Chapter V, Miscellaneous, in addition to the provision of section 501, mentioned above, contains a provision (sec. 502) for the issuance of certificates of nationality, for use in foreign states in cases of American nationals other than naturalized citizens.

The most important changes in the existing laws proposed in the annexed code are as follows:

(1) The provision of section 201 (g) requiring that, in order that a person born abroad may acquire citizenship of the United States at birth when only one of his parents is a citizen of the United States, the latter must have resided 10 years in the United States. The requirement of the existing law concerning residence in the United States as a condition to retention of citizenship has been modified for the benefit of children of persons representing the Government or American commercial or other interests;

(2) The provisions of chapter III concerning the facilitating of naturalization under special conditions, and in particular the following:

The provision of section 311 for the naturalization, without prior residence in the United States, of the alien spouse of a citizen of the United States residing abroad in the employment of this Government or of organizations of certain specified classes;

The provision of section 314 for the naturalization of a person under 18 years of age upon the petition of a citizen parent, and the similar provision of section 315 for the naturalization of an adopted child;

The provision of section 317 for facilitating the entry into the United States and naturalization, without the usual requirements concerning residence in the United States, of a person who was formerly a citizen of the United States but who became expatriated while residing in a foreign country through the naturalization of a parent therein;

(3) The provisions of chapter IV concerning loss of nationality, especially the following:

The provisions of section 402 concerning loss of nationality by a naturalized citizen as a result of the following acts:

(a) Residing for at least 2 years in the territory of a foreign state of which he was formerly a national or in which the place of his birth is situated, if he acquires through such residence the nationality of such foreign state by operation of the law thereof;

(b) Residing continuously for 3 years in the territory of a foreign state of which he was formerly a national or in which the place of his birth is situated, except as provided in section 404 hereof.

Special mention may also be made of the provision in section 337 of the code for the revocation of naturalization in the case of a person who takes up a permanent residence in his native land or some other foreign country within 10 years (instead of 5 years, as provided in the existing law) after the date of his naturalization.

The problem of the child born abroad to parents of different nationalities was the subject of extended consideration by the committee and finally resulted in the draft of section 201 (g) referred to above which confers American citizenship at birth upon a person born abroad if one of his parents is an American citizen. Prior to the Citizenship Act of May 24, 1934, only the children of American fathers acquired citizenship at birth if they were born abroad. This, however, was changed by the 1934 act so that a woman retaining citizenship after marriage to an alien also transmitted citizenship to her children. In enacting this measure Congress apparently took into consideration the fact that persons born in foreign countries whose fathers were nationals of those countries would be likely to have stronger ties with the foreign country than with the United States, and consequently annexed as a condition for retaining citizenship a 5-year period of residence in this country between the ages of 13 and 18. This condition was equally applicable irrespective of whether the citizen parent was a father or a mother.

It has been recognized, however, that these residence requirements will impose great hardship in some cases. This is especially true where the head of the family is a salaried person residing abroad as a representative of the American Government or some American commercial or other organization. The committee has therefore recommended that in cases of this character the conditions relating to residence during minority shall no longer be imposed. If the citizen parent does not represent the American Government or an American educational, scientific, philanthropic, religious, commercial, or financial organization, the foreign-born child, in order to retain American citizenship, is re

quired under section 201 (g) to reside in the United States 5 years between his thirteenth and his twenty-first birthdays. The committee recommends strengthening the 1934 act in another respect, however, by restricting the right of transmitting citizenship in a case of this kind, through the requirement that the citizen parent should have resided at least 10 years in the United States prior to the birth of the child.

Mention is made above of section 317 of the code. While probably the majority of former American nationals who have been naturalized in foreign states through the naturalization of their parents therein continue to reside in such foreign states, some of them return to the United States to reside, and it seems only reasonable to adopt special provisions to enable the latter to recover their American citizenship if they so desire.

None of the various provisions in the code concerning loss of American nationality, such as those applicable to children born abroad to parents only one of whom has American nationality and persons who, after obtaining American nationality through naturalization, establish a residence abroad, is designed to be punitive or to interfere with freedom of action. They are merely intended to deprive persons of American nationality when such persons, by their own acts, or inaction, show that their real attachment is to the foreign country and not to the United States.

