Mr. MASON. They refuse to accept our definition of what is an American citizen. Mr. LESINSKI. I know the case of where a man went across to Europe, an American-born citizen, who went to Europe and stayed there 2 or 3 years, and he had a child born there, and he came back with that child. Now I understand that child must register at the American consul as an American born, as it is an American-born child. The CHAIRMAN. Both parents are American citizens? Mr. LESINSKI. Yes. Mr. MASON. We get them if they are born here and we get them if they are born abroad but of American parents. Mr. VAN ZANDT. We get everybody. Where children are born over there, what are they? Mr. REES. I think we can shorten this up a bit. Mr. VAN ZANDT. The Committee for World War Veteran Pensions has been considering a bill for the payment of pensions under existing laws to veterans who served in the American armed forces and who now reside in foreign countries. In that connection I wonder how many of those veterans have dual citizenship. Does anyone know? The CHAIRMAN. The only way you can get that is probably from the War Department. They can probably tell you how much money goes out and they can tell you how long they have lived there and whether they did any overt acts, but I doubt it. I know of 50 or more in France. Mr. MASON. They served in the war and are citizens and have gone back to their homes. They could only lose their citizenship by an overt act. Mr. VAN ZANDT. They have dual citizenship. Mr. MASON. No; when they commit an overt act of their own they lose citizenship under the present law, but if they have children the children do not lose their citizenship and so they have dual citizenship, the people, and their children. Mr. WARREN. Mr. Chairman, I have some knowledge of the citizenship of veterans who are receiving benefits. The question was in regard to those who received benefits and whether their citizenship status has only to do with their service. For instance, in Spain and Italy the payments there and in some South American countries the payments to veterans run into a very substantial sum of money. Some of those people were never American citizens but were voluntarily in the war. It is not a question of citizenship and it is not pertinent to this bill for that reason. Mr. CURTIS. Is it compulsory to pay someone who is outside of the country? Mr. MACIEJEWSKI. All he has to do is to show his discharge papers. Mr. VAN ZANDT. May I add that the inquiry was for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the benefits we are paying to these soldiers really reach the soldiers say in the case of Poland, Italy and other countries. The CHAIRMAN. You have something there. Mr. WARREN. It is an administrative problem with us; quite a problem. STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. FLOURNOY, JR., ASSISTANT TO THE LEGAL ADVISER, DEPARTMENT OF STATE Mr. REES. Mr. Flournoy, will you tell us briefly the present law on the question involved and what the proposed code does; then state what your opinion is. Mr. FLOURNOY. All I can tell you is what I think the present law is. That, Mr. Chairman, is really at the bottom of this difference between the two Departments. We have just been discussing it and the gentleman here has been discussing those two classes of dual nationality of persons who are born in this country of alien parents, or born abroad of American parents who acquire dual nationality through their parents. I would like to say in that connection that it might be of possible interest to know that we have in recent years concluded a number of treaties relating to those cases. We do not go as far as some of us would like. Those of us who have struggled with those cases in past years in the State Department feel that there ought to be some provision under which dual nationality would end and not go on forever. That is, that a person born here of Italian parents, and then taken to Italy and brought up there, is just as much an Italian as any other Italian that lived there all his life, and still that child remains an American citizen. We have a proposal got up by the committee to terminate citizenship in those cases as the result of individual action, or we will say after reaching majority in the other country of which they are a citizen, but we could not get an agreement on that. There was an original agreement, but for some reason the Departments of Labor and Justice opposed it. Mr. MASON. It was to be automatic at the age of 21. Mr. FLOURNOY. The resident would indicate his choice. Mr. LESINSKI. Wouldn't you give those young men or young women a chance to declare themselves and avail themselves of the opportunity? Mr. FLOURNOY. Some exceptions were made, but the proposal was in general that the individual would indicate his choice, being the country in which he chooses to live after he reaches majority. Some exceptions were made. I started to say that we have got some treaties that go part of the way in solving these difficulties. That, for example, is where a person has dual nationality and maintains his residence in this country and he is visiting temporarily