laws of England. England does not consider him a subject, and it is the same with the other countries, so far as we are advised. The CHAIRMAN. Was he a native or a naturalized citizen? Mr. PARKER. Griffin was a native. I think that is all, Mr. Chair man. Mr. RAKER. Before you get through, Mr. Parker, I would like to ask you this question, if the chairman will permit it: Under the rulings of the Department of Labor at the present time these men who have joined the British Army and taken this oath are readmitted to the United States so far as the Department of Labor is concerned? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. They can come back if they pass the proper tests? Mr. RAKER. So that they come back and enter the United States and have all of its rights? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. The only question involved would be legislation by this committee now as to what might be their status with reference to registering in order to vote and their rights to hold office, the descent of property, and things of that kind. That is practically the situation, is it not? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir; that is the way I understand it. The CHAIRMAN. That is, if the next commissioner would hold the same way. That is the ruling of the present administration, but some other administration might still leave it up in the air? Mr. PARKER. Yes; that is true, Mr. Chairman. It is a matter where, if you leave the question open to an administrative decision and administrative practice, you, of course, take the chance of having the practice changed at any time or whenever the administration changes. The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you in that same connection, Mr. Parker, whether your opinion would apply to a German soldier who has gone into the army since our declaration of war? Mr. PARKER. Of course we have not had such a case. The CHAIRMAN. I know. Mr. PARKER. Anything I said on that would be wholly tentative, but I will say on principle, in order to be consistent, that we would have to. The CHAIRMAN. I do not see how it would change your status? Mr. PARKER. I think not, so long as it does not appear that the man has actually gone through with the process of becoming a citizen of some other country. We will hold perhaps that he is not a citizen of the United States, leaving that question to be determined in due course by the courts. Nevertheless he is not an alien within the meaning of the immigration law, but he is in a twilight zone, where Gonzales and every Porto Rican since has stood. Mr. RAKER. Up to the present time, except in the Griffin case, a deserter from the British Army, there is not any necessity for this law, so far as these people coming back into the United States are concerned? Mr. PARKER. No, sir. Mr. RAKER. If he should come back he could make his application and immediately get a writ against the clerk and go into court and take it to the Supreme Court if necessary and have it determined in a short time as to his property and personal status? Mr. PARKER. That is true. Mr. RAKER. Further than that, so far as any actual hardship or any actual conditions now necessitating this kind of legislation, there is none in existence, is there? Mr. PARKER. Not from the immigration point of view. Mr. RAKER. Are there any? Mr. PARKER. I do not know of any; no, sir; personally I know of none. Mr. RAKER. It has been stated that there is no oath required from those who join the French Army. Of course, they would not be affected at all, either as to coming back to the United States or as to their property and personal status? Mr. PARKER. I should think not. Mr. RAKER. Do you know what the status is in the Italian Army? Mr. PARKER. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Or the Russian Army? Mr. PARKER. There has been no Russian case, strange to say. The only cases we have had have been English and French cases. Mr. RAKER. And the only case so far is that of a deserter? Mr. PARKER. That we have tried to get a test of. We have an understanding right along with the State Department that we would cooperate with them and with the Department of Justice in getting a proper and conclusive test case. That understanding still exists It is rather doubtful now whether we will be able to get the test case we want. We have not so far. The CHAIRMAN. Have you had the opinion of the Department of Justice on the question? with us. Mr. PARKER. No, sir. We asked the opinion of the Department of Justice on the question early after the outbreak of the war. The Department of Justice preferred to have the matter decided in the courts rather than to express an opinion upon it. That was the reason we did not follow the usual course of getting an opinion from the Attorney General upon it. It seemed to be a question that reached out into so many ramifications, and that is why, I think, the Attorney General thought it would be better to let it be decided by the courts. The CHAIRMAN. Under your view a man shot all to pieces and who might become a public charge after he got over here, is still admissible? