Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

aliens at present. What hardship would it work if we made a law so that neither that wife nor child acquired citizenship in the United States by marrying an American citizen abroad? The husband gets them into the United States in that case, because they would be preference immigrants, nonquota immigrants, so he could get them back into the United States. Why shouldn't we let them in and qualify them under the immigration laws?

Mr. FLOURNOY. Is that a rhetorical question, or are you asking me?
Mr. POAGE. I am asking you if there is any reason.

Mr. FLOURNOY. My present view is that that should be required, that they should not have American citizenship.

Mr. REES. You mean by that, let them be brought in, but not let them become citizens except as they comply with our regular naturalization laws?

Mr. FLOURNOY. Either make them become citizens upon entering, or take the oath of allegiance, as you please about that. It is the most difficult problem, I think, in the whole thing, the child born abroad of mixed parents.

Mr. POAGE. In other words, don't we, by the kind of legislation we have on the statute books now, confer special privileges upon the American citizen who goes abroad? Don't we give him certain rights we don't give in the United States, and allow him to enjoy the benefits of being abroad that an American citizen doesn't enjoy? In other words, in my State he couldn't marry a Chinese, but an American citizen can go abroad and marry a Chinese and bring her and all her children back to the United States and make them citizens. Mr. FLOURNOY. The children would be born citizens under the ex.isting law.

Mr. POAGE. That is right. In other words, aren't we putting a premium upon going out of the United States? Aren't we putting a premium upon leaving the United States? Why should we encourage people to live abroad?

Mr. FLOURNOY. Of course, if the children are born in this country they would be born citizens under the Constitution.

Mr. POAGE. I know they would be.

Mr. REES. Let me interrupt once more. About all you have done in this clause has been to change the period from 5 to 10 years' prior residence?

Mr. FLOURNOY. Prior residence. The existing law does not specify

any.

Mr. REES. I thought there was a 5-year requirement.

Mr. FLOURNOY. No. A child may be taken abroad as an infant of 6 months or younger, and he may live in the foreign country and marry there, and his children will be citizens of the United States. This says the children must be brought here and live here at least 5 years. Some think it ought to be 10. But that is a question on which there may be some difference of opinion. The rest of it is very much like the existing law. There are some slight differences, but not very substantial.

SEC. 202. All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, residing on the effective date of this Act in Puerto Rico or other territory over which the United States exercises rights of sovereignty and not citizens of the United States under any other act, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.

That is to take care of the Puerto Rican situation because of the past history. Puerto Rico was held by Congress to be not a part of the United States proper, but to be an outlying territory. The fourteenth amendment does not apply. A person born in Puerto Rico, without special statutory provisions conferring citizenship, would not be born a citizen. There have been such statutes and the idea of this was to follow those as closely as possible.

Mr. POAGE. Doesn't that mean that those who live in the islands of the Pacific-Guam, Samoa, and those countries-are citizens of the United States?

Mr. FLOURNOY. Those who were born in Puerto Rico.

Mr. POAGE (reading):

Or other countries over which the United States exercises the rights of sovereignty.

Mr. FLOURNOY. No; all persons born in Puerto Rico, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and residing on that particular date-that relates to the subject of residence.

Mr. POAGE. The object of that was to carry on what seems to be the intent of the recent act of Congress, which gives citizenship to Puerto Ricans.

Mr. FLOURNOY.

SEC. 203. Unless otherwise provided in section 201, the following shall be nationals, but not citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) A person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(b) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are nationals, but not citizens, of the United States, and have resided in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of such person;

(c) A child of unknown parentage found in an outlying possession of the United States, until shown not to have been born in such outlying possession.

SEC. 204. The provisions of section 201, subsections (c), (d), (e), and (g) and section 203, subsections (a) and (b) hereof, apply as of the date of birth, to a child born out of wedlock provided the paternity is established during minority, by legitimation, or adjudication of a competent court.

In the absence of such legitimation or adjudication, the child, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of the child's birth, and had previously resided in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, shall' be held to have acquired at birth her nationality status.

