Imagini ale paginilor

do so.

Mr. REES. Subsection (i).
Mr. SHOEMAKER. That is substantially existing law.
Mr. Rees. Subsection (j).
Mr. SHOEMAKER. That is existing law.
Mr. REES. Section 342, with regard to mail?
Mr. SHOEMAKER. That is existing law.

Mr. REES. Section 343 has to do with the authorization for publication and distribution of textbooks.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. That is existing law.
Mr. REES. Section 344 has to do with the publication of statistics.
Mr. SHOEMAKER. That is substantially the existing statute.

Mr. REES. I would like to ask how far does the Government go now in attempting to advise the public generally as to the requirements that are made of aliens who are seeking to become citizens?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Well, the Government, so far as it can, aids and assists in the establishment of schools everywhere that it is possible to

Mr. Rees. You have schools, for instance, in places like St. Louis, we will say, and Kansas City!

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rees. And Chicago. Are these schools conducted by teachers working under the direction of the Department of Labor ?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. They are in close contact with the Department of Labor. They are not paid from the funds of the Department of Labor.

Mr. REES. By whom are they paid?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Frequently by the Y. M. C. A. authorities and welfare authorities and region councils and people of that kind, but never by the Government, but we do have our men go there frequently and give them assistance in telling them just what is required. Then our men frequently go there and contact these people at nighttime in order to save the time of any of these individuals. We find that they would otherwise lose time from their employment.

Mr. Rees. In other words, where there are night schools, and I assume most of them are night schools?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Generally speaking.

Mr. Rees. Conducted for the purpose of instruction to those who want to become citizens, the Labor Department cooperates wherever it is possible to do so, but what I was after particularly was to find out what the Department, the Bureau of Naturalization, has done toward providing general information.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Textbooks, you mean? Mr. REES. Yes. Mr. SHOEMAKER. We do furnish a textbook. Mr. Rees. Do you have a textbook which is generally used in these schools?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. We do aid somewhat in distribution of pamphlets which have been issued in some instances by the Daughters of the American Revolution and people of that kind, but generally speaking, the paper or the pamphlet or the booklet is a textbook on citizenship.

Mr. REES. You have a textbook? Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes, sir. Mr. REES. That is issued to all of these people who attend these schools?





[ocr errors]

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Only to those applicants for citizenship in the public schools.

Mr. REES. Those who have applied for citizenship who are attending public schools?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. We have just revised that textbook. For years it has been in three different volumes, and like everything else it gets a little bit out of date, and for the past year and a half the Commissioner and Dr. Hazard and cooperating agencies and those in control of the public-school system of the District of Columbia have all collaborated in the writing of just one consolidated volume which will soon be available to the applicants for citizenship. We have never had enough money to buy enough books to distribute them to every applicant.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes; we have in the past. We could secure the publication of these books through fees which were collected in naturalization cases and which have been deposited in the Treasury upon vouchers to the credit of the Department.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. But they stopped that.
Mr. SHOEMAKER. They are not doing that now.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Of course, we have to determine just what levels are most desirable and available to the average mentality of your applicant for naturalization. I would be very happy, as soon as it comes out, to show you a copy of this volume.

Mr. REES. I would appreciate it very much. I think we are through, then. We have section 344 with reference to the compilation of naturalization statistics.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. That follows existing law.
Mr. Rees. Section 345 refers to the penal provisions.

Mr. BUTLER. There are not many changes in that. You see, the criminal laws relating to naturalization matters are scattered through the criminal codes and various other laws. All we have done here in section 345 is really to compile those laws and place them altogether. There are some very slight changes. For example, we have had some difficulty about the statute of limitations in criminal cases. jury cases, of course the rule is that the indictment or information must be filed within 3 years after the commission of the offense. Of course, in these naturalization cases, there are very often charges which really amount to perjury. Then there is a question of the statute of limitations, because the old naturalization law provided that the proceedings must be initiated within 5 years, so that the matter has been cleared up in this penal code by making the offense chargeable within 5 years after the commission of the particular offense and there is no ambiguity in those particular cases.

Mr. Rees. I assume then that you have extended the statute to at least 5 years.

Mr. BUTLER. Yes. Of course, the reason for that is, as I said before, the usual statute in criminal cases is 3 years, except of course in the case of murder, and the naturalization people thought that they ought to have 5 years, and I think that is rather a fair proposition.

Mr. REES. I think so too. Then that takes us down to the question of loss of nationality. We won't go into that.

(Whereupon, at 1:50 p. m. the subcommittee adjourned.)

In per





Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., there being present Messrs. Rees (acting chairman) and Rockefeller.

There were also present Mr. R. W. Flournoy, assistant to the legal adviser, Department of State; Mr. Thomas B. Shoemaker, Deputy Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization; Mr. B. W. Butler, Department of Justice; Mr. Edward J. Shaughnessy, Deputy Commissioner oï Immigration an.' Natu alizition; and Henry B. Hazard, Director of Research, Information, and Education, Immigration and Naturalization Service.


ADVISER, DEPARTMENT OF STATE Mr. Rees. All right, gentlemen. Mr. FLOURNOY. Shall I start on chapter IV. Loss of nationality? Mr. REES. If you will, sir, please.

