Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. It seems to me it is separate and distinct. Mr. FLOURNOY. I want to make it clear to the Labor Department that I am not trying to spring any surprises, but I am trying to get a good code.

Mr. REES. Whether it is a surprise or not we will give you an opportunity to present it. If you want to surprise anybody you can put it over me more than you can anybody else on this committee.

My notion is we should try to work out something that is satisfactory as to all questions raised by the War Department.

Mr. FLOURNOY. Mr. Riley says it was discussed 2 or 3 years ago. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. When I said for the first time, I meant currently.. Mr. FLOURNOY. I am not insisting on forcing this through in a hurry at all, but I think it ought to be considered.

Mr. RILEY. I think we ought to work out something on the Hawaiian situation.

Mr. FLOURNOY. It does not relate only to Hawaii, but it relates to all countries.

Mr. RILEY. It conflicts now with two statutes which make it possible for firms with persons in their employ who have signified their intention of becoming American citizens without having them lose any rights by the declaration of intention.

Mr. REES. AS I understand it, the Departments probably can be brought into accord, or if not in accord, without objection to the amendment as offered by the War Department.

Colonel CRAWFORD. I understand so, as we have presented it to the recorder.

Mr. REES. There is no objection on the part of anyone, as I understand it, to that particular amendment.

Mr. FLOURNOY. No objection, no.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Who is to draft that, do you know?

Colonel CRAWFORD. I read it in the record, and I can recopy it and give you all copies.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. All right.

Colonel CRAWFORD. I will have this typed up and see that all of these gentlemen present get a copy of it.

Mr. REES. Then if there is objection on the part of any Department to that we will have it rather concisely and we will see if we can iron those objections out.

Colonel CRAWFORD. I think we are pretty much in accord with that provision, sir.

Mr. FLOURNOY. Mr. Chairman, there is one other very important thing, and that is a provision of section 401 (a) where a person loses nationality by obtaining naturalization in a foreign country upon his own application or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person.

I understand Mr. Henry F. Butler has suggested the omission of the last part of that completely all through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person.

I foresaw that proposal would be made in view of the Supreme Court's decision in the Elg case, and to take care of that I suggest, unless we are going to let it stand as it is, instead of omitting that last part entirely that we add "and provided that in the latter case the person naturalized fails to take up a permanent residence in the United States before reaching the age of 22 years."

A great many Americans naturalized abroad are naturalized in that way. The family moves back and the children are naturalized in the foreign country with the parent.

Mr. REES. Mr. Butler is here, and we will have him listen to your discussion. Bring him in.

(Mr. Henry F. Butler thereupon entered the room.)

Mr. REES. We are discussing on page 81, chapter 4, which relates somewhat to your amendment.

Mr. FLOURNOY. I got it through the Department of Labor that there is a proposal to omit all reference to naturalization of a minor or of a person in a foreign country during minority through the naturalization of a parent, so that such a person, even though he would remain in the country the rest of his life as a citizen of that country would still remain a citizen of the United States.

A large proportion of Americans who have been naturalized in foreign countries have been naturalized in just that way. We cannot take exception to it because a large proportion in this country are naturalized through their parents. Surely, we are not going to do anything in this code toward questioning the nationality of persons naturalized through their parents if they remain here. We have the duty of protecting those people. There have been a number of cases on that.

We have insisted in our representations to the foreign countries that these people are just as good citizens as those naturalized upon their own petitions.

Furthermore, among our naturalization treaties there are express provisions covering these cases that cover both cases, persons naturalized on petition, and those naturalized under their parents. I have prepared a memorandum on that.

But there is nothing in the Elg decision which would be contrary to the provision that a person naturalized in a foreign country during minority and remaining in that foreign country after attaining his majority would lose his American citizenship. On the contrary, the whole draft of that, as I read the opinion in that case, the conclusion is based upon the fact that the young woman-I think within 8 months after reaching her majority-came back here at will, and I think Mr. Butler surely knows that case. She came back as a case of election.