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And you could not exclude him because of the danger of his becoming a public charge, on account of contagious disease, or anything of that kind? Mr. PARKER. That is true. Mr. ROGERS. There are two bills which I have introduced before the committee. One is H. R. 3647, which is the bill on which I stand and in which I believe. The other bill is H. R. 4629, which I introduced after consultation with certain officials of the Department of Labor and which represents what Mr. Parker has just discussed and embodies his suggestion in a general way. The reason that I object to Mr. Parker's proposed legislation and why I do not stand upon H. R. 4629 is because it seems to me that under the act of 1907, we said that the taking of the oath of allegiance to a foreign power would constitute expatriation. Now, although the language of the act of 1907 was as explicit as possible and has been held by the Department of State and by the War Department and by the Department of Justice to constitute expatriation, it is prosposed to legislate that those words did not mean what they seemed to mean and that they shall not apply in a certain class of cases. In other words, a certain class of cases shall be carved out of the language of the statute and some other rule applied. If a man from this country, an American citizen, in 1914, enlisted in the Army of Canada, under the law as it then was, he lost. his American citizenship; but we are going to say, according to the language of the bill, H. R. 4629, that he did not lose his American citizenship, because the act of 1907 did not mean what it appeared to mean. This is going to be a retroactive statute on citizenship. I submit to you, gentlemen of the committee, that there could be no more unfortunate situation than to have a retroactive citizenship statute. It would lead to difficulties of all kinds which can not be regarded as desirable from any point of view. The bill which I originally introduced, H. R. 3647, expressly provides that before these men can come here and ask for this privilege they shall have been given an honorable discharge from the foreign army in which they were engaged. The bill which is proposed by the Department of Labor and my bill H. R. 4629 do not cover that feature. A man can desert as much as he likes and yet come within the purview of the statute. Those are the principal objectionsplus the administrative objection to H. R. 4629. Under H. R. 4629, the Labor Department's proposal, we would not know who had been taking advantage of this statute to regain their citizenship. To me that is an exceedingly important element in the proper aðministration of this law. The CHAIRMAN. There is this difference: The Labor Department's bill is a blanket bill, while yours will only give citizenship in compliance with certain prerequisites which you lay down in the bill? Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir. [H. R. 3647.] A BILL Permitting the repatriation of certain former American citizens who have hitherto served or who shall hereafter serve in the armed forces of any foreign State engaged in war with a country with which the United States is at war. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person, formerly an American citizen, who may be deemed to have expatriated himself under the provisions of the first paragraph of section two of the act approved March second, nineteen hundred and seven, entitled "An act in reference to the expatriation of citizens and their protection abroad," by taking, since August first, nineteen hundred and fourteen, an oath of allegiance to any foreign State engaged in war with a country with which the United States is at war, and who took such oath in order to be enabled to enlist in the armed forces of such foreign State. and who actually enlisted in such armed forces, and who has been duly and honorably discharged from such armed forces, may, upon complying with the provisions of this act, reassume and reacquire the character and privileges of a citizen of the United States. Any such person who desires so to reacquire and reassume the character and privileges of a citizen of the United States shall, if abroad, present himself before a consular officer of the United States, or, if in the United States, before any court authorized by law to confer Amer ican citizenship upon aliens; shall offer satisfactory evidence that he comes within the terms of this act; and shall take an oath declaring his allegiance to the United States and abjuring and disclaiming allegiance to such foreign State and to every foreign prince, potentate, State, or sovereignty. The consular officer or court officer having jurisdiction shall thereupon issue in triplicate a certificate of American citizenship, giving one copy to the applicant, retaining one copy for his files, and forwarding one copy to the Secretary of Labor. Thereafter such person shall in all respects be deemed to have acquired the character and privileges of a citizen of the United States. SEC. 2. That the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Labor shall jointly issue regulations for the proper administration of this act. [H. R. 4629.] A BILL Defining section two of the act approved March second, nineteen hundred and seven (Thirty-fourth Statutes at Large, page twelve hundred and twenty-eight). Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That when any American citizen has, since August first, ninteen hundred and fourteen, taken an oath of allegiance to any foreign State in order to be enabled to serve in the armed forces of such foreign State, and has actually served in the armed forces of such foreign State, it is declared that the provisions of section two of the act approved March second, nineteen hundred and seven (Thirty-fourth Statutes at Large, page twelve hundred and twenty-eight), shall not be construed or held to be applicable if that foreign State was at the time when such service began engaged in war with a country with which the United States is at war. Mr. WELTY. At some other time-not now-I wish you would let me know what effect the various bills now proposed would have on the neutrality law if enacted into law. Mr. PARKER. Well, I think I shall have to pass that up to-day, as you say. Mr. WELTY. Please look that up and let me know whether or not they will not make the neutrality law a nullity. Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir; I will. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the report and the letter of the Secretary of Labor accompanying the report of this bill be inserted in the hearings. