people, such for instance as those you refer to, who must move back out of restricted zones, you have people who are likely to have a wrong feeling about America and feel they are being discriminated against and not on the same plane as other people, and they are being looked down upon by everyone with whom they come into contact, particularly their own children. Senator MALONEY. Of course, I think I can see some danger in the plan, unless the Government is extremely careful. Mr. HOLTZOFF. I might say this, that every applicant for naturalization is very carefully investigated. Senator MALONEY. How can you be sure of that, Mr. Holtzoff? Mr. HOLTZOFF. Oh, well, you cannot be 100 percent sure, of course, Senator; but the Immigration and Naturalization Service very carefully investigates every applicant for naturalization. In addition to subjecting him to cross-examination, there is a preliminary investigation made of him. Undoubtedly, sometimes the investigation might not disclose facts that are detrimental to the alien, but on the whole I think they weed the applicants out pretty thoroughly. Senator MALONEY. Would that be true under such a bill as this? How many people would be affected by this; do you know, Mr. Holtzoff, or do you know, Mr. Shoemaker? Mr. SHOEMAKER. No. There have been figures, just simply throwing one figure at another. Some have estimated as many as 300,000. Senator BALL. Where would they be? Mr. SHOEMAKER. Primarily in industrial cities. Senator MALONEY. 300,000? Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes. Senator MALONEY. We have had many protests on this particular legislation, and more, by the way, than we have had on section 8, which up to now has been the target of criticism. It seemed to me I had a communication from someone in my State saying there were 75,000 in Connecticut alone. I wonder if that is possible? Mr. SHOEMAKER. I think it is possible. Of course, it is more or less throwing one figure at another. You take out in California, I have been all over California and have met many people out there on the shores who are people who will possibly proceed under this clause. And I think those people could be good workers for the Government if they were given the opportunity. And the fact that they come. from enemy countries does not necessarily mean they are enemies. Mr. HOLTZOFF. Of course, if that section is enacted, every one of this group who makes application will have to be subjected to investigation before the application is granted. That is the usual process with all applications for naturalization today. Senator BALL. Well, would these people that would come under this be residents of these very tight little foreign communities in cities, largely, or are they scattered throughout? Mr. SHOEMAKER. I should think more likely they would be in the larger industrial centers, in what you call the tight little spots. Mr. HOLTZOFF. I think you find them in New York, Chicago, and some of the cities of Pennsylvania. Senator BALL. Where they have sections which are entirely Italian or German or Swedish-not so much Swedish. But I know in Minnesota we have them where one boarding house would be Lithuanian, and another one Hungarian and another one Montenegran. Mr. SHOEMAKER. I think you would have quite a few of them that enter into those places. Senator MALONEY. I don't want to delay you Mr. HOLTZOFF. Shall I proceed with the next suggestion? Senator MALONEY (continuing). But I want to make this suggestion: Before the hearings are closed I am going to ask unanimous consent, and I am now granting myself unanimous consent, to put in the record various communications referring to this particular subject. And it is my thought, if the other members of the subcommittee agree, that we will publish the hearings and make them available to the members of the entire committee. I think you might note many of these protests and perhaps be prepared, when Senator Russell decides to call a meeting of the entire committee, to discuss this further. Mr. HOLTZOFF. Yes. Senator MALONEY. Some of them go into some detail. And all of us had a lengthy telegram this morning from the American Legion protesting on this particular section of the bill, and a number of educational groups and patriotic societies have registered protests by way of letter or telegram or brief. I think it would be wise to include those in the hearing. You may proceed, Mr. Holtzoff. Mr. HOLTZOFF. Section 4 represents the existing law, and proposes merely to change a date in existing law. In line 16 on page 3, in existing law the date of July 1, 1920, and the bill proposes to change it to July 1, 1925. Otherwise, the rest of the section is existing law. This section of existing law relates to the situation of a person who has been in this country for a great many years and was qualified to become a citizen, but was sincerely laboring under the understanding that he was a citizen and who erroneously exercised the rights of a citizen, and who later on discovered that actually he was not a citizen. This section of the law permits a short-cut naturalization, so to speak, for that type of person. Under existing law they have had to be residents of this country for 5 years prior to July 1, 1920; and the only amendment that the bill would make in the existing law would be to move up the date from July 1, 1920, to July 1, 1925. It