Mr. FLOURNOY. Section 401, in this part I, of the proposed code, page 66:

A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by :

(a) Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, either upon his own application or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person.

The corresponding provision found in the act of March 2, 1907, reads as follows:

That any American citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws, or when he has taken an oath of allegiance to any foreign state.

And provided also, That no American citizen shall be allowed to expatriate himself when this country is at war.

That is the existing law on that same subject. The existing law contains the rather ambiguous term “American citizen.” When we say an American citizen we really do not know what is meant, a citizen of the United States or any person having the nationality of the United States. Presumably in this case, it means the latter, because Congress must have intended that one of the citizens of the outlying possessions owing allegiance to the United States would lose his nationality in the same way as a citizen of the United States. So in


[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]


the draft code we used the broad term "national” which as you know includes citizens of the United States and inhabitants of the outlying possessions owing allegiance to the United States, although they are not citizens of the United States.

Mr. Rees. In other words, a citizen is a national but a national may not be a citizen necessarily.

Mr. FLOURNOY. He may not be a citizen. We follow that terminology all the way through this proposed code..

Mr. Rees. I see. All right.

Mr. FLOURNOY. Another important change that attention will certainly be called to sooner or later, and we might as well consider it now, I think, is this provisionshall lose his nationality by (a) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, either upon his own application or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person. The latter provision was not in the existing law. As you know, that question came up in the Elg case recently decided by the Supreme Court. The Government took the position there that a minor child naturalized in a foreign state through the naturalization of her father had lost her citizenship. It construed section 2 of the act of March 2, 1907, to apply not only to the person obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own petition but also to the minor child naturalized in a foreign state through his naturalization. The Attorney General had made a ruling to that effect some years before, and one of the circuit courts of appeals had made a similar ruling. In other words, they agreed with the Department on that, but the Supreme Court did not, and that ruling has been definitely changed, so that now the child born in this country and naturalized in a foreign state through the parent does not lose American citizenship under the present law.

Mr. REES. Would that person have a sort of dual citizenship then?

Mr. Flournoy. He would have dual citizenship as a result of the operation of law now as construed by the Supreme Court. This provision in the code is designed to make it clear that the child does lose American citizenship immediately upon naturalization, no matter how young a child may be, through the parent in a foreign country. I call attention to this because I have no doubt there is going to be strong opposition to that provision. Of course, the decision of the Supreme Court does not prevent us from having such a provision in the new statute. In other words, the Supreme Court did not say it was

. unconstitutional.

Mr. Rees. It just interprets the law?
Mr. FLOURNOY. It merely construed the existing law.
Mr. REES. Yes.

Mr. Flournoy. So it is a question of policy whether we should have this provision or whether we should omit it.

Mr. REES. All right.

Mr. FLOURNOY. The next subsection provides for loss of American nationality:

(b) By taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state.


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

That corresponds with the existing law, except it is a little broader. There are some foreign states that do not have any such thing as oaths of allegiance in our sense. It is invoking the Deity as a part of the statement. For instance, in Russia you would find nothing like an oath of allegiance, and so we put in those words "or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state.” I do not think anyone would question that.

Mr. REES. Now, section (c).
Mr. FLOURNOY (reading):

(c) Entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state, unless expressly authorized by the laws of the United States.

This is new law. We have no such law as that now. In very recent years Americans have entered the armies of foreign states. For instance, in the Spanish war and in the present war a good many are going into the armies of foreign states, and it does not seem reasonable that a person should give himself up and risk his life for the good of a foreign state and remain a citizen of the United States, although it may be reasonable to provide for recovering the citizenship readily in such cases. That last phrase there, “unless expressly authorized by the laws of the United States,” has reference to certain laws we had during the World War where citizens entered the armies of foreign countries.

Mr. REES. Does that mean laws now existing? Is that what it means?

Mr. FLOURNOY. We haven't any such law as this.
Mr. REFS. I wondered what it might be.

Mr. FLOURNOY. Any law which might be in effect at the time. We are allied with some foreign country at war, and for reasons of policy it seems desirable to allow Americans to serve in the armies of the Allied countries, as in the World War, and in that case there is a law expressly authorizing it. If Congress passes such a law, then the person would not lose citizenship.

Mr. REES. It is rather a peculiar situation to say that this is the law unless Congress passes another law to exempt them.

Mr. FLOURNOY. It is not exactly that, unless Congress passes a similar law authorizing a portion of our troops to serve with foreign troops.

Mr. REES. I just think it is rather odd to say that that is the law except and provided that Congress may pass a law exempting or making a different provision with reference to certain individuals and in that event, of course, the situation would be different.

Mr. BUTLER. You mean it is superfluous ?
Mr. REES. Yes. I think so.

Mr. FLOURNOY. I do not see it that way myself, because it does not say unless Congress provides otherwise. That would be absurd. It says unless Congress authorizes Americans to serve in the foreign army, which is not exactly the same thing.

Mr. REES. I understand.
Mr. FLOURNOY (reading):

(d) Accepting, or performing the duties of, any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof for which only nationals of such state are eligible.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »