« ÎnapoiContinuă »
get the opportunity to become naturalized by reason of the aggregate period of 3 years. That is different from existing law, which does not cover that feature, but substantially that follows existing law.
Mr. Rees. Do we have Filipinos in our Army?
Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes, sir. In the 1918 act provision was made for the naturalization only of those Filipinos who served in the United States Navy or Marine Corps or Naval Auxiliary Service, and no provision was made for those who were in the Army.
Mr. REES. That is right.
Mr. SHOEMAKER. As I recall it, there was no request made for them, and it was limited to them. There has been some agitation in connection with that.
Mr. Rees. Are there many of them?
Mr. SHOEMAKER. No. I might say this, that when the war broke there were a considerable number of Filipinos who went into the Army in Honolulu, and that is the only place where they went in in any numbers. Some did go in in the Western States, but not many.
Mr. Rees. Through what other sources may a Filipino become a citizen of the United States?
Mr. SHOEMAKER. None other. He is barred by section 2169 of the Revised Statutes; that is to say, he is not regarded as a white person or a person
of African nativity or African descent, and because Congress has made no provision for his naturalization he is not natural. ized.
(c) In case such petitioner's service was not continuous, petitioner's residence in the United States and State, good moral character, attachment to the prin.ciples of the Constitution of the United States, and favorable disposition toward the good order and happiness of the United States, during any periods within five years immediately preceding the date of filing said petition between the periods of petitioner's service in the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard, shall be verified in the petition filed under the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, and proved at the final hearing thereon by witnesses, citizens of the United States, in the same manner as required by section 309. Such verification and proof shall also be made as to any period between the termination of petitioner's service and the filing of the petition for naturalization.
I regard that as a safeguard to the continuance of good moral character and attachment to the principles of the Constitution on the part of the applicant for citizenship, in those periods where he is shown not to be under Government supervision, such as for instance, an enlisted man or a man in any of the military or naval services.
(d) The petitioner shall comply with the requirements of section 308 as to continuous residence in the United States for at least 5 years and in the State in which the petition is filed for at least six months, immediately preceding the date of filing the petition, if the termination of such service has been more than six months preceding the date of filing the petition for naturalization, except that suc hservice shall be considered as residence within the United States or the State.
In other words, a man who has served in the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps, or any of the services, has no exemption in seeking to become naturalized except that one which is provided there in the latter part, that his service shall be considered as residence in the United States. Take, for instance, a man who has been down in the Panama Canal Zone or who has been some place where he was required to go by constituted authority, provided he can prove his residence there by the
fact of his discharge or by the fact of his service records, but otherwise he gets nothing if he is out of the service for over 6 months.
Mr. REES. He gets the right to become a citizen.
Mr. Rees. Except he must show his 5 years' residence in the United States.
Mr. SHOEMAKER. He gets nothing by reason of his service, though.
Mr. Rees. Yes. He would not have any right to apply for citizenship if he had not had service.
Mr. SHOEMAKER. His residence is taken into consideration, and the fact that he may have been out of the United States does not make any difference, but otherwise he must file a declaration of intention. He must have two citizen witnesses to establish his residence, wherever that may have been, which was not in the service, and he must wait the 90 days for the final hearing. He must secure a certificate of arrival. He must comply in all respects with the general requirements of the naturalization laws, except as to proof of residence, which is not necessary, provided he was in the service.
Mr. Rees. Would a Filipino, or anyone else who has been in the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, or Coast Guard for 3 years and whose term has expired, within 6 months after his term has expired, be entitled to citizenship if he complies with the terms generally required of other aliens?
Mr. SHOEMAKER. That is correct.
(e) Any such period or periods of service under honorable conditions, and good moral character, attachment to the principles of the Constitution of United States, and favorable disposition toward the good order and happiness of the United States, during such service, shall be proved by duly authenticated copies of records of the executive departments having custody of the records of such service, and such authenticated copies of records shall be accepted in lieu of affidavits and testimony or depositions of witnesses.
That is a slight variation from existing law, but it is to require him to produce evidence that he actually was in the service from the records of the constituted authorities. I think it is a good clause and adds to the safety of admitting persons who have been in the service and who have been out, particularly for a considerable time. Take a man who has been out of the service, let us say, for 4 years. He can prove the first year of the 5 years under the statute which he is required to prove by the authenticated records of the service in which he was once enlisted, but the other 4 years which immediately precede the date of filing the application he must prove by two citizen witnesses having personal knowledge of that fact.