affects especially some women, because prior to the enactment of the Cable Act in 1922 the women followed the citizenship of their husbands, and now they have their own citizenship status. Section 5 just corrects, or clarifies rather, the phraseology of existing law. It inserts in line 9, page 4, the words "subsection (b) of." The existing law provides "authorized by this section." and the bill would make the existing law more accurate by providing "authorized by subsection (b) of this section." I think that is just a stylistic correction. Now, section 6 of the bill proposes to make a correction of what is a patent error in the Nationality Act. In line 17, the words "seven years" is "ten years" in existing law. In existing law there is one section which provides, in effect, that the life of a declaration of intention is to be 7 years, and in this section by some mistake, evidently inadvertent, it provides for 10 years. And in order to make that correction, this section of the bill would change "ten years" to "seven years." The next section relates to the period of hearings, the time of hearings on petitions for naturalization. Under the Nationality Act of 1940, it is provided that no petition for naturalization may be heard within 60 days preceding the holding of any general election, within the jurisdiction of the naturalization court. The bill proposes to change the 60-day period to a 30-day period, and in that respect to restore the law as it existed prior to 1940. It has been found that the 60-day period is too long in actual practice. Now, section 8 is a section concerning which I understand some testimony has been given yesterday. When I complete my testimony I would ask the privilege of Mr. Smith being heard on this section, because he is particularly interested in it. However, I want to summarize it very briefly. It would establish an additional ground for cancelation of naturalization; namely, if the utterances, writings, actions or course of conduct of a naturalized citizen establishes that his political allegiance is to a foreign State or sovereignty, that fact should be a ground for canceling his certificate of naturalization. I might say this, if I may, in this connection: Under existing law a certificate of naturalization can be canceled for fraud, and the courts have held that if it can be shown by intrinsic evidence, statements of the applicant and his conduct, that he took the oath with reservations, that his state of mind at the time he took the oath was that he was doing it without intending to live up to it, and that he actually was retaining his allegiance to a foreign country; those facts constitute fraud, and they are sufficient to warrant the cancelation of the certificate of naturalization. Now, that is the existing law. The only change that this section 8 would make would be that it would no longer be necessary to establish that this state of mind existed at the time that the applicant took his oath of allegiance. That fact is sometimes difficult to establish. If it can be shown by his course of conduct or by his utterances at the time the proceeding is tried, that actually his real allegiance is to a foreign state, that proof would be sufficient to warrant his being deprived of his citizenship. Now, I want to call attention to this fact: When the bill was first introduced, as drafted in the Department of Justice, this section did not have the words in it, "utterances, writings, actions, or course of"; it read as follows: "or on the ground that this conduct establishes that his political allegiance is to a foreign state or sovereignty." On the floor of the House the words "utterances, writings, actions, or course of" were inserted. I would like to pass this and leave to Mr. Smith to enlarge upon this section, if I may. Now, section 9 refers to service of papers, service of process in actions brought by the Government to cancel a certificate of naturalization. Under existing law the defendant in such action has 60 days to answer the petition or the complaint. This section would cut down the time to 30 days in time of war if the process is served on the defendant personally in the continental United States. The purpose of this provision is to permit expedition in proceedings to cancel naturalization. Senator MALONEY. Why does it make so much difference, as to whether or not it is 30 days or 60 days? Mr. HOLTZOFF. Well, it makes this difference, Senator: It makes it possible to bring the proceeding to a head 1 month or 30 days quicker than it otherwise would be possible to do so. If I may take a supposititious case by way of illustration, suppose it appears that a particular naturalized citizen who happens to be a subversive individual obtained his naturalization in such manner that it is subject to cancelation. If his naturalization is canceled, then he becomes an alien, and if he happens to be a citizen or a subject of an enemy country he becomes an alien enemy and we can treat him as an alien enemy and possibly detain him if he is a dangerous person. It gives the Department of Justice an additional weapon against subversive individuals. Senator MALONEY. Only to the extent of 30 days. Mr. HOLTZOFF. Oh, yes; yes. Senator MALONEY. Well, now, if he is charged with a serious offense he is going to be kept in custody during that period of time, isn't he? Mr. HOLTZOFF. Well, suppose