mit than an action to establish that fact and obtain a judgment to that effect may be procured by legal proceedings, instead of leaving the matter to administrative determination as is the law today. Section 11 relates to those former American citizens who have acquired a foreign nationality through the naturalization of their parents. It makes only minor amendments in order to straighten out the grammar. It does not change the text of the law at all, except to correct a misprint that has created some grammatical errors. In line 17 of page 6 the words "he is" are inserted, and the word "heretofore" is changed to "theretofore." And later on, in line 20 "this act" was "his act" in the present law, and that is a misprint. This only, in other words, corrects some purely typographical errors. The next section, section 12, also corrects errors of that kind. It does not change the law in any respect. Section 13 was inserted on the floor of the House, I believe. It is directed to those persons who, although born of alien parents in a foreign country, entered the United States as minors prior to July 1, 1924, and who claimed citizenship through the naturalization of the parents, and who have been registered voters, but who find difficulty in establishing their citizenship. This provision would authorize the Immigration and Naturalization Service, upon satisfactory proof of the naturalization of the parent, to hold that the person has been legally admitted to the United States for permanent residence. My understanding is that this situation has arisen in Massachusetts, where there are a good many persons in that group who came to this country as children many years ago and whose parents have become naturalized, but who cannot establish all these facts by documentary evidence. Senator BALL. Well, this would not naturalize them? Mr. HOLTZOFF. No; this would not naturalize them. This would give them a legal residence, that is all. Senator BALL. I see. Mr. HOLTZOFF. That is all I wish to say. Senator MALONEY. Have you any questions, Senator Ball? Senator BALL. Yes. I wanted to go back to section 10. I wondered, just in reading those two sections; 404 is primarily people who resided outside the country, naturalized citizens who resided outside the country and thereby lose their citizenship, and section 338 is more or less of a criminal implication of fraud, or something like that. I wondered why you wanted to tie 404 into that? Mr. HOLTZOFF. Well, the only purpose is to make it possible to bring a civil action to establish, to procure a judgment, or establish the fact that a person has become a naturalized citizen, has become expatriated by reason of the facts set forth in section 404. Today, we have no way of bringing such action. Is my understanding right? Senator BALL. You can expatriate them by administrative action. Mr. HOLTZOFF. I beg your pardon? Senator BALL. Can't you expatriate them by administrative action? Mr. HOLTZOFF. Oh, yes. Today it is self-operative, but sometimes it is advantageous to make that a matter of record. And the only thing section 10 would do would be to permit us to bring action to determine a proceeding in order to make the expatriation a matter of record. Senator BALL. I cannot quite see why. I mean, it is a matter of record in the Department anyhow, isn't it? Mr. HOLTZOFF. It may be a matter of record in the Department, but the person interested, the naturalized citizen may contest that, and it is advantageous to secure the record. Senator BALL. Does he have the right of appeal now, to the ruling of the court? Mr. HOLTZOFF. No; he hasn't. Senator BALL. He hasn't? Mr. HOLTZOFF., This is self-operative. Senator BALL. He has no appeal to the courts for their determination? Mr. HOLTZOFF. He has this right: he can come back to the United States under the Nationality Act, if a passport or visa is denied him on the ground he is expatriated, he can come back to the United States and contest the matter in the courts; whereas this provision would enable the Government to initiate proceedings to cancel citizenship. It is not a matter of vital importance, but it would be of some advantage. Senator MALONEY. Have you finished? Senator BALL. Yes. Senator MALONEY. We are very grateful to you, Mr. Holtzoff. Had you planned to testify, Mr. Shoemaker? Mr. SHOEMAKER. No. Senator MALONEY. I would like to make this suggestion on my own responsibility: that you be afforded a chance to discuss at such length and in such detail as you desire, section 3. It was section 3? Mr. HOLTZOFF. Yes. Senator MALONEY. You have discussed it with the committee and been over it, but it is a very controversial question and I would like to have the record show everything that the Department or its representatives would like to have it show. I am not asking you to go into that further, but inviting you to be more definite if you care to. Mr. HOLTZOFF. We appreciate the opportunity and we will take advantage of it and present more material on that. Senator MALONEY. You