Section 324 (a):
A person who has served honorably or with good conduct for an aggregate period of at least three years (1) on board of any vessel of the United States Government other than in the United States Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard, or (2) on board vessels of more than twenty tons burden, whether or not documented under the laws of the United States, and whether public or private, which are not foreign vessels, and whose home port is in the United States, may be naturalized without complying with the requirements as to five years' residence within the United States and six months' residence in the State, if such person files a petition for naturalization while still in the Service on a refnlistment, reappointment, or reshipment, or within six months after an honorable discharge or separation therefrom.
That is substantially following the existing law.
Mr. SHOEMAKER. It is more liberal, in that it refers to the aggregate periods, but I think it is a little bit tighter, if anything, than existing law. No; I would not say that. I withdraw that; that is not correct. It is just about the same except for the fact of the aggregate periods.
Mr. Rees. This means that any person, excepting those that are specifically exempted because of race, who is employed on any ship that flies the American flag, whether the ship is a public or private . vessel, just so it has its home port in the United States, may be entitled to become a citizen of the United States without complying with the requirement of 5 years' residence. He does not even have to file a declaration of intention to become a citizen. If he will file his petition while he is in the service, or within 6 months after his employment with the private concern which flies the American flag over the ship. This ship concern can go out and employ Frenchmen, Germans, Scotchmen, or Italians, or whatever they may be, and those persons will thereby become entitled to become American citizens without the necessity of filing a declaration of intention.
Mr. SHOEMAKER. They must, of course, comply with the condition that they are not foreign vessels, Congressman, and the law as primarily enacted, or I should say when it was first enacted was designed to aid many of the individuals who were serving as supercargoes and as clerks on transports and who actually had not enlisted and could not otherwise get the benefits of the provisions of the act for military or naval services, many of those men—not many of them, I could not say that, but some of them—were on vessels which had been loaned to the Government, and many of them given to the Government to act as mine sweepers and in that capacity those men served, and it was felt at that time by the Congress that they were entitled to the benefits of the act. Now, it has been carried into general legislation and has continued up to the present time, and it has evidently been the thought of the framers of the law that a person who was serving in any capacity on an American-owned vessel, and on a vessel of more than 20 tons burden, should be given some exemptions when seeking to become naturalized. I think that is the theory on which they proceed at all times.
Mr. Rees. All right. Tell me, if you will, why a private concern, a private company, that is carrying on its business on the high seas and does have its home port in the United States, should go over and employ French cooks, we will say, or Italian laborers for common labor on these boats, and carry them around and employ them for a period of 3 years—why are those persons entitled to a preference over the German or the Frenchman or the Italian who comes over here in the regular way and waits for a period of 5 years to become a citizen and is required to go through the regular formalities of a declaration of intention and the hearing on his petition for citizenship? Why the preference there! Your first answer is, “Well, that seems to be the way Congress planned doing it,” or something of that nature, but please tell me why this Frenchman or Scotchman is entitled to that preference.
Mr. BUTLER. Congressman, you have got in mind that these private companies can go all over the world and ship foreigners on their vessels from foreign countries and then come back and then they can be naturalized under this law.
Mr. REES. That might not be correct, but it is possible; yes, sir.
Mr. BUTLER. Well, as I understand it, they first have to be admitted to the United States under the immigration laws and then ship out from a port in this country and serve on the vessels enumerated in this section. They have to come in under the immigration laws.
Mr. SHOEMAKER. I think if you will read section 324 on pages 36 and 37 of part 1, you will get the reasons. The reasons are given by the committee on pages 36 and 37 under the heading “Section 324”
" for this legislation.
Mr. Rees. But I wanted your opinion. I wanted you to tell me why this fellow is entitled to become a citizen after 3 years and the other fellow has to wait 5 years and why it is that he does not have to file a declaration of intention. What is your opinion on it?
Mr. SHOEMAKER. I can give it to you for what it is worth.