he is not charged with any crime, but suppose he is a subversive individual generally. If he is an American citizen, he is not subject to incarceration. There is no way of arresting an American citizen who is not charged with crime, even though Senator MALONEY. It would seem to me any of the things he would be charged with under this law would be a crime, would they not? Mr. HOLTZOFF. Not necessarily. His conduct may be such as to show that he is an Axis sympathizer, for example, taking a suppositi⇒ tious case. That in itself makes him dangerous, but does not constitute a crime. Senator MALONEY. What would you charge him with at that point? Mr. HOLTZOFF. You might bring a proceeding to cancel his naturalization on the ground that his course of conduct establishes that his political allegiance is to a foreign state or sovereignty. Now, if that is established by evidence at the trial, by a preponderance of evidence at the trial, his naturalization may be canceled. That is not necessarily sufficient to sustain any criminal charge or even to warrant any criminal prosecution. Senator MALONEY. This section ties in with section 8, does it? Mr. HOLTZOFF. It does, although it is broader. It applies to any ground of cancelation of citizenship. Senator BALL. Would not fraud in obtaining naturalization be a criminal offense? Mr. HOLTZOFF. I am sorry; I did not hear you. Senator BALL. The other ground in the subsection under section 9 there is fraud in obtaining naturalization. Wouldn't that be a criminal offense? Mr. HOLTZOFF. Fraud in this sense, that if a person signed a petition for naturalization containing false statements, undoubtedly that would be a criminal offense. But suppose the fraud consisted in the fact that the oath was not taken in all sincerity. I am not sure that would be a criminal offense, although it would be ground for canceling the certificate of naturalization. Mr. SHOEMAKER. There are plenty of cases-if I may interrupt just a minute-there are plenty of cases where individuals have been naturalized years ago and as to whom later it is manifest that they did. not take the oath in good faith; and the statute of limitations has run against any criminal prosecution. In those cases it would be better to divest them of their status as quickly as we can, in order to take 69296-42-6 them into custody and handle them as they should be handled, and not as American citizens. Senator MALONEY. I suppose you agree that this gives tremendous powers to the officers of the Federal Government, Mr. Holtzoff? Mr. HOLTZOFF. Well, I agree that it does give very serious powers. But I want to say this: After all, we have to have faith, and I see no reason why we should not have faith in our Federal judges. These cases could be tried in the Federal courts, and if the action is improvident or without basis the Department of Justice would soon learn that from the disposition that would be made by the Federal judge. Senator BALL. What happens, to those naturalized citizens who were convicted of espionage in New York? Is their citizenship revoked? Mr. HOLTZOFF. They lose certain rights of citizenship, but they do not lose their citizenship as such; they do not become aliens. Senator BALL. Native-born citizens are exempted, except for treason? Mr. HOLTZOFF. Yes. Of course, in most States a person convicted of felony loses the right of suffrage, and that would apply in those cases as it does in the case of other felonies. The next section Senator BALL. Well, as a matter of fact, don't you pretty much cover this, if you are going to charge a man with fraudulently taking the oath, your basis would be exactly what you provide in section 8, wouldn't it? Mr. HOLTZOFF. In that section; yes. Except that if you charge a naturalized citizen with fradulently taking the oath, your evidence has to establish the existence of that fraud on the date he took the oath; whereas under section 8 it would be sufficient to establish the state of mind as of the date the proceeding has been instituted. That is the only difference. Mr. SHOEMAKER. I would like to say something about that. Mr. SHOEMAKER. To answer specifically your question, Senator: We have evidence of citizens coming in and inducing the applicant to swear falsely and we have evidence where they secure a visa to come into the United States fraudulently; and the statute of limitations has run against that and we cannot do anything about the criminal prosecution, except in the latter case section 9 is much broader than section 8, and it would allow us to cancel the certificate within 30 days, where ordinarily we were 60 days, where a naturlized citizenship has been secured fraudulently, but the case may not involve subversive activities. Senator BALL. Yes. Mr. SHOEMAKER. So it is much broader. Senator BALL. I can see the point in section 9, but I don't know, section 8 seems to almost invite a "witch hunt." Mr. HOLTZOFF. If I may, Senator, I would like to leave to Mr. Smith, who will follow me, the privilege of discussing section 8. I think he is more familiar with the difficulties of the problem than I am. Now, section 10 is a purely procedural matter. It amends section 404 of the Nationality Act. Section 404 provides that under certain circumstances, by residing abroad for certain periods, a naturalized citizen shall lose his nationality; and all that section 10 does is to per |