We have had difficulty in applying the existing laws to illegitimate children born abroad. When born in the United States they acquire citizenship, but of those born abroad of American mothers, years ago Assistant Solicitor Van Dyne, who wrote a book on citizenship, expressed the opinion that they were citizens of the United States, under the laws of the Nation. I think his reason was not very sound, but it seemed a fairly reasonable thing and we followed that ruling for a number of years in the Department and included those children in the passports of the mothers. Recently that ruling has been questioned, and I can see how it could be questioned, because the old law says "fathers" not "mothers." The present law, the act of 1934, transmits citizenship through either the father or the mother. The object of this is clear. It gives citizenship to those unfortunate children who are born illegitimately to American mothers.

Chapter III is of interest, if not entirely to the Labor Department,. to the Labor Department and Department of Justice, and Mr. Hazard discused that last week.

Mr. HAZARD. A portion of it.

Mr. FLOURNOY. I should think it would be better to let Mr. Hazard take over at this point.

Mr. POAGE. I would like to ask some of these other gentlemen who are protesting some of this chapter II, their reasons.

Mr. HAZARD. Mr. Congressman, may I first say that so far as the report and the code are concerned, the three departments have agreed upon this as representing the views of the three departments.

Mr. POAGE. All right. I don't give a hoot in the world about these Departments coming down here and saying that they think so and so. I would like to know their reasons for it. After all, any decisions that are made have to be made by Congress. When I go home, the people are not going to say, "Bob Poage, did the Labor Department think that was wise?" They are going to say, "Why did you vote for that?" And I am not going to be able to pass that fellow by saying that the Labor Department, the State Department, or the Justice Department thought that was good and I had no part in it. After all, they send Congressmen up here to formulate these regulations, and Congress ought to have the advice, as I see it, and the information that the Departments have. You certainly know a great deal more about this than I know or any other Member of Congress. I should like to have the information you have and know the reasons why you arrive at a decision, rather than simply being told, "This is right." For my part, I am not the least bit inclined to accept anything of that kind, and if you simply come down here and tell me, "This is right," and not tell me why, I am disposed to vote against the whole thing. I want to know why.

Mr. HAZARD. May I elaborate a little bit on that?

Mr. POAGE. Yes.

Mr. HAZARD. When the Cabinet committee was set up by the President, the three secretaries turned to the technical experts in the three Departments to represent them in going over in detail the entire subject of nationality and then in bringing to the attention of the heads of the Departments their best views, as well as they could formulate them, after frequent conferences.

As I mentioned at last week's session to the members who were present, we held meetings from the fall of 1933-6 representatives of the State Department, 6 representatives of the Department of Labor, and 1 representative of the Department of Justice-and it was natural that over a period of years in which the matter was under consideration in great detail there should be individual viewpoints among those 13 persons, and it can hardly be said, particularly in the Department of Labor, where we had 6 persons, and 3 of them had personal opinions along one line, and the other three had opinions along an opposite line, that either one of them necessarily represents the viewpoint of the Secretary of Labor.

But after the end of this period of several years of consideration, and through compromise here and compromise there, the entire 13 were able to reach an agreement upon the basic provisions that were incorporated in the code, and whatever lack of agreement there may have been between the heads of the Department were later ironed out, and they were able to agree upon this code as representing the best views of those three Departments, for presentation to the Congress.

good

I might express individual preference one way or another in a many of these sections, but on the whole it seems to me, as one of the workers upon the material that has gone into this code, that it is a fair code, representing the best views of the three Departments after long consideration of everything that was in it.

Mr. FLOURNOY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to disagree. With reference to Mr. Hazard's statement, in the first place, respecting this provision about children born abroad, that is not a position that was agreed upon by this committee that has been mentioned, six from Labor, six from State, and one from Justice. They agreed upon a strict rule, both parents of American nationality. I think there was one exception, who disagreed with everything on every point, but it was practically unanimous. Later on it was studied, after the report had been sent in, by other officials, as I understand it, in the Departments of Justice and Labor, and they felt that they could not agree to the strict rule the committee advisers had agreed to, and the result was changing it radically, and according we have this provision here, which, as I say, is a little stricter than existing law.

