« ÎnapoiContinuă »
cipally of interest, I think, to the Department of Labor, because they administer the immigration laws. It seems to me that this doing away with the declaration of intention is limited to a person having a citizen husband or wife-that is a sufficient reason. In other words, the person who is married to a citizen is brought more in contact with American life obviously and being better prepared for naturalization I should think than one who has not that relationship. I think our Department is entirely in accord with it.
Mr. REES. Mr. Butler, do you have anything to add on this particular section?
Mr. BUTLER. I think it is good legislation, Mr. Congressman, for one reason, that it tends to have the citizenship of the husband and wife made the same within a reasonable time. Of course, prior to the Cable Act of 1922, an alien woman could marry a citizen of the United States and she automatically, under the law, became a citizen of the United States. Mr. Rees. I agree with you, but that was not good law.
Mr. Rees. It was the old law, but you and I do not think that it was good law?
Mr. BUTLER. From a legal standpoint, it prevented a lot of controversies and legal situations that have arisen since the passage of the May 24, 1934, act, and from our point of view it was more satisfactory in that respect.
Mr. FLOURNOY. I am glad Mr. Butler mentioned that point. We agree that much of this is just what he stated, having the two spouses of the same nationality and not having them divided, and from the Department of State point of view I think that is quite an element.
Mr. REES. I think so too. I just wondered whether or not there is, however, somewhat of a tendency to modify the requirement of the 5-year residence period in the United States. As I understand it, a parent alien, in order to become a citizen, is supposed to have resided in the United States continuously for a period of 5 years. I appreciate the fact that should an alien woman at one time marry an American citizen she would thereby become a citizen the next day. That was not good law, in my opinion, but that is open to discussion. Now, I am wondering whether or not there is a tendency to move away to some extent from that 5-year requirement. In other words, I wonder what the figures would show, if we had them, as to how many persons there are that are filing petitions for citizenship now, or will be soon, who really have resided in the United States more than 3 years.
Mr. SHOEMAKER. I may say this, that I believe the records will show—although I have not checked those recently—that the average alien who comes to the United States proceeds more promptly than he used to.
Mr. REES. Yes; and that is probable.
Mr. SHOEMAKER. As to the proof of the 2-year residence there are certain persons who are exempted from proving the 5-year residence, such as, persons who served in the Navy, the Army, and the Marine Corps, and other Naval and Military forces, and I think this was really a recognition and extension of that idea by reason of the contact of what you might call the American ideals and customs in their family relationships. That is, 2 years, whereas the old act provided for 1 year.
At least, it is double in that case. It is a let-down so far as the man is concerned of 3 years by reason of his relationship to his American citizen spouse.
Mr. REES. Under the present law, a man must have resided within the United States for a period of 5 years before he can have a hearing upon his petition for citizenship. Mr. SHOEMAKER. Five years and ninety days. That is correct.
Mr. Rees. If he is married for a year, and lives with his wife continuously for a year, he can become a citizen long before.
Mr. SHOEMAKER. In 2 years and 90 days.
Mr. REES. In other words, if he is married to an American citizen for a period of 1 year, he may become a citizen in 3 years in place of 5 years?
Mr. SHOEMAKER. But he must have resided in the United States in this marital relationship, you understand?
Mr. REES. That is right, having resided in the United States.
Mr. REES. The reason given by those who approved the legislation for cutting the period down is that it is believed that the association with an American citizen for the period of 1 year, or having lived with an American citizen as wife or husband for 1 year, causes this alien to become more familiar with American ideals and customs, and he would thereby be just as much entitled to citizenship as the single man or woman who had to live here for a period of 5 years.
Mr. SHOEMAKER. That is correct. Mr. REES. That citizen, of course, may be a naturalized citizen? Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes. That citizen may be a naturalized citizen, as well as a native-born.
Mr. REES. Right here, would you care to comment on your opinion as to how long you think a person ordinarily should have resided in the United States in order to be entitled to citizenship, or would you care to discuss that? I am sure, when the contents of this measure were discussed among the group who prepared it, that was a matter of discussion before them.
