Then in 1906, we added the English language requirement. But we did not add it until 1906. So these requirements have been adjusted over the years, but they have been constant in naturalization throughout the history. The interesting point, one of the interesting examples of adjustment: the English language, for example, was changed in 1950. Before that time, only spoken English was required. The Internal Security Act of 1950 said new citizens must demonstrate not only spoken English, but reading and writing in English as well, and the subcommittee issued a report at the time, said one reason for the change was that testimony conclusively shows an anti-American and subversive activities are more easily carried on among non-English speaking groups of aliens than among those who are thoroughly conversant with our language. We accept the English requirement as important today, but for different reasons than subcommittee articulated 46 years ago. Let me add, in broad strokes, quickly, with the panel. Do you see any reasons to change the basic naturalization requirement that have been a part of the law since the beginning of the Nation, or are those tenets still pretty good? Mr. KLUSMEYER. May I address your German example because I think it is quite instructive. Germany, for many, many years, had a highly restrictive naturalization policy. It was very difficult to become a German citizen if you were not native born, or you were not a German by culture. At the same time, they were importing guest workers, beginning in the 1950's. But the result of the requirements for citizenship were basically you had to eat, breathe, and sleep German before it was seen as an end product, as the final result of assimilation, as opposed to the American tradition which sees it as a starting point. As a result, even now, even when citizenship, or naturalization rights have been guaranteed to Turkish and other immigrants, most of them are not interested in it because they do not feel like that in acquiring citizenship they will ever be recognized as truly German. So one of the reasons I favor a much less restrictive naturalization policy is because I think in the long run, it helps to integrate groups, and the alternative to that, it seems to me, is what the Germans now have, which is a permanent sub class of aliens that will continue for generations, and has been perpetuated for generations. Senator KENNEDY. I think we have got a sub class as well in terms of that issue. We tried to deal with it with the amnesty programs a number of years ago, and we tried to sort of have a clean slate, and we are still developing it again with a lot of other kinds of problems. But that is an issue for another time. I think the very interesting point that you have made, which is that the German experience is sort of the end of the process, and the American sort of a continuing, the beginning of the pathway, is a very different concept about how we are going to do it. And I think we are looking-are we getting into a situation where it ought to be in the United States an end product? Are we committed to trying to do what the early naturalization concepts, the Founding Fathers you know, keep it in the conceptually, as a part of the path, once you know that there is a fundamental commitment toward Americanization, as has been described earlier? Let me just quickly go to two areas, but let me go to this dual citizenship issue. We have, and we have talked a little bit about the of course you have got a number of countries-as I understand it, there are 36 countries that either do not let you give up your citizenship or make it almost impossible to do so. You can make all the pledges, commitments, swear on the bibles, and all that you want, and you still cannot renounce it, at least under the other countries. I do not know how you deal with that. Maybe there is some way of dealing with it. But there are a number of countries, for example, where we have the dual citizenship. For example, many Israeli Americans maintain that. Chinese Americans. Very few, as I understand, Irish Americans. Many of the Israelis who retained Israeli citizenship served in the armies at the time of a particular conflict, and have gone back over there. So I am just wondering: Are we going to consider some of those, you know, less American than other U.S. citizens? I mean, how are we going to what is your own-I guess, Mr. Klusmeyer, you have responded on that. I do not know whether you want to say anything, quickly, because my time is up. Mr. KLUSMEYER. I do not think I have anything to add. [Letter containing a list of countries that do not permit dual citizenship follows:] THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, Washington, DC, October 22, 1996. To: Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, United States Senate In response to your recent request, attached is a list of countries, other than the United States, that generally do not permit dual citizenship. Information on exceptions, where available, is given in endnotes. The source for the list is a loose-leaf work entitled Citizenship Laws of the World: A Directory, compiled by the Office of Personnel Management's Office of Federal Investigations in 1994. It should be noted that information was not available on the following nations: Albania, Armenia, Chad, Comoros, Ethiopia, Georgia, Peru, Surinam, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. Otherwise, the