« ÎnapoiContinuă »
Mr. REES. Nobody is excluded from becoming a citizen who is a native of any country in the Western Hemisphere except Indians, if they comply with the law?
Mr. HAZARD. No; I would not say that, because there may be Chinese born in the Western Hemisphere who are natives but who are not eligible for citizenship.
Mr. REES. So you put the word "indigenous" in here?
Mr. HAZARD. Chinese are not indigenous to this hemisphere. They are not eligible.
Mr. REES. I am just wondering why you put it that way. What is the occasion for it? Why did you open it up? What happened to cause you to put that word "indigenous" in here-"people that are indigenous"?
Mr. HAZARD. Unless some words were used which would describe races which were native to these countries, it would let in all of the persons of races otherwise excluded, and which it was felt were not desirable to permit to be naturalized. For instance, just at present the Chinese are prohibited from being naturalized by law.
Mr. REES. They are not natives, though, are they, to the Western Hemisphere?
Mr. HAZARD. Some of them are natives. I would not say "many," but some are born here. We have quite a number of Chinese who are natives of the United States, born here of Chinese parents who may have come here from China.
Mr. REES. So you use this word "indigenous" because that differentiates from being a native?
Mr. HAZARD. Yes; because if Hindus, for instance, who have been held to be ineligible by the Supreme Court of the United States; Japanese, who have also been held to be ineligible by the Supreme Court of the United States-if they were to go to some country of the Western Hemisphere and have children born there-unless this term or some term equally descriptive were used, they might become naturalized in spite of the fact that persons born in Japan or in British India would not be eligible.
Mr. REES. I have your story now. What demand or reason is there for including this rather new group? Who are they? Why do you want them?
Mr. HAZARD. I think it is largely, Mr. Congressman, a matter of principle in connection with our relations with the Latin American countries, as indicating a continuance of our friendly relationship to them. It probably would have a very definite bearing upon strengthening our relations with those countries internationally, while at the same time it would probably result in the naturalization of very few in this country.
Mr. REES. And where are they?
Mr. HAZARD. Well, I would say that they might be in any one of the Central American and South American countries, and there would be undoubtedly some instances in Canada. We have had a few cases of British Columbian Indians who have applied for naturalization and been denied.
Mr. REES. We do not care anything about them, either way.
Mr. HAZARD. I would say that that is on the same basis as those of Central or South America, because it would be rather difficult
to distinguish Indians born in one country as being eligible and say that Indians from other countries would not be eligible. There would be a lack of uniformity which the Constitution requires. Mr. REES. Has anybody else any comment on this?
Mr. HAZARD. I might say that possibly this is a question that is of greater concern to the State Department than it is to the other two Departments.
Mr. REES. I can see why it might be. You are trying to make sort of a gesture of friendship to South America.
Mr. HAZARD. Yes.
Mr. FLOURNOY. If you ask my opinion as representing the State Department, I think that the State Department favors this for the reasons given by Mr. Hazard, that it will improve our relations with the South American countries.
The CHAIRMAN. Let us take up the next section.
Mr. HAZARD. Section 304 is the same as the present requirement as to the ability to speak English
No person except as otherwise provided in this chapter shall hereafter be naturalized or admitted as a citizen of the United States upon his own petition who cannot speak the English language. This requirement shall not apply to any person physically unable to comply therewith, if otherwise qualified to be naturalized.
The CHAIRMAN. That is present law?
Mr. HAZARD. That is present law, yes.
Mr. REES. All right. Take up section 305.
Mr. HAZARD. Section 305 is the same as present law, which prohibits the naturalization of persons with anarchistic ideas. It is almost word for word a copy of the present statute―
No person who disbelieves in or who is opposed to organized government, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization entertaining and teaching disbelief in or opposition to organized government, or who advocates or teaches the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers, either of specific individuals or of officers generally, of the Government of the United States, or of any other organized government, because of the official character of such officer or officers, shall be naturalized or be made a citizen of the United States.
The CHAIRMAN. Is not that the present law?
