examine the history of it, particularly with a view of guiding the State Department in what it should do with respect to giving passports and affording protection to people who had gone abroad, especially people who had been naturalized here, had obtained their full papers, or had started to be naturalized here, and, after obtaining their first papers, had gone abroad. It was enacted at the request of the State Department and on the basis of a report prepared by former Ambassador Hill, the former chief of the Citizenship Bureau, Mr. Hunt, and the former Solicitor of the State Department, Mr. Scott. That was what they had particularly in mind. I doubt very much whether Congress intended when it passed that bill to lay down any policy with regard to taking citizenship away from people in the absolute sense. However, the bill, unfortunately, was drawn in such language that gradually there has grown up this line of decisions, terminating in the Mackenzie decision, to which reference has been made, which has placed that law in the situation where its letter rather than its spirit and intent has been followed. Consequently the country and this committee is confronted with the necessity of doing something concerning it, if we are to take care of these cases, of which it is stated there are 45,000, at least. Now, from the immigration point of view, it would be very much better, it seems to us, to make just one bite at this thing and dispose of it by something in the nature of this bill which I had not seen before, but have seen this morning, this short one that has been distributed by Mr. Crist, and for these reasons: If we undertake to lay down a detailed system by which these men are going to get back into a state of citizenship out of which they have slipped far enough so that we can not technically regard them as citizens any longer when they apply to our ports to be admitted, we ought to have it so that the immigration officials will know exactly what to do when one of those men applies for admission and not compel us to say to him, "Have you gone to some consular officer or some other officer on the other side of the ocean and done certain things?" and we ought not to have it so that a man will have to do certain things after he gets here, and for that same reason. The CHAIRMAN. Your department is admitting or rejecting him right at the water's edge? Mr. PARKER. Yes; we are either admitting or rejecting that man. Now, if in the view of Congress those people have not placed themselves in a position where they ought to be penalized, the Bureau of Immigration ought to be placed in the situation where, when they come to our ports as American citizens, we will know exactly what to do. There will be many who will come here as cripples; they will have a leg gone or a leg and an arm gone and have no way of making a living; or their eyesight will be gone or their hearing gone. There will be many cases of that kind. Now, those poor fellows, unless we have it fixed positively or if they have to do something after they get here, are going to be in a situation where we can not admit them, and consequently they can not do that thing; and even if they have to do something on the other side, those who neglect to do it are going to be in that same situation. So the easiest way, from our point of view, is to fix their status definitely and positively. If, as a matter of policy, you think it is sound policy to say that these men shall be regarded as not having lost their American citizenship, then we know what to do with them. The CHAIRMAN. Right there, would it not be very easy, by amendment, to say that you could admit them temporarily for the purpose of making the necessary application before the court? That could be very easily accomplished, could it not? Mr. PARKER. Yes; but I think it would take legislation to do it. The CHAIRMAN. I think so, too, and I suggested an amendment to the bill. Mr. PARKER. Yes; that could be provided for in that way. That, to a certain extent, is taken care of by these provisions with regard to going before a consular officer. A man has that chance, and if he does not avail himself of it perhaps that is his fault and perhaps he should be required to go back and avail himself of it, but the amendment you speak of would take care of him in that way. Mr. Flournoy suggests to me that he could not leave without a passport. That would be true during the continuance of the war, but some of these people would not come back until after the war is over, when the passport regulations might become somewhat lax-I will not say lax, but somewhat less exact than at present. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, passports are not required unless the country from which he comes has laws which forbid him to leave without a passport? For instance, we have been admitting British subjects without any passport, but Italy has a law which prevents people leaving that country without a passport, but all European countries do not require that. I understand that Mr. Flournoy's suggestion has to do with war exigencies and that before we admit them they are required to have passports-is that true? Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir; those regulations have been in force, I take it, during the war, and are even now being worked out in more complete and effective shape. Now, another point from the immigration aspect of this bill is this: As the law now stands and as the Bureau of Immigration construes it there is no necessity for this legislation so far as the admission of these people is concerned. If you pass a law of this kind you are fixing it so that you are creating the very necessity for it, which is an argument for making it absolutely inclusive of everything that ought to be covered. The courts have held that a man who takes this oath of allegiance, this qualified oath of allegiance, so called, to the British Government, thereby expatriates himself, but the Department of Labor has held that he does not become an alien by that act. Mr. SLAYDEN. The department has held that? Mr. PARKER. Yes; and we have admitted them; we have not excluded any of them except one man whom we excluded for the purpose of making a test case. That was Griffin, referred to by Congressman Rogers yesterday, whom we excluded and handled in a special way in order to make a test case. Then, after we had made a test case, it did not determine everything that we wanted determined. Mr. WELTY. What was the conclusion in that case? Mr. PARKER. The conclusion in the Griffin case was that he did become an alien; that was decided by Judge Ray, of the northern district of New York. The CHAIRMAN. Was that case carried to the Supreme Court? Mr. PARKER. No; we were very anxious that it should be carried up, but we were not in a situation where we could carry it up, and Griffin was not in a position to carry it up. Mr. RAKER. Another important feature was that he was also a deserter? Mr. PARKER. Yes; that was a point that was in the mind of the Secretary of Labor; that was a feature which made him disregard that decision; that man still owed allegiance to the British Government under this oath; he had not been discharged, and was a deserter, and he could not get away from the effect of that oath by running away from the army. If he had been a discharged man, whose allegiance to the army of Great Britain had in that way been severed, the Secretary of Labor would have agreed with Judge Ray's conclusion. We have been trying to get a test case on the other point, where the issues would be absolute, but so far we have not succeeded, for the reason that we could not exclude some one without visiting upon others a very serious hardship. Mr. RAKER. Up to date no one has been denied admission? Mr. RAKER. Except Griffin, who not only deserted his own country to join another one as to which it was neutral but deserted the country to which he swore allegiance and then he came back and tried to obtain the benefits of a citizen of the United States. Mr. PARKER. Yes. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I think the Bureau of Immigration would very much prefer that the matter be either handled more thoroughly along the lines I have suggested, as to the bill offered by Mr. Rogers, or else that this shorter measure should be adopted, which would do away with the so-called expatriation act. The CHAIRMAN. Even if you admitted a man, that would still leave open the question for the courts to determine when he undertakes to exercise the rights of a citizen; for instance, should undertake to enter land, and to determine the status of any children that might be born after he came back to this country. Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir. Those questions, however, are questions that we are not concerned with as a bureau, but as individuals they are very important questions undoubtedly. I think I should say just a word with regard to our twilight decision on this matter, holding that although a man was no longer an American citizen nor might not any longer be an American citizen he was still not an alien within the meaning of the immigration law. We had what we call a twilight decision from the Supreme Court in the Gonzales caseGonzales v. Williams-reported, I think, in 212 U. S. Soon after the acquisition of Porto Rico a question arose as to the status of a Porto Rican, and the Supreme Court held that a Porto Rican, although not a citizen of the United States, was in the twilight zone and was not an alien within the meaning of the immigration law. That is the same theory upon which we have proceeded in dealing with a man who has apparently forfeited his rights of American citizenship. Nevertheless we say that he has not gone over and made himself an alien because he has not complied with the naturalization 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 with us. 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? 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 |