after working constantly for 5 years they submitted to the President a 1,900-odd page report which was sent to the Speaker of the House and by virtue of the power entrusted in this committee it was referred to this committee in June 1938. The President said:

I commend this matter to the Congress for the attentive consideration which its wide scope and great importance demand.

I think the President's message also cited the urgency of this codification and revision of the laws for the best interests of this country, to make sure in regard to those who were expatriated, letting them stay there, and we would not want responsibility in regard to them.

Naturally then followed the introduction of the bill. Now I do not know what the Senate will do, but they will depend mainly upon our report here because they have not the time to go through all the details nor have the time to go through what our subcommittee has gone through.

I think the subcommittee through Mr. Rees, who has been here at every meeting, has given this very careful thought. It is for the best interests of the people of our country.

I think he has done a good job and the procedure as indicated by Mr. Rees should be that we ought to adjourn this hearing until next Tuesday when we can start and read the bill and we can consider the amendments and adopt the parts of the bill as we go along. Then we will take up the controversial questions when we come to them in the bill.

Mr. REES. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. However, I wanted if possible to take the time this morning to have these men testify and discuss this one point and get it under way.

The CHAIRMAN. The suggestion was made that we ought to have a larger representation present and I should like to make it a point to see that everyone will be here on next Tuesday, particularly the Democrats from the South.

Mrs. O'DAY. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. O'Day.

Mrs. O'DAY. A few days ago we had a case come up of discrimination against a woman and the letter I got from Mr. Hull raises two objections to changes-the changes of the immigration law in that there was discrimination all through the law. Now have those discriminations been done away with?

The CHAIRMAN. I think to the best of my recollection, Mrs. O'Day, I think that they were, but I think the chairman of the subcommittee could probably give you more light on the question than I can.

Mr. REES. I attended all the meetings and I do not recall the particular view. You are talking about the discrimination between a man American citizen and a wife American citizen, or are you talking about men and women American citizens, is that the point?

Mrs. O'DAY. No; for instance why a minister or professor can come over here and bring his wife and children and a woman professor cannot bring her husband or children.

Mr. CURTIS. That is the case of this woman here.

The CHAIRMAN. That also goes in connection with an American citizen who can bring in an alien wife but an American woman citizen cannot bring in an alien husband and it is discrimination. That was

brought up to 1933 for no reason at all in regard to all those marriages which took place up to 1933. We had Senator Reed, of Pennsylvania, who got it into his head that we should fix it as of that time and thereafter we get precedents and we talk about equality. I cannot answer whether that is included in this code.

Mr. REES. It is not. I think that is a matter that Mrs. O'Day or any other member of the committee may submit at the proper time when discussing this matter and if you would submit such an amendment we would be glad to consider it. As a matter of fact after this is handed to the general committee I am assuming the chairman of the general committee will be in charge of it. I am not even chairman of the subcommittee.

The CHAIRMAN. I know, but you are chairman pro tem.

Mr. MASON. He has been acting chairman.

Mr. REES. Now, Mr. Chairman, calling attention to Chapter IV, Loss of Nationality, section 401, which is found on page 81 of this bill, I would like to make this statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me, Mr. Rees. Mr. Talle, did you want to say something?

Mr. TALLE. Yes. Do you consider a codifying law something different from compiling?

Mr. REES. I do not think you would say codifying is any different from compiling, but I want the committee to understand this is not merely codification but it is codification and revision, together with a number of proposed amendments to the present law that are new, which will be new law if adopted by this Congress.

Mr. TALLE. I think codification would apply to compilation and I think this goes further than codification.

Mr. REES. That is correct. This is much further than just a mere compilation of all the laws. This goes much further and that is the reason I am interested in having this committee understand what we are doing.

Mr. CURTIS. Before you start in with your explanation, let me ask a question. I appreciate the patience which you gentlemen show in the matter of my ignorance about these things, but I would like to get a few things straight. What are the sources of the previous laws relative to naturalization and so on? Are they all acts of Congress, or are Presidential edicts included?

The CHAIRMAN. No.

Mr. MASON. They have grown up like Topsy.

The CHAIRMAN. If you will get the three volumes we have printed it will show you the old law, just what it is and what we propose to do. Mr. CURTIS. It is not a question of custom but it is all based on acts of Congress.

Mr. REES. The Constitution and the laws enacted by Congress.

I do not want to seem to be out of order but I want to suggest to members of the committee that we do have a proposal here called the "Codification of the Nationality Laws" that describes the measures by giving you the present law with the proposed law beside it. If you will read it carefully you will have the fundamental plans of the whole thing and then by discussing our proposed amendments you will get the whole story.

Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will each member be given a copy that?

The CHAIRMAN. All members have a copy.

of

Mr. REES. We will furnish every member of the committee with a copy of the bill with the proposed amendments.

I want to call the attention of the committee now to chapter IV, Loss of Nationality, and to section 401, found on page 81.

The question involved is the policy as to how far Congress wants to go, not so much in protecting but continuing to provide citizenship for people who have what is known as dual citizenship. That is to say, we have persons who were born in foreign countries who come over here, are naturalized, and have children, and then have gone back to the countries of their nativity, and they become naturalized, or in some other countries and become naturalized. That naturalizes those children, and they become citizens of that country because their parents are naturalized there. Now they have what is called dual citizenship.

Mr. CURTIS. Doesn't that automatically end their citizenship in this country?

Mr. REES. It does not. They continue to be citizens of the United States and also are citizens of the other country.

Mr. LESINSKI. If the children are American born?