countries not listed are those that do permit dual citizenship. It is hoped this information will be of use to you. Attachment COUNTRIES THAT DO NOT RECOGNIZE DUAL CITIZENSHIP Afghanistan** ***, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina* *****, Australia*** (plus naturalized citizens may retain birth country citizenship), Austria* **, Azerbaijan**, Bahamas*, Bahrain, Bangladesh**, Belarus*****, Belgium*, Belize*, Bhutan, Bolivia** ** *****, Botswana*, Brazil*, Brunei Darussalam*, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia***, Cameroon*, Chile* ** *****, China (People's Republic), Congo, Costa Rica*** *** Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic** ***, Denmark* *** Djibouti, Dominican Republic*, Ecuador** ***, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea* Estonia, Fiji, Finland* ***, Gabon, Gambia**** Germany**, Ghana*, Greece, Guatemala*****, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau*, Guyana***, Haiti*, Iceland (exception for child of one citizen and one citizen of another country), India, Indonesia, Iran* ***, Iraq, Japan*, Kazakhstan*****, Kenya*, Kiribati, Korea, North (except citizens who ** *** go abroad sometimes still considered citizens by government), Korea, South, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic*****, Laos, Latvia (except those forced to leave after June 17, 1947 and their descendants), Lesotho, Liberia*, Libya, Lithuania (except those forced to leave from June 15, 1940 to Mar. 11, 1990), Luxembourg, Madagascar* Malawi*, Malaysia*, Mali****, Malta* **, Marshall, Islands*, Mauritania** *** Mexico*, Micronesia, Moldova**, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique*, Namibia*, Nauru***, Nepal, Netherlands* ***, Nicaragua*****, Niger, Norway* **, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama*, Papua New Guinea*, Philippines* ***, Poland, Qatar, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia***, Seychelles** ***, Sierra Leone, Singapore*, Slovenia****, Solomon Islands, Spain*****, Sri Lanka**, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden* ** Taiwan, Tanzania* *** Thailand*, Tonga, Uganda*, Ukraine*****, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu*, Venezuela*, Vietnam, Western Samoa*, Yemen, Zaire*, Zimbabwe * Child of citizens born abroad who obtains the citizenship of the country of birth may retain dual citizenship until becoming an adult. At that time, usually must choose one. **In special circumstances, dual citizenship may be arranged. *** Dual citizenship acquired through marriage may be retained. **** Law under review and may be changed. ***** Under reciprocal agreements, dual citizenship in certain countries may be retained. For many Latin American countries the agreements are with each other and with Spain. For former Soviet Union countries, agreements may be with each other. Compiled by Constance A. Johnson, Legal Research Analyst, Legal Research Directorate, Law Library of Congress, October 1996. Source: Citizenship Laws of the World: A Directory, Office of Personnel Management, 1994. INTERNATIONAL CITIZENSHIP LAWS VOLUNTARY LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP NOT PERMITTED Zambia-loss not permitted only if individual will be left stateless Syria-renunciation is technically permitted, but process is so complicated that for all practical purposes it is impossible to lose citizenship VOLUNTARY LOSS NOT PERMITTED TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS Cyprus, Estonia, Afghanistan LOSS REQUIRES PRESIDENTIAL DECREE, APPLICATION TO A MINISTRY OR Botswana, Burundi, Congo, Senegal, Togo, Zaire, Cuba, Haiti, Jamaica, Laos, North Korea, Greece, Egypt, İran, Jordan, Maldives, Tunisia (these decrees are reported to be routine) RENUNCIATION MUST BE MADE IN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN Sengal, Sierra Leone, Zaire, Argentina (renunciation must also be accepted by Argentine government), Dominican Republic, Haiti, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Luxembourg LONG DELAYS ANTICIPATED IN PROCESS Brazil 6 months to 1 year and proof of naturalization in another country RENUNCIATION CONTINGENT UPON FULFILLMENT OF COMPLEX REQUIREMENTS China, Vietnam, Andorra, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Iran, Irag (renunciation of citizenship does not absolve person of duties and obligations to Iraq), Austria, Cro atia Senator KENNEDY. All right. Mr. FONTE. I would say a word on that. There may be some instances where it is in the national interest for people to have even dual citizenship. I think some American citizens served in Eastern European-I remember one minister was the Minister of Defense or something in Estonia, in the new regime. So there may be particular circumstances, there may be family circumstances. But as a general rule, I think it is something we should limit. I think that is the question. You asked broad strokes, what should be our general conceptual overview? As a broad conceptual issue, I think dual citizenship is something we do not want to expand, we want to keep limited. And what can we do about other countries? People can give up their passports. So we can reject the dual nationality proposal of Mexico, and perhaps say people should not have to have a Mexican passport, and we consider the renunciation legitimate for us. So that should hold fast. Senator KENNEDY. Just finally, Professor Harrison, one of