the other country and he is put in the army of that country, under these treaties we have just tried to make, it would apply. The treaties provide that such a person shall not be impressed into the army of the other unless he is residing in that country. The particular case that we now have before us is the case of where a person has a dual nationality, which arises where a person is born in this country and is taken by his parents to a foreign country in childhood and his parents or one of them obtain naturalization in that country and under the law of that foreign country, similar in the main to our own law, the naturalization of the parent completes the naturalization of the minor child also. The original provision in this draft of the code is very simple. In the first place, it relates to the future. It provides that a person, a national of the United States through birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by obtaining naturalization in a foreign state either upon his own application or through the naturalization of his parents having legal custody of such person. Mr. TALLE. That includes foster parents? The CHAIRMAN. It would if there were legal custody. Mr. FLOURNOY. It would depend on the law of the foreign country and how "parents" were defined. We had in mind natural parents. I don't recall whether at the moment the question of foster parents was brought up. I am authorized to say for our Department that we are satisfied to retain this original provision as it stands. Mr. VAN ZANDT. That is section 401 (a)? Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes, sir; but if a change is to be made I am afraid we are not in agreement with the representatives of the Department of Labor altogether. We have agreed partly, but with regard to an important and very large class of persons we have not agreed. I refer to those who have been naturalized in past years in foreign countries through the parents and who have reached the age of majority years ago and who have continued to reside in the foreign countries since attaining majority where they have been naturalized. We think that those persons should be regarded as having made their choice and as having lost their American nationality. Mr. REES. Those who have reached the age of 21? Mr. MASON. And continue to reside there after reaching their majority. Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes, those who have continued to reside in the foreign country after reaching their majority. And having made their choice we feel that the opinion of the Chief Justice in the Elg case, namely, that of Perkins v. Elg amply sustains that provision. The conclusion of the Court in that case seems to rest entirely upon the principle of election. If you will read the decision of the Chief Justice you will find that all the way through he is speaking of election upon the attainment of majority, but that isn't all; he also quotes statements of former Attorney Generals and Secretaries of State way back to the time of Blaine and others, I believe, to the effect that a person who is naturalized during his minority in a foreign country by his parents should, when he reaches his majority, make up his mind which nationality he wants to have and should act accordingly. In the Steinkauler case, 15 Opinion Attorney General, page 15, the Attorney General discussed the case of the young man of American birth who was naturalized through his father in Germany, and he says: I am of opinion that when he reaches the age of 21 years he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father. This seems to me to be "right reason" and I think it is law. The Chief Justice also quotes a statement of Secretary Bayard in a note of April 7, 1888, to the Netherlands Legation, as follows: I will not read all of it. But the general view held by this Department is that a naturalized American citizen by abandonment of his allegiance and residence in this country and a return to the country of his birth, animo manendi, ceases to be a citizen of the United States; and that the minor son of a party described as aforesaid, who was born in the United States during the citizenship there of his father, partakes during his legal infancy of his father's domicile, but upon becoming sui juris has the right to elect his American citizenship, which will be best evidenced by an early return to this country. There is also quoted in the opinion the following passage from a letter of April 22, 1895, from Acting Secretary of State Uhl to Mr. Rudolph concerning the case of one Jacob Bohn, who was born in the United States of German parents, and was taken to Germany during childhood: * such child upon arriving of age, or within a reasonable time thereafter, must make election between the citizenship which is his by birth and the citizenship which is his by parentage. In case a person so circumstanced elects American citizenship he must, unless in extraordinary circumstances, in order to render his election effective, manifest an intention in good faith to return with all convenient speed to the United States and assume the duties of citizenship. Mr. LESINSKI. What