Mr. HAZARD. Yes.
Mr. REES. Is there any comment on these as we go along? This is present law. If you think some change ought to be made, let us hear it now. All right, take up the next section.
Mr. HAZARD. Section 306 is a reflection of present law:
A person who, at any time during which the United States has been or shall be at war, deserted or shall desert the military or naval forces of the United States, or who, having duly enrolled, departed, or shall depart from the jurisdiction of the district in which enrolled, or went or shall go beyond the limits of the United States, with intent to avoid any draft into the military or naval service, lawfully ordered, shall, upon conviction thereof by a court martial, be ineligible to become a citizen of the United States; and such deserters shall be forever incapable of holding any office of trust or of profit under the United States, or of exercising any rights of citizens thereof.
What we have done here is to take the present law, which has been in effect since the Civil War, and which in 1912 was amended to make it applicable to desertion only in time of war-or not in time of peace to separate it into this provision which deals with the ineli
gibility to become a citizen and takes the loss of citizenship and puts it over under the expatriation provision.
The CHAIRMAN. That would apply, for instance, to the Bergdoll
Mr. HAZARD. I think so, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. And we have had a number of people during the last war that did not go out of the jurisdiction of the United States but were within the jurisdiction and avoided the draft. What disposition has been made of that up to now? Have they been naturalized or are they still being withheld?
Mr. HAZARD. You mean those who came within the terms of this law?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, but who avoided the draft.
Mr. REES. They are out?
Mr. HAZARD. They cannot be naturalized.
Mr. REES. That is present law, is it not?
Mr. HAZARD. Yes. And may I say that these provisions were very carefully considered by the representatives of the United States Army and the United States Navy, who aided the advisory committee in the consideration of these measures, and they thought it was very desirable that those provisions be retained in the statute.
Mr. REES. Section 307.
Mr. HAZARD. Section 307 is a restatement of the present basic requirements of character and residence that now appear in the law. Mr. REES. Is that the same as present law? It just does not seem to read like it. I do not have the present law before me.
Mr. HAZARD. It is the same thing. There is no change in substance. Subdivision (b) refers to absences from the United States, and so far as subdivision (b) is concerned, it is substantially the same as the present law.
The CHAIRMAN. Which would mean what, Mr. Hazard?
Mr. HAZARD. It would mean that an alien may be absent from the United States during this period for which he must prove continuous residence, being the 5 years preceding naturalization-I mean 5 years preceding petitioning for naturalization in the usual case, and between the time he files his petition and the final hearing-he may be absent during that period for not more than a period greater than 6 months but less than a year, which would raise only a presumption of the break of residence.
The CHAIRMAN. But there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of cases that are living abroad. American citizens that are still holding down their American citizenship. Now, would you explain the distinction between those cases and these?
Mr. HAZARD. That would have some bearing on whether they retain citizenship, which is treated over in another chapter. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Yes. I beg pardon.
Mr. HAZARD. But in the absence of longer than 6 months but less than a year, it raises a presumption of a break in the continuity of residence, which may be overcome by satisfactory evidence to the court. An absence, however, for a continuous period of a year or more breaks the continuity of residence and necessitates the 5-year period being begun over again, with exceptions in three classes of cases, which are now the law and which have been carried into this law substantially
in the same language, and that is where the absence for a year or more is in the employ of the Government of the United States or in the furtherance of American trade or commerce, or engaged with an American institution of research, recognized as such by the Secretary of Labor.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the law now, is it not?
Mr. HAZARD. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the law that this committee has amended heretofore, for an entirely different situation.
Mr. HAZARD. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, what is the next section?
Mr. HAZARD. Subdivision (c). Subdivision (c) is part of the same provision we just discussed.
Then subdivision (d) is a clarification of the law in a respect that has given us some difficulty heretofore in determining just what, if any, residence is required in certain classes of cases
The following shall be regarded as residence within the United States within the meaning of this chapter:
(1) Honorable service on vessels owned directly by the Government of the United States, whether or not rendered at any time prior to the applicant's lawful entry into the United States.
