NATURALIZATION REQUIREMENTS AND THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF CITIZENSHIP TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1996 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Alan K. Simpson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Also present: Senator Kennedy. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN K. SIMPSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING Senator SIMPSON. The hearing will come to order. This will be, I think, the last subcommittee hearing in the Senate in this session. I am very pleased that those who will follow, Democrat and Republican alike, will take a great interest in this issue. It will be done in a bipartisan way, just as Senator Kennedy and I have tried to do for 18 years together, and I feel have. Our staffs have worked together closely through the years. It is not a partisan issue, and it cannot be. It is an American issue. And it is a tough one. So it is good to have you here. We have a fine group of witnesses, and look forward to some very credible testimony. During the periods I have been Chairman, totaling about 8 years, we have held several dozen hearings, but I cannot recall an incident where we had three witnesses who were scheduled but then were unable to attend. Yet that is what happened this time and it is too bad. Yet each cancellation was necessary. Yesterday, not one, but three called to say they could not participate. Professor Larry Fuchs of Brandeis University, who was as many of you know, Executive Director of the Select Committee Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy and who is now cochair of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, is ill, and could not be with us today. Professor Nathan Glaser of Harvard has a lot of water in his basement in Cambridge. You may have seen the television record of the tremendous flooding in Boston. He could not be with us as a result of the storm. Richard Estrada of the Dallas Morning News, and the Commission on Immigration Reform, is traveling on a commission trip. His scheduled departure was advanced 1 day, which prevented him 41-503 97-9 from being here this morning. We shall miss their contributions. Nevertheless, we have an excellent panel and an important issue to examine. Senator Kennedy is with us. There is no water in your basement in Cambridge, is there? You escaped? Senator KENNEDY. We had it all down in Cape Cod. Senator SIMPSON. Boy, it really was something, was it not? Senator SIMPSON. Indeed, there was. Well, let me just make a few remarks and then go to Senator Kennedy. Citizenship is in the news, in part because of the unprecedented number of immigrants who have recently applied for naturalization, and unprecedented numbers actually becoming citizens. It has been claimed about many of those who have naturalized, that they appear to lack an understanding of ordinary English, and have little knowledge and understanding of the inspiring history of the United States of America, or the principles and form of Government of this country. It has also been claimed that many have now decided to become U.S. citizens only because they believe they would be able to retain their original nationality as well. Some have asserted that a large part of the recent increase has been motivated more by concern about the loss of various kinds of economic and immigration benefits than by a desire to become members of the American political community, and thereby acquire the right to vote, and other precious political rights of U.S. citizenship and more generally, to become a part of the Nation they love, a Nation, a people, to wish they wish to make a permanent commitment. I do not know how much of that is true, but I find it profoundly disturbing that any of those claims might indeed be true. If these things are happening, citizenship is being seriously devalued, to our peril, and even more to the peril of our children and grandchildren. I do not think it is too much to say that America's future depends on the survival of our political institutions, and the wise exercise of legitimate power in the national interest, by officials at all levels of Government. Yet both of these-survival of political institutions and wise exercise of Government power-rest, ultimately, on the possession by U.S. citizens of traditional American values, including freedom and democracy, as these have been traditionally understood, here, in our land. It is my feeling and I have said this-that American citizenship is more precious than any other status a man or woman can have. Why is that? Because not only does it guarantee membership in the society that offers the most political and civil liberty of any Nation, in any stream of history, and the opportunity to participate in choosing the Government, and therefore, in crafting the laws that will help shape its future. In addition, it provides the immense emotional satisfaction of being part of a Nation with a very special and wonderful history, full history, filled with great accomplishments, a Nation that has contributed so much to the world in so many ways. But all of that is not inevitable. As much as any of us may have our own view of this beautiful land, we all know that nothing in America's physical environment is magical. There are no mystic vapors that rise from the earth to cause all who breathe it to acquire all the values and qualities that must be present in some critical mass of people if, that is, we are to keep intact our political institutions, and, indeed, retain the aspects of our national character that have contributed not only to the stability and effectiveness of our Government, but the successes we have enjoyed in so many areas of endeavor. No, all of the needed values and virtues must be learned, and learned by each person, individually. So it is in the national interest, I feel, that immigrants acquire the allegiance, the emotional ties, the English-speaking ability, the understanding and the valuing of our political institutions before they are naturalized. For otherwise, the votes they cast and the decisions they make as government office holders may move this Nation toward policies that have been found so destructive for the countries from which most of such immigrants have left, seeking a better life. In this hearing, I would hope we can cover at least three general questions. They would be: Should current naturalization requirements be changed? No. 2, When should dual citizenship be allowed? And No. 3, What should be the difference in rights and privileges between citizens and permanent resident aliens? With respect to that first issue, should there be an increase or a decrease in the required level of English language ability, or knowledge and understanding of U.S. history and Government? Do the current requirements under present day conditions result in immigrants naturalizing, and therefore, obtaining the precious right to vote, under circumstances in which they can reasonably be relied upon to exercise this right in a way that is consistent with our traditional political values, and thus in accord with, “the national interest"? Should there be any change in the period of residence in the United States required before