is a reasonable time? Mr. FLOURNOY. That is not always an easy question to decide. Mr. LESINSKI. That should be defined. Is it 1 year or 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, or 20 years? Mr. FLOURNOY. I should say if a person has been 2 years or more, then the burden would be upon him to explain his continued residence. Mr. REES. It may be that I should have reversed the order in which you gentlemen are speaking and have had the Labor Department testify first. The Labor Department takes the view that there should be an amendment to the act that provides that this individual should have until the age of 23 years during which to decide whether or not he wants to retain his American citizenship and he will signify that by returning to the United States before he reaches that age. Mr. FLOURNOY. Mr. Chairman, we are agreed to that, too. Mr. SHOEMAKER. That is right. Mr. FLOURNOY. That is right. Mr. REES. The Labor Department wants to say that unless every one who has dual citizenship under the provisions of this section, unless each and every one of them comes back to the United States within 2 years after the effectiveness of this act then they shall forever be declared to be noncitizens of the United States. The State Department says for those persons we want to let each case stand on its own merits and follow what is known as the Elg case, and for the benefit of the members of the committee I would like to say that there is a lot of controversy between the groups as to what the Elg case really means. Mr. Flournoy gives you his view and the other side will give you a different notion as to what the Elg case means, but it resolves itself down to a disagreement as to what we are going to do about those persons who are already more than 23 years of age when this act goes into effect. Isn't that correct? Mr. FLOURNOY. That is correct. Mr. REES. And it is the contention of the State Department that those persons who have already reached the age of 23 years when this act goes into effect that those cases will rest on their own merits and that they will take care of them as each individual case as they have heretofore done in the past. Mr. FLOURNOY. May I add to that, that that is exactly the point. I do not want to interrupt your statement. Mr. REES. Go ahead from that. Mr. FLOURNOY. I just want to add that we have taken the position and I have expressed here before the committee several times that long-continued voluntary residence not due to any concealed agencies but voluntary residence in a foreign country in which that person has obtained a nationality would indicate an election of the foreign nationality, and I think that the statement of the Chief Justice in the Elg case amply supports that view. Have we any longer time? I would like to state his position in that case. Mr. REES. Yes; we would like to have that briefly. Let me interrupt for just one question to help out. The Department of Labor wants to offer an amendment that takes care of the proposition I have mentioned. Mr. MACIEJEWSKI. In other words, give them 2 years to come back and give that to everybody. Mr. REES. That is right. Mr. VAN ZANDT. Those who have already reached 23 years? Mr. MASON. The Department of Labor holds no brief for those persons, only those who have acted in good faith. Mr. REES. We will let you testify. I am talking about the persons involved in this particular section. Mr. LESINSKI. Will the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. REES. Yes. Mr. LESINSKI. Take the case of a young man who attained the age of 21 in a foreign country, and he was inducted into the army and has to serve 2 or 3 years, and he is not discharged until he is 24. Now, if after he is discharged he decides that he is an American-born citizen and he wants to come back here, what would happen in that case? Mr. MACIEJEWSKI. He cannot come back here under this. Mr. LESINSKI. That is a matter you should consider. I think the law should be stepped up, say, until he reaches 25, when he should make his declaration either to stay there or return. Mr. CURTIS. Let me ask this question: Has the State Department or anybody else a list of these dual citizenship people? Have you any such list as that? Mr. FLOURNOY. No, sir; but we know that there are thousands of them. Mr. CURTIS. You do not know how many there are? Mr. FLOURNOY. There are thousands. We had a report from the consul at Vancouver, British Columbia, recently that in Canada there were thousands, but it was just an estimate. Nobody knows how many there are. As you know, they never approach a consul as they are citizens of that country. As you know, a great majority of them do not come to the consul's office. This consul said he had a report 2 or 3 weeks ago in which he estimated in Canada alone there were 150,000 living up there. Some of these people have been living in foreign countries 40 years since attaining majority. At one of our previous meetings I asked if you would say that a man was an American citizen who had lived there 40 years after attaining his majority and whether he was still a citizen, and that is where |