Important reasons for terminating American nationality in cases of persons who reside in foreign countries and have to all intents and purposes abandoned the United States lie in the fact that it will prevent them from transmitting American nationality to their foreign-born children having little or no connection with the United States, and embroiling this Government in controversies which they may have with the governments of the foreign countries in which they reside. The mere presumption of expatriation provided for in section 2 of the act of March 2, 1907, in cases of naturalized citizens residing for 2 years in the foreign states from which they came or 5 years in other foreign states, has proven inadequate. In general the right to protection should be coexistent with citizenship, and a law under which persons residing abroad are denied the protection of this Government, although they remain citizens of the United States, and transmit citizenship to children born abroad, is deemed inconsistent and unreasonable. The admission of an alien to the privilege of American citizenship is subject to the condition that he intends to reside permanently in the United States and perform the duties of citizenship. When a naturalized citizen abandons his residence in the United States and takes up residence in the state of which he was formerly a national, definite termination of his American citizenship should follow.

Further explanations of the various provisions of the code submitted herewith may be found in the comment on the various articles--appendix 1 herewith. In addition to the code and appendix 1, we also submit herewith the following: Provisions of the code and corresponding provisions of the existing nationality laws, arranged in parallel columns (appendix 2), and constitutional, statutory, and treaty provisions relating to nationality (appendix 3).

Your committee, in the light of the experience of the interested departments in handling cases presented to them for action, is convinced that it is most desirable to have the nationality laws of the United States revised, and embodied in a single code, the meaning of which may be readily understood. We feel that there is no branch of the law of more importance to the country, or requiring more careful attention, than that branch which governs nationality, determining, as it does, what classes of persons shall compose the national society itself.

The proposals contained in the accompanying draft code are to be regarded merely as suggestions for the use of the appropriate committees of Congress. When the matter is to be considered by these committees, the undersigned will be glad to designate members of their respective departments whose duties involve the handling of citizenship cases to confer with the committees, if that is desired.

Respectfully,

CORDELL HULL,

Secretary of State. HOMER CUMMINGS,

Attorney General.

FRANCES PERKINS,
Secretary of Labor.

Enclosures: Draft Nationality Code and appendixes 1, 2, and 3, as above.

The CHAIRMAN. It would be unfair for me to pass by an introduction to H. R. 6127 and merely call it up. I therefore want to make a brief statement in regard to this important piece of legislation that has been before this committee for some time and has been before the country for over 5 years.

I want to say this, that the gentleman representing the minority side here, Mr. Rees, is to be complimented for his patience and teamwork and for his understanding, and so ably representing the committee in the preparation of this document, and I do not mind testifying to that personally.

Now you may proceed, Mr. Rees.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD H. REES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS

Mr. REES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the statement made by the chairman of our committee. I certainly do not want to take any credit for myself for any of the work that has been done in connection with the Nationality Code.

We have, however, during the past several weeks held sessions and taken evidence with a view of working out, if possible, a codification of the immigration and naturalization laws and providing amendments to the present law that, in the judgment of the subcommittee, would be of interest and benefit to the people of this country, and would especially make a more workable law than we now have.

Right here I do want to state to the committee, Mr. Chairman, that the State Department, the Labor Department, and the Department of Justice, as well as the War Department, have been most helpful and to these men who have appeared here today expressing their views on this code is due the credit.

Now I think the chairman knows more about the history of this proposition than I do, but as he has suggested, through a period of 4 or 5 years or more a group of men representing the Department of Justice, the Department of State, the Department of Labor, together with representatives of the American Bar Association, and some others, have worked out and submitted to this committee a proposed code. You have before you H. R. 6127, which is the result of their work. Then, after H. R. 6127 was submitted, the subcommittee proposed a number of amendments to that bill.

The State Department is here; the Labor Department is represented. I do not know whether the Department of Justice is represented here this morning or not.

Mr. WARREN. I do not think so.

Mr. REES. Mr. Butler is here representing the American Bar Association.

Mr. BUTLER. No; I am a member of that committee, but I am representing the National Council on Naturalization and Citizenship. Mr. REES. I should have said that Mr. Butler has appeared here representing his group and has testified and submitted briefs on this bill.