Mr. SHOEMAKER. I was not present at that time, Mr. Chairman. You ask me whether I would care to comment. Of course, the circumstances in the average case would differ to such a degree that it would be difficult to say that this individual must have 5 years' residence and this individual must have 2, or there was anything wrong in the requirement insofar as an individual who, for instance, is in the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps in his acquisition of citizenship that would operate against him because he only had to prove 3 years' residence, I am in favor of the clause. I think it will tend to Americanization and for that reason I think, as a whole, its adoption would serve the interests of the country as a whole, because the individual has a relationship that would not obtain in the case of any other alien who was entirely under foreign surroundings, although he is in the United States. This alien must necessarily come into contact with American standards and ideas and customs frequently. I can understand in some cases where that might not be so, but in the vast majority of cases it will work out that way, I think, and for that reason I think it is
desirable to have a unity in the family and the parents to become naturalized as American citizens as soon as they might legally and from an Americanization standpoint do so.
Mr. REES. You think perhaps he is more likely to do that when he is married to an American citizen?
Mr. SHOEMAKER. I think he will come to an understanding of what we are trying to do in this country more quickly if he has an American citizen for his wife.
Mr. REES. You also think that the fact that he is married to an American citizen should give him a little advantage in not being required to file his declaration of intention?
Mr. SHOEMAKER. I think so.
Mr. REES. Is there any one else who desires to make any further comment on it?
Mr. SHOEMAKER. I might add this right here in that connection, that
believe the reason they relieve a person who has served in the military or naval forces is because of his association with American citi
Mr. Rres. Well, I agree with you there, except the surroundings of an individual in the Army or the Navy or the Marine Corps are a great deal different from the surroundings of an ordinary citizen residing, say, in Kansas City.
Mr. SHOEMAKER. I agree with that. The alien is more likely to become a good American citizen who has contacted with a citizen spouse than he would otherwise.
Mr. REES. All right.
SEC. 311. An alien, whose spouse is (1) a citizen of the United States, (2) in the employment of the Government of the United States, and (3) regularly stationed abroad under orders of such Government, and who is (1) in the United States at the time of naturalization, and (2) declares before the naturalization court in good faith an intention to take up residence within the United States immediately upon the termination of such employment abroad of the citizen spouse, may be naturalized upon compliance with all requirements of the naturalization laws, with the following exceptions :
(a) No declaration of intention shall be required; and
(b) No prior residence within the United States or proof thereof shall be required.
That is new legislation, and I should add to that that there is a provision in the naturalization laws which enables an individual who represents American interests abroad to become naturalized without compliance with the usual formalities, and that statute contains a clause which provides that individuals may acquire citizenship without the compliance with the usual formalities, or, I should say, that the courts have so construed it, and have permitted them to become naturalized without proof of residence in the United States and without any particular requirements exacted of the other individuals. This, you will notice, refers to an alien whose spouse is a citizen of the United States, therefore it is differentiated from the existing law; but, generally speaking, it follows along that where the person who represents the American Government or American interests abroad, may become naturalized without the compliance with the usual requirements, and then as an alien spouse also she is permitted
to become naturalized without compliance with the usual requirements. So, while it is new legislation, it is following legislation which really is on the books as construed by the courts.
Mr. REES. Well, I think the courts have gone pretty far. That is just my private opinion.
Mr. REES. But, as I understand this clause, any man or woman employed in any capacity in the United States Government abroad, whether she be a stenographer or whatever it may be, may marry a foreigner and that foreigner or alien can, by reason of marrying this Government employee, become a citizen, if he will declare before a naturalization court his intention to take up residence in the United States whenever the employment of his wife is terminated, and he may become naturalized just as soon as they return to the United States—may file his petition as soon as he arrives in the United States—and become a citizen without delay.
Mr. SHOEMAKÉR. That is true, provided, of course, that the spouse is a citizen of the United States.
Mr. REES. There is not anything said here as to how long he needs to have been married to that spouse? Mr. SHOEMAKER. No, sir. Mr. REES. A girl employed by the United States Government could go to Italy, get married to an Italian, he can declare his intention to become a citizen of the United States—I do not know where he could declare it under this section
Mr. SHOEMAKER. He would have to come back here to do that.
