Neither can I see that, having renounced and lost his citizenship in the United States and sworn allegiance to a foreign power, he may at will return to the United States in the manner and under the circumstances stated and regain or restore himself to his rights and status as a citizen here.

[5] It is suggested that the oath of allegiance taken by Griffin was a "qualified" oath. But I find in it no qualification as to duty to the English Government or as to time. It is true that in the declaration made on attestation he stated:

"I am willing to fulfill the engagements by me now made, and I hereby engage and agree to serve in the Canadian Overseas Expeditionary Force, and to be attached to any arm of the service therein, for the term of one year, or during the war now existing between Great Britain and Germany, should that war last longer than one year, and for six months," etc.

But this is no part of his oath of allegiance to the King, which oath is not for the time he serves as a soldier, or to expire with his period of enlistment. Even if so, the law of Congress quoted recognizes no distinction between an oath of allegiance to a foreign power indeterminate as to time and one for a specified and limited time. We cannot read into this act of Congress limita

tions and qualifications not found there or suggested by its terms. The law was evidently enacted to settle the question: Does taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign power constitute expatriation? It was not a new question. See case of J. F. Bowler, which arose in 1895, and communication of Secretary of State Gresham in reference thereto, Foreign Relations, 1895, page 853, and Van Dyne, Citizenship of the United States, 280. Secretary Gresham said:

"The oath is inconsistent with his allegiance to the United States. By taking it he obligated himself to support the government of his adoption, even to the extent of fighting its battles in the event of war between it and the government of his origin. He could not bear true allegiance to both governments at the same time."

[2] It may be argued that Griffin, as a citizen of England or as a man of no country, has the right to come into the United States, and that we are not concerned with returning deserters from the British Army to that country. Concede this; still the United States has complete jurisdiction and control over the immigration of aliens into the United States. Aliens of any class or nationality who enter the United States in defiance or violation of its immigraton laws may be deported. Aliens have no right to enter the United States from a foreign country clandestinely. If they so come, they are subject to deportation.

"It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe. (Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S., 698, 705, 13 Sup. Ct., 1016, 37 L. Ed., 905; Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S., 228, 231, 16 Sup. Ct., 977, 41 L. Ed., 140; Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S., 651, 654, 12 Sup. Ct., 336, 35 L. Ed., 1146; Chinese Exclusion Case. 130 U. S., 581, 606, 9 Sup. Ct., 623, 32 L. Ed., 1068; U. S. ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S., 279, 24 Sup. Ct., 719, 48 L. Ed., 979; Passenger Cases, 7 How., 525, 12 L. Ed., 702, Woodbury, J., dissenting.)"

Section 36 of the immigration act (act Feb. 20, 1907, c. 1134, 34 Stat., 898 [Comp. St. 1913. § 4285], as amended by act March 26, 1910 [chapter 128, 36 Stat., 263], and act March 4, 1913 [chapter 141, 37 Stat., 736]), provides as follows:

That all aliens who shall enter the United States except at the seaports thereof, or at such place or places as the Secretary of Labor may from time to time designate, shall be adjudged to have entered the country unlawfully and shall be deported as provided by sections twenty and twenty-one of this act: Provided, That nothing contained in this section shall affect the power conferred by section thirty-two of this act upon the Commissioner General of Immigration to prescribe rules for the entry and inspection of aliens along the borders of Canada and Mexico."

Ports of entry have been established, and alien immigrants must come through such ports of entry, whether entering the United States by land or sea. If they come otherwise, they are subject to deportation as aliens who have entered the country unlawfully. Being aliens, and having come into the United States clan

13884-17-2

destinely, and not through a port of entry, after an examination such as the laws of the United States and the rules and regulations of the United States Department of Labor préscribe, they are here illegally and in violation of law, and are subject to deportation for that reason. The courts do not stop to inquire whether they belong to the otherwise excluded classes of aliens, or whether or not they might have been admitted, if proper application had been made to the United States authorities at a port of entry. Having come into the United States clandestinely, and not through a port of entry and in compliance with the laws of the United States, they are within the express terms of section 36 of the immigration act, supra, and "shall be adjudged to have entered the country unlawfully and shall be deported," etc. United States r. Wong You, 223 U. S., 67, 69; 32 Sup. Ct., 195; 56 L. Ed., 354, affirming Wong You v. U. S. (D. C.), 176 Fed., 933, and reversing U. S. v. Wong You, 181 Fed., 313; 104 C. C. A., 535. In that case certain Chinese aliens entered the United States clandestinely, having come across the Canadian border, as did Griffin in this case. They were arrested, found to be aliens, and ordered deported. On habeas corpus this order of deportation was affirmed by this court under the provisions of section 36 of the immigration act of February 20, 1907, on the ground they were in the United States in violation of law, having illegally entered clandestinely. 176 Fed., 933. The Circuit Court of Appeals (181 Fed., 313; - C. C. A., -), reversed, holding that being Chinese persons they could not be deported under the immigration act, but must be dealt with under the Chinese-exclusion laws. This action of the Circuit Court of Appeals was reversed by the Supreme Court (223 U. S., 67, 69; 32 Sup. Ct., 195; 56 L. Ed., 354, supra), and the order of this court was affirmed. The Supreme Court said:

"The parties are Chinamen, who entered the United States surreptitiously, in a manner prohibited by the immigration act of February 20, 1907, c. 1134, § 36; 34 Stat., 898, 908, and the rules made in pursuance of the same, if applicable to Chinese. They were arrested in transitu and ordered by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to be deported."

They were held properly deported, not because they were Chinese persons, but because they were aliens, and came in surreptitiously, and were in the United States thereafter in violation of the immigration law. The petitioner, Griffin, in the instant case came in surreptitiously and in violation of the statute quoted, for the reason it appears he was and is an alien and did not come through a port of entry and submit to examination. If an alien, it must be adjudged that he entered the United States unlawfully and is in the United States in violation of law. The order for his deportation is valid on the showing made.

On the facts shown I conclude that Griffin, the petitioner, is an alien, and subject to deportation. It has not been shown that he enlisted in the English Army-over-seas Canadian expeditionary force and took the oath of allegiance quoted when so under the influence of liquor that he did not understand and comprehend the nature of his acts.

The writ must be dismissed.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, May I yield now and let Mr. Flournoy make his statement, and then perhaps take up the thread later on?

STATEMENT OF MR. RICHARD W. FLOURNOY, JR., CHIEF OF BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP, DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

Mr. FLOURNOY. Mr. Chairman, these questions arise nearly every day in connection with passport applications and also applications of men for commissions as officers in the Army, and the State Department has ruled that they have lost their citizenship. It is a very important question and one that will have to be decided for the benefit of these people and for the benefit of the country, it seems

to me.

Mr. RAKER. How is this question raised as to passports?

Mr. FLOURNOY. Well, a man comes back here and then wants to get a passport to go abroad for some reason.

REPATRIATION OF CERTAIN FORMER AMERICAN CITIZENS.

19 The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Flournoy, have you the British oath which they take?

Mr. SIEGEL. That is given at length in the decision of Judge Ray. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Flournoy has it also. This is quoted. Mr. Chairman, in the case of Ex parte Griffin, which I just cited. I wrote Col. McCormick of the Canadian forces, who is known as the "Yankee Colonel," because he is an American and went over to Canada and became colonel in the Canadian forces, to ask if the oath as it appears here is still the oath in use. He advised me two days ago that it was the oath still in use.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not the same oath used by the other allies, perhaps.

Mr. ROGERS. It is the same oath as that used by Great Britain. Mr. FLOURNOY. It is the British oath and it is also used for admission into the Canadian Army.

Mr. ROGERS. The British and the Canadian oaths are identical. Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes; they require the same oath.

The CHAIRMAN. But to join the French armies or the Italian armies I presume there is a different oath?

Mr. FLOURNOY. In the case of the French Army, most Americans who went into the French Army were admitted into what is known as the foreign legion, a division of the French Army made up entirely of foreigners, and there is a special provision under which they are excused from taking an oath of allegiance to France. The question comes up principally with regard to Americans who joined the British Army in England or the Canadian Army in Canada. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Chairman, may we have that oath read? Mr. ROGERS (reading):

I,

do make oath that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty, King George the Fifth, his heirs and successors, and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend His Majesty, his heirs and successors, in person, crown, and dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of His Majesty, his heirs and successors, and of all the generals and officers set over me: So help me God.

Mr. RAKER. Now these men have all taken that oath after leaving the United States?

Mr. ROGERS. Every man in the Canadian or British forces.

Mr. RAKER. And while the United States was neutral as against all the warring foreign countries?

Mr. ROGERS. That is true.

Mr. RAKER. Now, I would like to ask Mr. Flournoy, if this man. is a British subject and has renounced his allegiance to the United States, what is the necessity for his getting a passport? Could he not go as a British subject?

Mr. FLOURNOY. It does not make him a British subject. It leaves him up in the air.

Mr. SLAYDEN. And he ceases to be an American citizen ipso facto: Mr. FLOURNOY. He is a man without a country.

Mr. SLAYDEN. Has the question ever been definitely settled-that it does not make him a British subject?

Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes, sir.

Mr. SLAYDEN. He takes an oath of allegiance to His Majesty King George and his heirs and successors, and swears to defend the throne.