Mr. SHOEMAKER. To further the interests of American shipping, and that was the main purpose designed in giving these people exemptions in seeking to become naturalized, in those vessels of more than 20 tons burden. So far as the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard are concerned, they are under Government supervision strictly, as you know, and I do not see frankly why there should be any differentiation between them as a whole over the enlisted man. I am talking about these people in the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.
Mr. REES. All right.
Mr. SHOEMAKER. But as to the others here, I-think that in my opinion, which after all may not amount to much, is that they were trying to further the American merchant marine.
Mr. REES. I think I said in the first instance that that is the first thing you would tell us that Congress is doing, but I would like to know what you think about it, if you would tell me. Maybe it does not make any difference, but it just seems to me that there is a preference given there to a group of persons who are not particularly entitled to it. What do you think about it, Mr. Flournoy?
Mr. FLOURNOY. I am speaking for myself.
Mr. BUTI ER. I suppose, if he was speaking for himself, he would not want it on the record.
Mr. REES. I do not know. I would like to see it on the record, but it does not make any difference to me.
Mr. FLOURNOY. It seems to me desirable that such person should be first admitted to the United States and pass the test. I do not find that in either the old law or in this.
Mr. BUTLER. I am inclined to think that that ought to be made clearer.
Mr. REES. Have you any other comment ?
Mr. BUTLER. I think it ought to be made clearer. It should be made clear that vessels could not go any place in the world and ship seamen on their vessels and then bring them over and make them citizens.
Mr. REES. Do you think under this section that he has been admitted ?
Mr. BUTLER. I think there is serious doubt about it, Congressman. That is what has bothered me from the beginning. Possibly in the interests of the American merchant marine we might make certain
concessions which we would regard as important in building up the merchant marine.
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Could I make this suggestion? Would it be all right if we conferred with the Maritime Commission and secured their views on this particular section of the law? I think perhaps the Maritime Commission, which is familiar with conditions on American ships might have some very definite views on this subject in which this committee would be interested.
Mr. SHOEMAKER. I may say this, that in my contact with this statute and in my experience I think that there has never been but one case that I have ever known where the person acquired citizenship by reason of service on a vessel of more than 20 tons burden. There have never been to my knowledge over 10 persons who ever acquired anything under the preceding clause having reference to American vessels, and those 10 persons were persons who had been in the Philippines for years, who had been over here perhaps in some cases and who, when the vessels were in the Philippines, were enlisted on those vessels and came over to the United States, and in those cases we had afterward to get certificates of arrival, and I am confident, from my own experience and knowledge, that you can safely say that through all the years that this legislation has been on the books there have not been over 20 persons admitted to citizenship thereunder.
Mr. SHAUGIINESSY. Of course, the effectiveness of the section is diminished by subsequent legislation. Most of these vessels are now subsidized vessels and a subsidized vessel has to have almost 100 percent American citizen crew.
Mr. Rees. That may be true but your principle remains practically the same. I do not want to do anything that will injure the Maritime Commission or injure the business of any shipowners, but I think that when
you write a statute which says that an individual who has served on a ship that flies the American flag, even though owned by private parties, even though an individual has been employed there for 3 years at gainful employment, that entitles him to become a citizen of the United States by filing his petition, it seems to me that under the conditions that exist now that that is not very much protection. I think it is carrying things too far. I do not know anything about it, but that is my idea. All right.
All right. Go ahead. Mr. SHOEMAKER. Section 325 (a): An alien who is a native, citizen, subject, or denizen of any country, state, or sorereignty with which the United States is at war shall not be admitted to become a citizen of the United States unless such alien's declaration of intention was made not less than two years prior to the existence of the state of war, or such alien was at that time entitled to become a citizen of the United States without making a declaration of intention, or unless the petition for naturalization shall then be pending and the petitioner is otherwise entitled to admission," notwithstanding such petitioner shall be an alien enemy at the time and in the manner prescribed by the laws passed upon that subject.
(b) An alien embraced within this section shall not have such alien's petition for naturalization called for a hearing, or heard, except after ninety days' notice given by the clerk of the court to the Commissioner to be represented at the hearing, and the Commissioner's objection to such final hearing shall cause the petition to be continued from time to time for so long as the Commissioner may require.
(c) Nothing herein contained shall be taken or construed to interfere with or prevent the apprehension and removal, agreeably to law, of any alien enemy at any time previous to the actual naturalization of such alien.