the points I have trouble in accepting in the presentation is in your assessment in terms of the political realities in Central and South America, and the dictatorships. Of course over the period of recent years, there has been a significant movement toward democracy. You know, if you accept that as a concept, that people have grown up in those kinds of cultures, have really been willing, that is their orientation, and therefore, that can lead to situations, as they say, well, we may not be prepared to accept those that come from those traditions, so that we will not accept people from those particular areas, or countries. I must say, I am rather startled about it, particularly when you see what has happened in the world in the last 30 or 40 years. I mean, the Communists take over Eastern Europe, and the indoctrination of the Communists in that part of the world, many of them without the benefits of even the rudimentary concepts of Western political thought, and the extraordinary rise of interest in the development of the Western political thought. Most of our constitutional authorities, up in our part of the world, are spending all their time in Eastern Europe drafting constitutions over there, and an awful lot of them replicate the United States and still have not been effective. I grant you that. But I think for the most part so many of those that come here come to escape those conditions and come here because they believe in a different sort of concept. Hopefully, they will do it legally. That is what we are interested in. But I have difficulty in thinking that just because, necessarily, people have grown into the period of exploitation, or particular forms of Government, that that necessarily would reflect itself on whether they could be committed to the fundamental concepts and principles of the Constitution. Mr. HARRISON. I would certainly not say that there should be no immigration from such areas. In the areas themselves, as you have just pointed out, there is change. It is very late. We are at the end of the 20th century. But even in this respect, the political respect, Senator, there is evidence in the United States that Hispanics tend to register—this is Hispanic citizens tend to register less and tend to vote less. I believe that that is, as is the case with the high school dropout, and the other disconcerting evidence of lack of acculturation, something to ponder when the flow is so large. The principal country of origin of immigrants into our society is Mexico. This is why my third general observation was that we should be very mindful of the acculturation issue as we consider the levels of immigration. Senator KENNEDY. Well, so do young people who have the poorest record of voting in the United States, of any group. It is the younger people, that have all gone through our schools, and gone through our colleges, and have allegedly been indoctrinated with governmental concepts and principles. Their voting is low. Mr. HARRISON. That is another kind of problem, and I agree with you that it exists, and it is troublesome. Senator KENNEDY. Thank you. Senator SIMPSON. You sound like a chairman there. Getting right with it, are you not? No, no. No, no, Ted. It is not going to happen. Senator KENNEDY. We are going to have to wait a while, are we? Senator SIMPSON. That is right. Senator KENNEDY. We have got to wait a while? [Laughter.] Senator SIMPSON. But let me just ask a few questions and then we will wind up this panel. I think this is just exactly what we are seeking. These are tough issues. Dr. Klusmeyer, would Germany recognize a renunciation of foreign allegiance if that renunciation is not recognized by the foreign country? Mr. KLUSMEYER. Germany does not recognize dual citizenship. I do not know, in terms of the specifics, but one of the reasons- -a big reason that Turks, even those that have been born and raised, and educated in German schools, do not acquire German citizenship, is because they are not allowed to retain their citizenship in Turkey, and lose inheritance rights, et cetera. Senator SIMPSON. Well, we went through all that with the guest worker debate, and the education of this country as to guest work ers. But should dual citizens be required to make a choice? Just say, "Here you are, you make a choice." Mr. KLUSMEYER. How are you going to enforce that, sir? Senator SIMPSON. I do not know. I am just asking the question, should they be required to make a choice? Mr. KLUSMEYER. I think that if you require them to make a choice, you are simply going to perpetuate a fiction, because, you know, you require them to give up their passports. If their countries of origin are willing to issue new passports, there is no way you can stop it. This is why I sort of see it as a non-issue. If you cannot stop it, what are we talking about? Senator SIMPSON. Well, it will not be a non-issue if the Government of Mexico decides, in their law, what they are talking about. Then we will see what happens. Then it will not be a non-issue at all. Throughout my 18 years here, I have always heard from the Mexican parliamentarians-you mind your own business and we will mind ours. That has been a very interesting part of this. But that is not always the case. When we have dealt with some very, very difficult situations, we have even had the Mexican Senate passing resolutions, which if we had done that in this country, they would have been assuredly offended. |