So it seems we ought to have something in here so that children of naturalized parents who choose to remain in a foreign country indefinitely, should lose their citizenship. If we do not we are simply multiplying the cases of dual nationality.

I have written a memorandum, and I do not want to read it all now, but I would like to present it.

The proposal I make, Mr. Chairman, is on the last page. The first part of it is the argument.

Mr. REES (reading):

A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, either upon his own application or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person, provided that in the latter case the person naturalized fails to take up a permanent residence in the United States before reaching the age of 23 years.

Mr. FLOURNOY. The drafting of that might be improved. I think the intent is pretty clear there.

Mr. REES. In other words, if he obtains naturalization in a foreign state he loses his citizenship?

Mr. FLOURNOY. If he remains there until he reaches the age of 22 years; yes. He has to come here after reaching his majority and make up his mind whether he should be an American. Then, if he does, he should come back to this country.

This is not any surprise. I spoke to several members of the Department of Labor yesterday, and I gathered from their remarks that they saw no objection to that. You might want to ask them.

Mr. REES. What about the Department of Labor on this?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Do you want to hear Mr. Butler on this first, or not?

Mr. HENRY F. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I had not heard of this subject until this moment, so I did not even know what the argument was until you read the suggestion that a child lose its citizenship through naturalization of a parent provided, as I understand it, he does not return to this country within 1 year after attaining majority. Mr. FLOURNOY. That is the substance of it.

Mr. HENRY F. BUTLER. Am I correct in understanding that such a person would not lose his citizenship during his minority?

Mr. FLOURNOY. That is the intention; yes.

Mr. HENRY F. BUTLER. In other words, it is the desire that such person make an election within a year after attaining 21?

Mr. FLOURNOY. That is it. And, as I understand, that is in accord with the Chief Justice's opinion in the Elg case.

Mr. HENRY F. BUTLER. And that will not be retroactive?

Mr. FLOURNOY. No.

Mr. HENRY F. BUTLER. Of course, that does not have the same objection that 401 (a) has, under which the child would lose citizenship during minority, and I would rather hear the others before saying anything.

Right offhand, I do not see any particular objection to that if the Congress decides we will require citizens to make an election when they acquire dual nationality. That appears to be a matter of policy. Down to the present time I do not think they have been required to make an election. In some cases the statute law has been construed as requiring an election. This would definitely require an election. Mr. REES. That is right.

Mr. HENRY F. BUTLER. I would rather say nothing until I have heard the Labor Department.

Mr. REES. But, as I understand it, Mr. Butler, you did raise the objection with reference to protection of these persons until they had reached the age of majority, did you not?

Mr. HENRY F. BUTLER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

My thesis is the minor children during the years when they cannot protect themselves should not be deprived of their citizenship. Mr. REES. Yes.

Mr. HENRY F. BUTLER. And I assume also he will be entitled to protection during his minority if he takes whatever steps are requested. Mr. REES. That is right. You are not prepared to state whether or not you would go so far as to favor that he assert his right of citizenship after he is 21?

65495-45- -11

Mr. HENRY F. BUTLER. I would rather defer any statement on that. I do not vehemently object.

Mr. REES. All right.

Colonel LLEWELLYN. Mr. Chairman, this seems to be a matter in which the War Department is not concerned. May we be excused? Mr. REES. Yes, sir; that is all right. We appreciate your kindness in coming here. What about the Department of Justice?

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, this question first arose, I think, several years ago, in the case of a young woman named Tobiassen, born in the United States, and her father was a naturalized citizen of the United States, and he came originally from Norway or Sweden, but it was Norway, I believe. So he became dissatisfied with conditions in the United States and he took his entire family back to Norway. Under the law over there and the treaties, he regained his Norway citizenship, and that included the citizenship of the members of his family, including this little Tobiassen girl.