Now, those vessels are distinguished from merchant vessels, but these are Government vessels, like possibly the Coast Guard in time of peace or the revenue cutter service, and the provision that service on those vessels may be regarded as residence even though the alien had not been lawfully admitted to the United States under the immigration laws, was based on the theory that if the Government of the United States was willing to accept these aliens in its service, and they had rendered faithful service, then it ought not to raise an issue as to the fact that the entry into the United States originally was not a lawful
Mr. REES. That is not the present law?
Mr. HAZARD. No.
Mr. REES. How could that sort of thing come about? How could this Government take on a Frenchman or a German or an Italian or a Greek on a vessel owned by the United States, a Government ship? Mr. HAZARD. In the first place, there is probably not very much likelihood of many cases of that kind arising.
Mr. REES. You must have had the question come up or you would not have put the thing in the bill.
Mr. HAZARD. There have been a few cases that have arisen from time to time, when men who have been in the service of the United States Government for many years, and rendered faithful service, discovered that they came into the United States without conforming to all of the requirements of the immigration laws.
Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Congressman, I think a good many of these vessels at Asiatic stations take on Chinese, Filipinos, and so forth, as mess boys and employees of that character. They enlist them, and then later on the vessel may come to the United States. I think that is the way a great many of those cases arose, from those vessels in foreign service. The CHAIRMAN. Atlantic Ocean steamship companies, under our present law, must have two-thirds of the crew American citizens. Mr. REES. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The others may be aliens, and there are certain men trained in a particular field on the ship, and for many years they have employed one-third of them aliens. These men have been on American ships and they are practically the ship itself. They do the hard work. They come in and go out, come in and go out, year in and year out. This would practically apply to persons of that character.
Mr. HAZARD. Mr. Chairman, may I explain that the following section relates to merchant vessels and requires legal entry into the United States of any aliens who want to claim residence by reason of service on board merchant vessels.
Mr. REES. I can see that, where somebody enters the country legally, I can see why there might be a reason for letting that person claim his time on an American ship, but to have the United States Government own ships and pick up a Greek or an Italian or a Frenchman, or whatever he may be--I do not know why in the first place they would put them on the ships and use them. I can see, however, that if they ever take them on, they probably would be responsible for helping them to become citizens. I cannot see why you would want to take them on in the first place.
Mr. HAZARD. Well, I do not know just what
Mr. BUTLER (interposing). I do not think they ever took them on. Mr. REES. They would not take Japanese or Chinese, would they? Mr. HAZARD. They could not be naturalized, anyway.
Mr. BUTLER. No; they could not be naturalized, because they would not be of the white or African race.
Mr. HAZARD. But conditions might arise where, in an emergency, a man might be needed to fill a ship's complement in some technical position, and we have had some cases where, with no intent to evade the immigration laws, a man may have come in under circumstances that were not lawful, and it is conceivable that a case of that kind might arise, although the probability would be small, I imagine.
Mr. REES. That gives him legal entry, if he gets on to a Governmentowned ship?
Mr. HAZARD. And is accepted.
Mr. REES. And is accepted on the ship, that gives him legal entry into the United States. And also, whatever time he puts in on the ship applies on his time to become a citizen.
Mr. HAZARD. That would be the result.
Mr. FLOURNOY. That does not seem, as I read it, to give him legal entry.
Mr. HAZARD. Technically, no. He has not complied with the immigration laws, but when it makes him eligible for naturalization, it, in effect, waives the requirements of the immigration law, so far as the nature of his entry is concerned.
Mr. REES. I should think so. Well, that is new law.
Mr. HAZARD. That is subdivision (2), immediately following:
Continuous service by a seaman on a vessel or vessels whose home port is in the United States and which is of American registry or American-owned, if rendered subsequent to the applicant's lawful entry into the United States for permanent residence and immediately preceding the date of naturalization.
Mr. REES. Why do you say "whose home port is in the United States"? Why do you not say "whose home or residence is in the United States"?