mean by way of a brief? Senator MALONEY. You mean by way of a brief? Mr. HOLTZOFF. Well, whichever way. Senator MALONEY. We hope to conclude today. We only have one more witness, aside from the Departments of Government. We can meet tomorrow if it will suit your convenience. Mr. HOLTZOFF. No; we can present in brief form just as well. .: Senator MALONEY. I want to suit your convenience. If you are prepared to go ahead and tell it to us now, I would be glad to have it. It is not something I intend to press, but I do know that a controversy exists and it will become stronger and more intense before this full committee meets here, and the members will want to know all they can about it. And I am just affording the Department, or anyone else, a chance to go into so much detail as they desire. Mr. HOLTZOFF. Well, would it be satisfactory to submit a written statement in a day or two? IONALITY. TO AMEND THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940. 41 Senator MALONEY. Entirely. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Mr. Smith, we have one other witness. It is your turn and your choice, but I thought perhaps you would like to be last. Mr. SMITH. That is fine. STATEMENT OF SIDNEY C. SCHLESINGER, REPRESENTING NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD, WASHINGTON, D. C. Senator MALONEY. You are Mr. Popper? Mr. SCHLESINGER. I am not Mr. Popper, but appearing for Mr. Popper. My name is Sidney C. Schlesinger and I am appearing on behalf of Mr. Martin Popper, executive secretary of the National Lawyers Guild. The National Committee on American Citizenship, Immigration and Naturalization Service has made a study of this House Resolution 6250, and has asked me to submit the results of its study to this committee. There are only two portions of these amendments which it feels are of sufficient importance to warrant consideration. The first of these changes deals with section 3 and it relaxes the educational requirement in connection with the naturalization of aliens over 50 years of age who have resided in the United States continuously since on or before June 30, 1924, and have valid first papers or acquire them within 2 years of the effective date of the act. The committee believes that this change in the law is desirable. However, the committee believes that the provision is unfortunately more limited than originally drawn. Originally the bill required only 10 years continuous residence and the present bill requires 16 years; and the committee believes that the 10-year provision is sufficient and should remain in the bill. The more important change that I was asked to take up with this, committee is Senator MALONEY. Might I interrupt you there? You say that you feel that 10 years is sufficient? Mr. SCHLESINGER. Yes. Senator MALONEY. I wanted to be sure I understood you. I am sorry; please proceed. Mr. SCHLESINGER. The more important question that the committee concerned itself with is embodied in section 8 of the bill, which I understand is a controversial section and has received some consideration already from this committee. Section 8 deals with section 338 (a) of the Nationality Act of 1940, and it would substitute a comma for the period at the end thereof and add the following proviso: or on the ground that his utterances, writings, actions, or course of conduct establishes that his political allegiance is to a foreign state or sovereignty. If the intent of the provision was to reach persons who swore allegiance to the United States when, in fact, they continued to owe allegiance to a foreign government, then the provision is unnecessary. Such a person is guilty of fraud, and existing statutes have always authorized cancelation for such fraud. However, if the amendment intends, as may be gathered from its language, to subject naturalized citizens to loss of citizenship after it has been lawfully obtained, then it is not only harmful to the national interest, but a violation of the Constitution. The committee assumes that Congressman Dickstein intended, by his amendment, to help protect the United Nations from the agents of the Fascist countries who are waging war against us, Germany, Italy, and Japan; yet actually the amendment applies to all the naturalized citizens and, inferentially brands them as the source of danger which requires action by Congress. In essence, this amendment is class legislation in its most dangerous form. The House, in its zeal, has erred in assuming that the danger to our Nation requiring legislative protection comes from naturalization and not fascism. Had the House kept in mind the real source of our danger, it would never have introduced a bill which is a blow at 8,000,000 citizens who, through an accident of birth, are citizens by naturalization rather than nativity; and, as to the Fascists and fifth columnists, native and naturalized alike, who prey upon the people, the present criminal statutes are adequate to deal with them and, if found wanting, the Criminal Code is where the remedy