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. (The report and letter referred to by Mr. Raker follow :) Hon. JOHN L. BURNETT, M. C., DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Chairman Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. BURNETT: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 1st instant, transmitting copy of the bill introduced by Representative Rogers (H. R. 3647) entitled "A bill permitting the repatriation of certain former American citizens who have hitherto served or who shall hereafter serve in the armed forces of any foreign State engaged in war with a country with which the United States is at war." I do not believe that the said bill is calculated to meet the real practical difficulty that arises from the situation to an alleviation of which it is obviously intended to be directed. If the taking of the (usually limited) oath of allegiance that is required in connection with enlistments in foreign armies really, as a matter of law, operates to expatriate an American citizen, such a citizen could not comply with the provisions of H. R. 3647 until he had reentered the United States; and, as many of these returning soldiers are crippled or maimed or broken down in health, or are otherwise inadmissible if aliens under the immigration law, and as the passage by Congress of such a piece of legislation as this bill would be tantamount to a legislative declaration that enlistment in a foreign army does expatriate, I am clearly of opinion that the passage thereof in its present form would do more harm than good. 13884-17-5 This department has not been disposed to hold, as a matter of law, in enforcing the immigration act, that the taking of a limited oath of allegiance in connection with enlistment in a foreign army operates to expatriate an American citizen under section 2 of the expatriation act of March 2, 1907 (34 Stat., 1228.) Its position with respect to that question is set forth in a letter addressed to Hon. Thomas G. Patten on January 6, 1916, of which a copy is inclosed. It is true that in a case which arose in the northern district of New York (Ex parte Griffin, 237 Fed., 445), Judge Ray held that the taking of an enlistment oath of allegiance had operated to expatriate the American citizen involved; but this department has not been disposed to accept that decision as final or absolutely authoritative upon the point, because Griffin was a deserter and, of course, had not been discharged from the English Army, and was therefore still under the allegiance which he had adopted in his enlistment oath. Efforts which have since been made by the department to bring in the courts a test case that would not be complicated with this element have not so far been successful; and the department has continued the policy of treating all soldiers who have been discharged from foreign armies as no longer subject to the limited oath of allegiance, which for the time being, in conjunction with the actual service of the men in the foreign army, had operated to create with respect to the men an allegiance to a foreign government. Such returning discharged soldiers are being landed as American citizens. That course, to a very large extent, solves the practical difficulties of the situation. The technical legal difficulties, it seems to me, could very much better be met if and when necessary by the enactment of appropriate amendments to the expatriation act of 1907, above mentioned. Those difficulties arise from the fact that the so-called expatriation act deals with two subjects, to wit: (a) The expatriation of citizenship and (b) the protection abroad of citizens. Unfortunately the provisions of that law which, in the judgment of this department, were intended merely to cover the second subject are almost inextricably entangled with the provisions thereof intended to cover the first subject, and this confusion in the legislation has naturally led to a corresponding confusion in the administration thereof by the departments and the construction thereof by the courts. You will recall that you were informally advised several months ago that this department had appointed a committee, composed of officials of the Bureaus of Immigration and Naturalization and of the office of the solicitor for this department, to which committee has been assigned the duty of submitting to the department suggestions with respect to needed amendments in the naturalization law. As the expatriation act is really, to a considerable extent, a naturalization measure, the confusion in its provisions above mentioned will naturally come under consideration by the departmental committee mentioned and by the department on the basis of that committee's report. It has not yet been possible, because of the great stress of work which has arisen from the war, for the committee to give any consideration to the duty assigned it, but I hope to be able, on the basis of a report from that committee, to submit suggestions to the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization at the next session of Congress. Respectfully, W. B. WILSON, Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, MY DEAR MR. BURNETT: I have received your letter of May 1, 1917, transmitting a copy of a bill (H. R. 3647) 'permitting the repatriation of certain former American citizens who have hitherto served or who shall hereafter serve in the armed forces of any foreign State engaged in war with a country with which the United States is at war." You ask for the opinion of this department as to the propriety of enacting the proposed law. In reply allow me to refer you to the department's views as expressed in its letter of May 8, 1917, to Senator Ellison D. Smith, concerning Senate bill No. 1721 on the same subject. A copy of the letter mentioned is inclosed herewith. I am, my dear Mr. Burnett, sincerely, yours, ROBERT LANSING. Hon. JOHN L. BURNETT, House of Representatives. Inclosure: Copy of letter mentioned. |