When she was 18 years of age she came back to the United States and took up citizenship. The question arose between the State and Labor Departments, and eventually the Department of Justice, whether she had lost her citizenship in Norway. Finally the Attorney General came in and said the little Tobiassen girl had lost her citizenship in Norway, notwithstanding the fact she came here to the United States and took up her residence. It arose by reason of her desire to go back on a visit to Norway.

Then a question came up on the west coast. The court there followed the Attorney General's opinion, and it remained in that condition until the famous Elg case until the Chief Justice held the child did not lose citizenship by reason of a parent's residence abroad.

I think the purpose and thought of Mr. Henry F. Butler is either strike out that which conforms to the Supreme Court's decision in the Elg case, or whether we should adopt what Brother Flournoy has said and protect those people until they are 22, which seems to have a great deal of merit if the child comes back as a citizen of the United States before 22.

Mr. REES. He has to come back before 22?

Mr. BUTLER. Yes; before 22. You will recall in the Tobiassen case the little girl came back at 18.

Mr. FLOURNOY. In that memorandum I quote several statements of the Chief Justice in his opinion in the Elg case, which seem to me to be directly in line with the decision in that other case. In other words, his opinion was that the child should have citizenship until 21, and then if the child wanted to take citizenship he can indicate it. Mr. REES. What is the attitude of the Department of Labor? Mr. SHOEMAKER. You were present at that conference yesterday, and I was not.

Mr. HAZARD. It was not mentioned.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. I just spoke to Mr. Riley a while ago, and his views are somewhat along mine. He has no objection as long as it safeguards us. I do not see any objection to it either.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Mr. Chairman, we talked that over last evening with Mr. Flournoy, and we feel that the child should have 2 years after attaining his majority, and we would have no objection to making it 2 years.

Mr. REES. Why make it 2 years?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. He cannot speak for himself until he is 21. The European child is much more under the domination of the parents than American children. Of course, it is quite a momentous decision to make. And after 2 years he is a little bit more mature at 23 than at 22. Of course, any age is arbitrary.

Mr. BUTLER. Do you think that would be better?

Mr. FLOURNOY. The main thing is to have a provision of this kind. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Would you object to 2 years?

Mr. FLOURNOY. I would rather have 1 year. But if the committee thinks it more reasonable to make it 2 years, then it is all right. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. How about you, Mr. Butler?

Mr. BUTLER. We are in accord with it.

Mr. HENRY F. BUTLER. I think it would be reasonable.

Mr. REES. Do you have any objection, Mr. Butler?

Mr. HENRY F. BUTLER. NO; I am inclined to agree with that. It also brings back the idea to provide some means of speedy repatriation of these people. I feel every provision we make for expatriation makes more necessary some provision for speedy repatriation. I simply want to say that in passing.

Mr. REES. And do you have any suggestions to offer along that line? Mr. HENRY F. BUTLER. I offered them the other day. I won't repeat them.

Mr. REES. Then we have those before us.

Now, are there any further proposals here by any of the Departments, or by anyone?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Mr. Hazard, do you not want to discuss those matters Mr. Butler brought up?

Mr. HENRY F. BUTLER. On the proviso under (h) making it 21 years of age instead of 18, that is practically consistent with the amendments we have been discussing.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. The War Department took objection to that. What we are mentioning, Mr. Chairman, is group 2, subdivision (h), on page 82, "that no national under 18 years of age can expatriate himself under subsections (b) to (g)," inclusive.

Some discussion was had the other day to raise the age to 21 years so that a minor could not expatriate himself. The War Department, however, objected to that. As I recall it, Mr. Flournoy, they wanted to reduce it to 17.

Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Because they said they believed that was the military age of the Japanese Army, but they said they would not hold out for it at all.

Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. And we did not go into it any further as to the discussion, as I recall.

Do you have any definite views on it, Mr. Butler? It was your suggested amendment.

Mr. HENRY F. BUTLER. It was my suggested amendment that under subsection (h), proviso 2, on page 8, "that no national under 18 years of age can expatriate himself" under subsections (b) to (g), I think, inclusive.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes; because (f) has been deleted.

« ZurückWeiter »