should be applied, not the Nationality Act. If section 8 becomes law, the conduct of the naturalized citizen after naturalization would constantly be the subject of investigation. Our naturalized citizens should be free and fearless. As stated above, for any fraud in connection with becoming citizens, naturalized citizens can, as the law stands now, be deprived of their citizenship rights. Enactment of House Resolution 6250 would inaugurate an entirely different status, an inferior group of American citizens who would never be safe in that citizenship. To quote the words of Mr. Justice William O. Douglas in a speech before the San Francisco Commonwealth Club on June 20, 1941: There must not grow up in this country any second or fourth class of citizenship. There is only one class of citizenship in this country. There is no room for any inferior grade. Where one has been allowed, the result has been the downward spiral of disunity. Then hate and intolerance have been incorporated. Under those conditions, the enemies of democracy invariably have risen to power. Under those conditions, there is an insistence on a conformity which is the beginning of a disintegrating process. As long ago as 1824 it was said by Chief Justice Marshall in Osborn vs. United States Bank with reference to the naturalized citizen: He becomes a member of society possessing all the rights of a native citizen and standing in the view of the Constitution on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the National Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none. An equally important argument against this provision is its unconstitutionality. Except for the fact that he cannot be President of the United States, a naturalized citizen, once he has been legally admitted to citizenship, has the same status exactly as a native-born citizen. Congressman Dickstein, when he introduced the bill, and the House of Representatives, when it passed the bill without opposition and without a roll call, could not have realized that they were making so great and unconstitutional a departure in American law. The nature of citizenship of the United States is determined by the Federal Constitution. The essential nature of the status of citizenship cannot be determined or modified by statute. The character of citizenship is fixed by the first sentence of the first section of Article XIV of the Constitution: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. The same section of the same article of the Constitution specifically prohibits any modification of the status of United States citizenship by State statute: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States Nor can a Federal statute determine or modify the nature of the status of citizenship. The Constitution, in determining the essential character of citizenship and excluding such determinance from the power of Congress, assigns a limited field relating to the subject of citizenship, but not touching upon its essence, in which Congress is specifically authorized by the Constitution to determine by statute the practical methods of applying the fundamental principles. But these fundamental principles are determined by the Constitution alone. Any statutory influence upon the status of United States citizenship is invalid. That status having been completely determined by the Constitution, and Congress having been given a specifically limited field in which it can legislatie on the subject of citizenship, all legislation is confined within that limited field; a field that does not touch the essential character and nature of that status established by the Constitution under the term "citizenship." The essential nature of citizenship is fixed as an indivisible status of all persons who are citizens. This status is given without distinction to all persons born or naturalized in the United States. It is not said that all persons born in the United States are citizens, and added that other persons may conditionally or partially share in this status. All persons are equally citizens if born or naturalized in the United States, with one condition applicable to all, that they be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States; and there is but one kind of citizenship. As far as statutory law is concerned, citizenship is one and the same citizenship when once lawfully obtained whether by native birth or by naturalization. That concludes the statement. Senator MALONEY. Thank you. We have been extremely anxious that everyone who desires to do so may be heard. I am assuming all have been heard who said they desired an opportunity. So I guess, Mr. Smith, we may hear you now. STATEMENT OF L. M. C. SMITH, CHIEF, SPECIAL DEFENSE UNIT, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Mr. SMITH. My name is L. M. C. Smith. I am chief of the Special Defense Unit of the Department of Justice. In the first place, let me say that I am very sympathetic with the fears of those who come here to testify against this particular section |