TO REVISE AND CODIFY THE NATIONALITY LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES INTO A COMPREHENSIVE NATIONALITY CODE TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1940 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON The subcommittee met at 10: 15 a. m., the Honorable W. R. Poage presiding. Mr. POAGE. The committee will be in order. STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. FLOURNOY, ASSISTANT LEGAL ADVISER, STATE DEPARTMENT Mr. REES. Mr. Flournoy, you represent the Department of State; is that correct? Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes. Mr. REES. What is your official position? Mr. FLOURNOY. Assistant legal adviser. Mr. REES. All right, you may proceed. Mr. FLOURNOY. Mr. Chairman, I have not prepared any formal statement. The scope of this measure is set forth in the letter of transmittal you will find in volume 1 of these three volumes here. The State Department is interested in this problem principally if not entirely, because of its duty to extend protection to Americans abroad. Mr. REES. Will you just let me interrupt so we can get the record straight? The hearing is on H. R. 6127. Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes. Mr. REES. A measure introduced for the purpose of revising and codifying the nationality laws of the United States into a comprehensive nationality code. That is correct. Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes. Mr. REES. You are here to give the views of the State Department on this measure. Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes. Mr. REES. All right. May we have your views on this bill; and what we want especially is to know what changes are being made and why they are being made, from the standpoint of the Department of State. Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes, sir. I started to say the Department of State is especially interested in this problem on account of its function of nding protection to American nationals in foreign countries. That only in connection with the issuance of passports, but also actual *ion in cases in which Americans get into difficulties of any kind TO REVISE AND CODIFY THE NATIONALITY LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES INTO A COMPREHENSIVE NATIONALITY CODE TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1940 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON The subcommittee met at 10:15 a. m., the Honorable W. R. Poage presiding. Mr. POAGE. The committee will be in order. STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. FLOURNOY, ASSISTANT LEGAL ADVISER, STATE DEPARTMENT Mr. REES. Mr. Flournoy, you represent the Department of State; is that correct? Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes. Mr. REES. What is your official position? Mr. FLOURNOY. Assistant legal adviser. Mr. REES. All right, you may proceed. Mr. FLOURNOY. Mr. Chairman, I have not prepared any formal statement. The scope of this measure is set forth in the letter of transmittal you will find in volume 1 of these three volumes here. The State Department is interested in this problem principally if not entirely, because of its duty to extend protection to Americans abroad. Mr. REES. Will you just let me interrupt so we can get the record straight? The hearing is on H. R. 6127. Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes. Mr. REES. A measure introduced for the purpose of revising and codifying the nationality laws of the United States into a comprehensive nationality code. That is correct. Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes. Mr. REES. You are here to give the views of the State Department on this measure. Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes. Mr. REES. All right. May we have your views on this bill; and what we want especially is to know what changes are being made and why they are being made, from the standpoint of the Department of State. Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes, sir. I started to say the Department of State is especially interested in this problem on account of its function of extending protection to American nationals in foreign countries. That is not only in connection with the issuance of passports, but also actual protection in cases in which Americans get into difficulties of any kind in foreign countries, and they feel they need the protection of their government, and growing out of cases of that kind, of course we have many international claims. The first question we have when we are called upon either to issue a passport, in the first instance, or to extend protection, or to support a claim, is the question whether the individual concerned is an American national, that is, a citizen of the United States, or an inhabitant of one of the outlying possessions who, although not a citizen of the United States, is an American national. On account of the peculiar drafting of the nationality laws, which you will find scattered among approximately 50 different statutes, some of them running away back to the early days of the Republic, and many of them apparently inconsistent, it is often difficult to construe these laws and say with any degree of confidence whether any individual born under certain circumstances is or is not an American national. It is important to the individual, obviously, as well as to the United States, that these laws should be just as clear and definite as possible. One example I can give you, which occurred within the past week, involved the nationality of a person who had been in an outlying possession. His parents were citizens of the United States and had lived most of their lives in this country. One would say right off, of course, that he must be a citizen. If he is born in the center of Asia, he would be a citizen, so why wouldn't he be a citizen if he was born in an American territory. Personally, I think he is a citizen and I have expressed that opinion and our Department has so ruled, but there is a difference of opinion in that case. I just give that as one example. Then we have the peculiar provisions in the Expatriation Act of 1907, where it says that when a naturalized citizen resides in the foreign state from which he came for 2 years, or in some other foreign state 5 years, he shall have ceased to be a citizen of the United States, although this presumption may be overcome under rules prescribed by the Department of State. Those are substantially the words; I haven't the text before me now. Just what that means has been the subject of great controversy. One of the courts held at first that a naturalized citizen who resides in his native land for 2 years did not come within any of these rules prescribed by the State Department for overcoming the presumption, ceased to be a citizen, and lost his nationality, so that if he came back to the United States he would have to come as an alien. Later on Attorney General Wickersham in a case which this Department referred to him held that the presumption under that statute did not really mean loss of citizenship; it merely meant the loss of right to protection as a citizen; even though a person might live in his native land 40 years or more, had all his interests there, when he felt like it he could come back to the United States and demand entrance into this country as a citizen. Some of the other courts later on followed that ruling of Attorney General Wickersham. There is another example of indefinite drafting which has caused great confusion, but a still more serious reason why the Department of State is interested in this measure is that under the laws now exist |