an immigrant may naturalize? Is the current 3-year period required for spouses of citizens, or the 5 years required of others-is that appropriate, an appropriate period? Are these sufficient for the development of the emotional ties to America, the political allegiance, and the assimilation—and yes, "assimilation" is the word I would use, the word used in the work of Barbara Jordan, bless her, discussed that as to the assimilation of American political values that should exist before the political rights of citizenship are granted. Then, if we could touch briefly on dual citizenship. When should that status be permitted? Should naturalization require the transfer of full political allegiance to the United States and thus renunciation of all foreign allegiances? What if that renunciation is not recognized by the relevant foreign Government? How could such an immigrant demonstrate that he or she will transfer full political allegiance to this country? It does seem to me that an essential part of the difference between citizens and aliens, and one of the most important reasons we should not allow aliens to vote, is political allegiance. An alien, by definition, owes political allegiance to a foreign state. If an alien may become a citizen of the United States, without giving up his or her former citizenship it surely appears there will be a vivid risk of conflicting loyalties, and I think that that deserves our attention. Would they take too much into account the interests of the country of their alternative nationality, perhaps even doing so if it were harmful to the interests of the United States? And finally, with regard to the third issue, differences between the rights and privileges of citizens, and that of permanent resident aliens, should such differences be confined to the political realm, such as the right to vote or hold public office, or other Government employment? Or should there also be differences in other areas, such as eligibility to apply for welfare, or petition for relatives to immigrate? Do differences in nonpolitical areas provided undesirable kinds of incentives for naturalization? Is it in the national interest for immigrants to seek U.S. citizenship for a principal reason that they can apply for benefits, or bring in members of their family under family reunification? So, we will ask our able witnesses to share with the subcommittee their views on each of these three areas-naturalization requirements, dual citizenship, the rights and privileges of citizens compared to permanent resident aliens. I hope each of you would describe your views on these particular questions, not only your conclusions, but your reasoning, principles that you believe should determine how these questions relating to the "meaning of citizenship," should be answered. When should we allow the citizen of another country to join our political community and thereby obtain a right equal to that of every adult citizen already here to be part of determining the laws, the policies, and the leaders that will be so influential in determining what kind of country the United States of America will be in the future? And what rights and privileges should be perhaps withheld before they take the step of naturalizing? Those are fundamental issues that we might explore this morning. You will note that we will not focus on the issue of a constitutional amendment providing that U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are not citizens at birth. That will be the subject, I am sure, of a great deal of debate later, and, I suppose, litigation. But I do thank you for your presence. I now recognize the ranking member. This will be our last hurrah, and then I will not only disappear from the scene, but he will have taken Bob Dole off the program of face-off, and me off the program of face-off. Lord knows what rampaging will go on in the future in that forum. But it has been a good run with a good friend, and I have enjoyed him, immensely. STAEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned, the chambers of the Senate are quiet, and the hearing rooms are quiet, but Senator Simpson is still pursing responsibilities that he has as the Chairman of this important committee, and dealing with an informational hearing this morning on some of the most basic and fundamental issues, where many people are out, I am sure, making a lot of speeches about today. But I think having at least this forum to address some of these issues is really in the best traditions of our legislative body and this committee. So I thank him for his leadership, and also for focusing on these issues here today. These issues go to the heart of what it means to be an American. Naturalization requirements are designed to ensure that new citizens are prepared to accept not only the benefits but the responsibilities of citizenship. The Constitution itself gives Congress the power to establish uniform rules on naturalization, and the 14th amendment made clear that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens. There are no second-class Americans. So today's naturalization requirements have their roots in our earliest history. The requirement that immigrants must reside in the United States for 5 years before they qualify for citizenship was proposed by Thomas Jefferson, and has been the law for most of the past two centuries. The requirements of "good moral character" and commitment to the Constitution have existed almost as long. These time-honored provisions on naturalization-belief in democracy, respect for the rights and freedoms of all Americans, and commitment to this country-have helped make us the great Nation that we are today, and serve as guideposts for the future. New citizens in Massachusetts recently participated-as a matter of fact, last night-it's kind of timely and interesting, and I will not read all of it. But just last evening, five immigrants who have made a significant public contribution to Massachusetts received an Award at the second annual Governor's ceremony, American appreciation at a ceremony last night in the Sheraton Boston Hotel. They included Maria Dominguez. In 1973, at age 22, Dominguez escaped Castro's Cuba by boat with other refugees, was accepted as a political refugee, and became a citizen in 1989. She had not seen her family in Cuba for 18 years. Dominguez taught herself English, found work, and eventually graduated, summa cum laude, in sociology from Boston University. She has worked at the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children since 1987. Her recommender has said Dominguez has improved the work of the society, measurably, across the State, by reaching underserved and unserved groups. Antonia Friesz, born in Portugal, the Portuguese Azores, the oldest of 17 children. Friesz came to the country in 1955, and 10 years later took charge of a small concrete company, turned it into the largest subcontractor of concrete floors in the East. S&F Concrete Contractors employs 485 workers, and grosses more than $25 million, and continues to be the principal contractor in many of the places in Boston. Friesz helped to establish major league soccer in the country, and worked to make Boston a venue for the 1994 World Cup Soccer. |