for at least six months, if such petition is filed while the petitioner is still in the service or within six months after the termination of such service.

(b) A person filing a petition under subsection (a) of this section shall comply in all respects with the requirements of this chapter except that—

(1) No declaration of intention shall be required;

(2) No certficate of arrival shall be required;

(3) No residence within the jurisdiction of the court shall be required; (4) Such petitioner may be naturalized immediately if the petitioner be then actually in any of the services prescribed in subsection (2) of the section, and if, before filing the petition for naturalization, such petitioner and at least two verifying witnesses to the petition, who shall be citizens of the United States and who shall identify petitioner as the person who rendered the service upon which the petition is based, have appeared before and been examined by a representative of the Service.

That is substantially the existing law, but it does not make a provision for periods aggregating 3 years. Let us say an individual might enlist in the Coast Guard for 1 year and he might be out for a while and come back, and then comes in and serves another year, he might go out for a while and come back and serve another year, and he could