All I want to say is this, that I think we have agreed on a proposed code with the exception of probably two propositions that are still open. We have the viewpoint on one question here of the State Department and the viewpoint of the Department of Labor on the other, and I think the Department of Justice joins with the Department of Labor—if I am wrong they may correct me-and these two propositions will have to be worked out by the committee, and we are going to submit it to the committee.

Mr. MASON. In other words, the committee will have to be the umpire on the differences of opinion between the Department of State and the Department of Labor.

Mr. REES. That is correct. Now then, to bring this up properly, I think it would not be out of order if we would present those particular questions and then I will be glad to go through the whole code with the committee and explain as near as I can what the features are that are different from the present law, but I think we might submit those two questions first at this point.

Mr. MASON. Those are the only two points in which there is a difference of opinion.

Mr. REES. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. While we are going through this procedure, so that we do not have to go through it again, it seems to me first that the subcommittee now reports to the whole committee on H. R. 6127 with certain sundry amendments which the subcommittee now recommends to the committee that the amendments be considered and that the committee in its daily sessions then proceed to hear the two vital questions for which the committee should be the umpire and dispose of them as we go along and that we should hear the arguments of both Departments on each of the points in question.

So, I think in order to save time that we ought to read the bill, unless the committee wants to waive the reading of the bill, because there are amendments which we are all agreed on. Now that is up to the subcommittee. I am sure that the committee in perfecting the. amendments has in mind the strengthening of the naturalization laws in regard to repatriation and eliminating many of the complications we have had heretofore about persons living there rather than here. There have been some restrictive and fundamental changes of the law which have been made.

Mr. CURTIS. As I gather, Mr. Chairman, due to my new membership on this committee, do I understand that the subcommittee took the existing laws and codified those laws and made suggestions as to revisions of the existing laws?

Mr. REES. That is correct, and the subcommittee thought that the present existing laws should be made more workable.

Mr. MASON. They have been clarified and simplified.

Mr. CURTIS. This is a codification of existing laws with revisions. Mr. REES. That is correct; it is not simply a codification. It is more than that.

Mr. CURTIS. You have taken all the existing laws on the subject? Mr. REES. That is correct, and we worked them out in this code, but we have also changed the present law in a number of respects. Mr. CURTIS. That is your revisions?

Mr. REES. Yes. What I would have liked to have done and would still like to do if possible would be to have the entire committee go and read the bill and then go through it and explain every section of the bill and tell this committee just wherein changes have been made.

Mr. CURTIS. I would very much appreciate that.

Mr. REES. Because after all it is for this committee to determine and decide whether or not it wants to accept the code as amended by the subcommittee and whether or not it wants to submit amendments before it sends it to the floor of the House, if it wants to send it to the floor of the House, but it is a very important document.

I just suggested that we have the State Department representative here today and also the Department of Labor and that being so I was going to call attention to the particular sections which are in controversy.

I was going to say, "Here, for instance, are amendments that you are suggesting, and here are amendments which are offered by the other Departments." In other words, here is an amendment offered by the Department of State and here is another amendment offered by the Labor Department on the same question. I thought it would be well to give each of the Departments 10 or 15 minutes to explain their views. They have given them in a memorandum.

It is a question of policy. I thought it would be well to hear the views of both Departments so that then the committee can decide what they will do. I would like to put them on the stand.

The CHAIRMAN. That is along the line that the chairman has in mind.

Mr. REES. May I say for the record and for the benefit of the new members, going a little bit back, that we have had much difficulty in determining the rights of people who leave this country and have dual nationalities and hold citizenship in two countries.

Under our laws the State Department has had much difficulty in trying to protect them over there and some of them do not even pay taxes. Some of them have been repatriated and when they are in trouble they appeal to the United States Government. Under the old law they had protection. We found that people have gone to the foreign country and they have voted there in determining the elections. and then they have come back here and as citizens they have voted here, thus having two voting places.

The CHAIRMAN. We found that some of our citizens were deprived of their nationality because of some law over there that classed them as being of that country and so the law became so complicated and there were so many hardships not for the benefit of the country but for the benefit of these groups who have plenty of money to go and do all these things.

This committee about 5 or 6 years ago had discussed the question for a number of weeks and passed a resolution calling for the President to issue an Executive order for codification of these laws and directing all the Departments to go over all of these volumes and books which would take 8 Philadelphia lawyers to determine just where they are at, including about 12 New York lawyers, and as a result of that an Executive order was issued by the President and