Mr. REES. If the children are American born, but they become naturalized by the acts of their parents. If they go over and become naturalized on their own account, they become citizens, but they do not lose citizenship in the United States just because their parents acquired citizenship there.

Mr. LESINSKI. Under the present law, do not these children have to notify the Department that they take the opportunity to declare their right under the law?

Mr. REES. If they want to do that, but they can go on and on and continue to be citizens of the United States.

Mr. CURTIS. Despite the fact that the parents have become naturalized in another country, I do not know whether naturalization in other countries requires an oath of allegiance to that other country. The CHAIRMAN. We will assume that it does.

Mr. CURTIS. Could you tell about that?

The CHAIRMAN. I think that the two gentlemen representing the State Department and the Labor Department should come up here to the table so that they may be in a position to answer questions of the members.

Mr. REES. Section 401 reads:

A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his.nationality by:

(a) Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, either upon his own application or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person; or

Mr. CURTIS. You mean a citizen is simply one residing you do not make the distinction there, do you?

Mr. REES. NO; there is a difference between being a citizen and being a national.

Mr. CURTIS. What is the definition of a citizen here?

Mr. REES. Why, that is defined in the code, but I would like to direct your attention to (a), which says he may 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.

Mr. MACIEJEWSKI. How long would that period be?

Mr. REES. Having legal custody would mean under 21 and also it would mean over 21 providing that child was non compos. That gives one reason why he maintains his citizenship; or by "taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state," or rather taking an oath of allegiance or making an affirmation or formal declaration of allegiance to the United States, but it is under subsection (a) that we have our controversy.

Mr. MACIEJEWSKI. Let me ask you if one or two of the children would stay in this country and the mother and father would go to a foreign country, would they be naturalized in that country? Would they become subjects of that foreign country?

Mr. REES. They are citizens of the United States because they are born here but they would become citizens of that other country because their parents were naturalized in that foreign country.

Mr. MASON. Suppose they did not go back to that other country with their parents and are 18 years of age and remain here, and the parents did not take them back.

The CHAIRMAN. I should think common sense would dictate that they are still citizens of the United States if they stayed here.

Mr. MACIEJEWSKI. Not according to this.

The CHAIRMAN. I may be wrong.

Mr. REES. Practically, but as it stands they lose their nationality. There is a view that these children should have a right since they were born in the United States, should have a right to come back in the United States and assert their citizenship. They ought to come back when they are 21 or before they are 21, or before they are 23 or some time and establish their residence and be citizens of the United States. Mr. VAN ZANDT. That is if they come to the United States to establish citizenship after having been in a foreign country.

Mr. REES. That is correct. One view is to allow them to be 23 years old or perhaps let them in at an older age.

Mr. CURTIS. Suppose John Smith, an Englishman, and his wife and two children ages 3 and 5, respectively, come to this country and enter legally and that at some time John Smith, the Englishman, makes application to be made a citizen of this country. Citizenship is granted to him. Now does that automatically take these two children, ages 3 and 5, and make them citizens of this country?

Mr. REES. Yes, sir.

Mr. CURTIS. It does?

Mr. MASON. Yes, sir; that way they have been getting citizenship. Mr. CURTIS. Then why could there be very much question about it? Why don't we take the same view about it that if we have citizens that move to England and become naturalized, why couldn't this country say that they have indicated their intention and there is no question about it?

Mr. LESINSKI. A question comes up again, Mr. Rees, if that very same Mr. Smith who was a citizen of this country and his children were citizens and 10 years later he decides to go back to England but his children stay here.

Mr. CURTIS. They are American citizens.

Mr. LESINSKI. Are they? They have never declared and they were not born here.

Mr. CURTIS. Automatically they become citizens. That was the purpose of my question.

Mr. LESINSKI. That was the purpose of my question. If Smith came on here and had those children born here they are American citizens and then he goes over there and is repatriated again and there are the two children. Aren't they then Englishmen?

Mr. REES. They have dual citizenship until they reach the age of majority under the present law.

Mr. LESINSKI. They have dual citizenship? Now what will we do? Mr. REES. We are told by these Departments that there are thousands of individuals who are residing in foreign countries that have what we call dual citizenship. They were American-born citizens. They have gone abroad with their parents and have become naturalized by their parents' naturalization, but they have not, so far as I know, performed any particular act on their own part to cause them to lose their citizenship in the United States.

Mr. LESINSKI. Does not the law require that those American-born children when they reach the age of 21 declare their intent to do so? Mr. REES. No; we have some law on that, and we have a lot of controversy on that very question.

Mr. CURTIS. Just one more question. We will suppose a Frenchman and his wife come over here from France on a visitor's visa and 2 weeks after they arrive in this country there is to them born a child. What is the nationality of that child?

Mr. VAN ZANDT. American citizen.

Mr. REES. An American-born citizen.

The CHAIRMAN. And yet under the French law they can claim him as a Frenchman.

Mr. CURTIS. And yet that child has been born within the territory of the United States and is declared by law to be a citizen of the United States.

Mr. REES. All persons born here are American citizens.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. And that child continues to be an American citizen regardless of whether they live in the United States or France. Mr. REES. That is right, unless by some act of his own.

Mr. CURTIS. Then tell me why it is that a child that grows up in this country, let us take the Italian, for example, and he goes back to Italy an American citizen because he was born in this country but is under the age of 22, he goes back to Italy and they put him into the military service.

The CHAIRMAN. Because it is under a dictatorship.

Mr. CURTIS. No; I mean at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN. There have been dictators in Italy for more than 20 years. They say, "You are good war material and we will consider you."