The attitude of the Department of State, as I see it, is we want a code and we are willing to make compromises on some points if it is necessary, because it is so important to get these laws cleared up. Mr. POAGE. You will never get a code that everybody will agree on every section.

Mr. FLOURNOY. No. We want to get the laws revised and codified so that we know what they mean, and, further, there are other provisions of great importance to the Department of State which Ì will mention later on, in chapter IV. So that is our position; we are willing to make compromises in order to get the measure through. Mr. POAGE. Now, we are getting somewhere. The State Department says they are not quite for this.

Mr. FLOURNOY. We are for the code.

Mr. POAGE. I understand you are for the code, but not to this proposition of allowing in anybody simply because one of their parents had at some time acquired American citizenship.

Mr. FLOURNOY. This was not seen by the Secretary of State. Mr. POAGE. Are we going to understand you gentlemen are here simply to tell us this is correct and there is no reason for us to consider it? Are we here to consider this thing or are we simply to be told the Departments have agreed on it and that Congress should pass it as it is? Is that the attitude? If it is, there is no use wasting our time here. I can read this stuff, and if we are simply to be told, "Take it, there can't be any change in it, smart men have already written it," if we are to be told that, what is the use of my wasting my time or your time coming up here? We can all read.

I think the State Department has given us something. I would like to know why; I would also like to know why somebody objects to this. The State Department doesn't tell us why they think this is correct. In fact, they tell us they think it probably is not. I want to know why somebody-I don't care who, and I don't know who-is objecting to it, and I should like to know from somebody why they think any child born of anybody who ever acquired any American citizenship, no matter where they have lived, ought to be an American citizen simply by reason of the fact that one of their parents at some time or another was an American citizen, without requiring anything

more. I want to know why. I feel we are entitled to have some reasoning, and know the reasons that actuated the departments in urging us to adopt that. They may be perfectly good reasons, but if they are so secretive I am always inclined to be suspicious of a thing somebody refuses to talk about, and I just want to know why, and, frankly, the more secretive the parties are about it, the more suspicious I am going to become about it that there is something wrong, when they don't want to talk. I want to know the reason. There is bound to be some reason. These Departments don't arbitrarily come down here and without any reason at all decide on what this committee of 13 have done. There must have been some reasons. I have enough respect for these Departments to know they must have had some reason, and it may have been a good reason. I want to know what it is.

Mr. REES. Let me interrupt. I don't know, but I assume the President, because of the demand that was made, that there ought to be a codification of the law, saw fit to ask these Departments to present their views on it.

Mr. POAGE. Yes.

Mr. REES. And as I understand it, what we have before us today is the proposed measure that is a digest of the opinion of these Departments.

Mr. POAGE. I understand that.

Mr. REES. The other day when we began this discussion, I called attention to the fact that this is not only a codification but it also contains amendments that have been suggested by these Departments. Mr. POAGE. That is right.

Mr. REES. That they have agreed upon. Some of them agreed upon probably unanimously and some by compromise.

Mr. POAGE. That is right.

to

Mr. REES. I agree with you that I don't like to have any Department tell us what we should or should not do, but I don't think up this time that has been the attitude of this group of men.

I think

all they are doing is saying, "Here is the bill, here are our reports on it, and here are our views."

Mr. POAGE. I want their views, but they won't give them to me. Mr. REES. You can cross-examine them if you want to.

Mr. POAGE. That is exactly what I want to find out.

Mr. REES. And find out what their objections are.

[ocr errors]

Mr. POAGE. That is what I am trying to find out, what their objections are. Instead of that I am told the Departments all agree on it. Have we found out why they have decided to put this section (c) in there, instead of the one they all agreed on?

Mr. REES. No.

Mr. POAGE. That is what I am trying to find out right now.

Mr. REES. I agree with you, but here is what I am suggesting. I am as anxious as you are to find out about that, but I think when you get to the right subject, we will ask each one of these Departments about their views.

Mr. POAGE. All right. We have the Labor Department here. I don't know whether the Labor Department objects to it, and I have not been able to find out. The State Department said they did not. The State Department said they would like to have gone along and struck out this last part, and just let it read "a person born in

« ÎnapoiContinuă »