Mr. REES. He would come back here to do it and then immediately file his petition to become a citizen, and within 30 days become a citizen of the United States?
Mr. SHOEMAKER. That is correct.
Mr. REES. I would like to know whether these gentlemen agree, is that good law?
Mr. FLOURNOY. I do not think there would be very many cases of that kind. I should say that—you take the case of a man married to a woman employed by the Government. I think there would be very few cases of that kind. So I do not think, looking at it broadly, that it practically makes very much difference. I think most cases will be of some woman married to one of our consuls or representatives of some of the departments. This only relates to the husband or wife of a person who is regularly stationed abroad under orders of the Government. That is the third requirement there. I know in our department it is deemed undesirable to have our diplomatic and consular officers with alien wives if it can be avoided. Of course, we cannot control that altogether and a good many of them have married foreign women. I think it is a very desirable thing in most cases that the foreign-born wife should be able to come over here and take the oaths and be naturalized, and as I say I do not think there would be so many cases of a foreign man married to some woman who is after all—there are not many women stationed abroad representing the Government, I do not think they would be a drop in the bucket.
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Ruth Bryan Owen is an example.
Mr. REES. Under this law Ruth Bryan Owen could make her husband a citizen in 90 days. I am not clear as to the situation which exists at the present time. Could you tell me in a general way?
Mr. SHOEMAKER. The law provides generally—shall I read it to you, Mr. Congressman?
Mr. REES. Yes, what is it?
Mr. SHOEMAKER. It is the act of June 29, 1938. I will read it. I will not read the first paragraph or two, because that is the regular language:
Absence from the United States for a continuous period of one year or more during the period for which continuous residence is required for admission to citizenship immediately preceding the date of filing the petition for naturalization, or during the period between the date of filing the petition and the date of final hearing, shall break the continuity of such residence except that in the case of an alien
(a) Who has been lawfully admitted into the United States for permanent residence;
(b) Who has resided in the United States for at least one year; and
(c) Who has made a declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States, who shall be deemed an eligible alien for the purposes of this paragraph, and who has thereafter been sent abroad as an employee of and under a contract with the Government of the United States, or who thereafter proceeded abroad as an employee or a representative of, or under contract with an American institution of research recognized as such by the Secretary of Labor, or as an employee of a firm or corporation engaged in the development of foreign trade and commerce of the United States, or a subsidiary thereof, or any such eligible alien as above defined who has proceeded abroad temporarily and has within a period of one year of his departure from the United States become an employee or representative of or who is under contract with such an American firm or corporation, no such absence shall break the continuity of residence in the United States, if
(1) Prior to the beginning of such absence or prior to the beginning of such employment, contract, or representation on behalf of an American institution of research or an American firm or corporation, as aforesaid, such alien has established to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Labor that his absence for such period is to be on behalf of such government or for the purpose of carrying on scientific research on behalf of such corporation or to be engaged solely or principally in the development of such foreign trade or commerce, or whose residence abroad is necessary to the protection of the property rights abroad of such firm or corporation; and
(2) Such alien proves to the satisfaction of the court that his absence from the United States for such period has been for such purpose. Now, here is the point we come to:
An alien who has been lawfully admitted into the United States for permanent residence and who is the wife or husband of a citizen of the United States so engaged abroad within one of the above-mentioned categories shall be considered as residing in the United States for the purpose of naturalization notwithstanding any absence from the United States.
You notice that prior statute to which I refer and read referred to the alien. This refers to the spouse who is a citizen. Under this clause, after that alien spouse, who is representing an American institution of research or the American Government there becomes a citizen his spouse can come in and be naturalized without regard to the length of residence bere, as construed by the courts.
Mr. REES. Pardon me. I thought it was generally understood that the alien spouse is supposed to have resided in the United States for the period of 1 year.
Mr. SHOEMAKER. After filing the declaration of intention, he stays here for a time and then goes abroad to represent the American institu