The CHAIRMAN. But he does not renounce allegiance

Mr. FLOURNOY (interposing). That always is taken on a false assumption. It is contrary to the British law to admit anyone into the British Army unless he is a British subject. The way they get around it is that the recruiting officer hands a man a paper and tells him he can put in anything he pleases, and they usually say that they were born in Canada.

Mr. RAKER. Can it be possible that these men who have expatriated themselves from the United States are so dense-I am going to use good, strong language as to their rights as American citizens and as to what they are doing that they will take an oath of that kind when, as a matter of fact, they do not intend to take any oath at all?

Mr. FLOURNOY. Most of them are young fellows who are rather enthusiastic about joining the cause of the allies and they do not take that part, I think, so very seriously. I remember one of them came to my office and told me that after he joined he was very much distressed to hear he had lost his American citizenship; that he had no idea he was going to lose it. He said he stood up in a row with several others, and the recruiting sergeant made them hold up their hands and then read off an. oath to them, and he said he did not pay much attention to it, although he admitted that he did take the oath.

Mr. SLAYDEN. Was he a man of intelligence?

Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes; I think so-a man of average intelligence. Mr. MEEKER. He was smart enough to get in, but not smart enough to get out.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is a rather natural mistake, because that same thing happens as to getting in and out when the young fellows join our own Army.

Mr. RAKER. If it is true that those men are so thoughtless and so negligent and so utterly disregardful of their duties as a citizen of the United States, do you not think that they ought to wait about five years when they come back before assuming the obligation of citizens of the United States and not be in position to immediately assume some high position of trust in the United States? Do you not think they ought to think about five years after they come back before becoming citizens? I am asking you that question, Mr. Flournoy.

Mr. FLOURNOY. No, sir; I do not think so. I really do not think they realize that they are taking an actual oath of allegiance. They think it is a sort of contract to serve. That is the way they look at it.

Mr. HOOD. How about those going to the Army of France? Are they required to take any oath?

Mr. FLOURNOY. No, sir; not in the Foreign Legion.

Mr. JOHNSON. In Northwestern United States they are advertising and the agents of the British Government are soliciting citizens in the State of Washington, for instance, to join the Canadian regiments like the One hundred and ninety-sixth Western Universities Battalion and other battalions, and the advertisement says:

Americans joining Canadian units enjoy exactly the same rights as Canadians in the matter of pay, pensions, separation allowances, promotion, and honors, etc.

Would it be a good plan to let those American citizens go, as they can do, into a Canadian regiment with the idea that they would be taken back as citizens of the United States in course of time?

Mr. FLOURNOY. I do not think that we are now doing that. I do not think the War Department would approve of Americans at this time joining any foreign army.

Mr. JOHNSON. But they have been advertising within a week in the newspapers of my district for Americans.

Mr. FLOURNOY. I should think that is a matter that ought to be taken up at once.

Mr. JOHNSON. And the advertisements state that Americans joining the Canadian forces will be on an equality with Canadians in the matter of pay, pensions, separation allowances, promotions, and honors, and in many cases the attraction is the offer of a large tract of fine land in British Columbia.

Mr. KNUTSON. Mr. Crist says that they will not be allowed to leave this country at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. They are already stopping them along the border. Mr. MEEKER. Suppose the United States had not gone into this war and had remained neutral throughout, would this bill then have applied to the men who had taken the German side of the fight instead of the English?

The CHAIRMAN. No; because if you will read the bill it says that it applies to only those who join the armies of those countries with whom we are allies. That may not be the language, but that is the substance.

Mr. RAKER. As a matter of public policy, Mr. Flournoy, ought we at this time to declare to the world that whenever any countries are at war our men may leave this country and renounce their allegiance and go over and fight and come back and still remain citizens or become citizens without any time limit or anything of that sort? Do you think the Government's policy ought to inculcate any such idea as that in its citizens; that its citizenship is to be so lightly held?

Mr. FLOURNOY. In the first place, they did not specifically or intentionally renounce their allegiance to the United States.

Mr. RAKER. But that must be assumed. It can not be assumed that 45,000 men were so dense as to language and as to their rights as citizens that they did not know what they were doing. I can not conceive that that is possible.

Mr. KNUTSON. But this point ought to be taken into consideration: You must remember that Germany committed outrages against us for several years. For instance, the sinking of the Lusitania was a great incentive for red-blooded young Americans to go over there and avenge the killing of our women and children.

Mr. RAKER. Then your theory is that while we remain neutral as a country that the men should take it into their own hands and renounce their allegiance to this country as American citizens, and say, "Notwithstanding my country is neutral and my Nation is neutral. I am going to abandon my country and fight for another country." Is not that the real purport of it, Mr. Flournoy?

Mr. KNUTSON. The boys at Lexington did practically that. Mr. SIEGEL. If there is no objection, Mr. Crist, of the Labor Department, could probably answer that question.