Mr. REES. The amendment proposed is this, that nationality shall not be lost as the result of naturalization of a parent unless and until the child shall have attained the age of 23 years. Mr. LESINSKI. In other words, this may go on for years and years. Mr. REES. Until he is 23 years in any event and those who are now beyond 21 years of age will have at least 2 years from the time of the passage of this act to establish their naturalization. Mr. SHOEMAKER. May I add that unless some such clause is added to the act I anticipate that for years we will have these questions raised in the Department of Labor as to the eligibility of a person to apply for citizenship just as we are doing today. Mr. REES. Before we close, I think the State Department has considered the amendment proposed by the Department of Labor. The State Department has no amendment to offer to that. Mr. FLOURNOY. I am authorized to say that if the committee favors the form of the Department of Labor, then the State Department would like to have an opportunity to suggest some modifications, including the question of the status of the child of these people born in that country. Are they to remain citizens of the United States indefinitely, born there many years after the naturalization in that country? Are they citizens? Usually the other parent would be a citizen of the country naturally where they are residing. Mr. MASON. That is the third generation that we are talking about. Mr. CURTIS. I am not sure whether I get that, but on the point that you raise there, does everybody understand what that situation was? Mr. REES. The Labor Department amendment raises the question unnecessarily, but I think that it is something that is to be considered I would like to have it cleared up by some legal authority. Mr. CURTIS. May I give an illustration in regard to that? Mr. CURTIS. We will imagine that a man is 21 years of age and under the present law he is a citizen of the United States and he has now 2 years in which to elect. Let us suppose for some reason or other he has not been called to military duty in the country where he is living and say he is called after he is 21 years old, probably 1 month after 21. Now, I would understand from the arguments I have heard this morning that that man can claim the protection of the United States, can't he? Mr. MASON. Assuming if this were the law of the land. Mr. LESINSKI. Then he would have to leave and come over here, if they would permit him to come over here. Mr. CURTIS. During the 2 years he can exercise the protection of the United States. Mr. LESINSKI. Yes; but in the very same case that you are talking about where he was inducted in the army, he would have to go because he would be forced in although he is claiming American citizenship. Mr. FLOURNOY. I think it is pretty well established as a proof of dual nationality and his living in one country would not entitle him to the protection of the other country, if he is a national of both countries. Also we had cases like that in the last war. One of these persons had been naturalized here through his parents becoming citi zens of the United States. We put him in the Army. If any foreign government made a protest we would certainly not pay any attention to it. He is living here and a citizen of the United States and he is just as much obligated to serve in the Army as anyone else. Mr. MASON. Accordingly, if we pass the 2-year limitation it would not change the status of these people whatever during the 2-year period. They would not get any more protection other than they do now. Mr. FLOURNOY. They would not be entitled to it, although they might claim it. Mr. VAN ZANDT. We might offer the protection and the young man might object to remaining in the army of a foreign country but they would not pay any attention to him. Mr. LESINSKI. We will adjourn this meeting until Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock. (Thereupon, at 12:30 p. m., the hearing adjourned to meet on Tuesday, May 7, 1940, at 10 a. m.) TO REVISE AND CODIFY THE NATIONALITY LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES INTO A COMPREHENSIVE NATIONALITY CODE FRIDAY, MAY 3, 1940 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a. m., in the commit、 tee room, Old House Office Building, Hon. Samuel Dickstein (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please be in order. (The committee having concluded the consideration of other matters, proceeded with the following:) The CHAIRMAN. I want to make one more observation, before we adjourn. We do not have to sit here again this afternoon. The Committee on Immigration and Naturalization to whom was referred the message of the President on codification of our naturalization and other laws have gone into the subject in great detail, and we have finally made drafts of this law, after working very hard on it, and I will give much credit to the Department of State in the person of Mr. Warren and Mr. Houghteling, Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization of the Department of Labor, and the staff which worked very hard with this committee, and we finally have prepared this so-called codification of the naturalization law that has been studied by the Departments for the last 4 or 5 years. I have put copies on the desk of each member of this committee for his own use of the proposed part I, part II, and part III, which will constitute the codification of the naturalization laws and other laws, which is so badly needed, and I assume that we will have to have some executive sessions, and I am hoping that Mr. Schulte will be able to report what his committee has done. We will have to consider this. There are certain differences of opinion between certain bar associations, and various States, and departments, and it would be up to us to clarify that. This is a 6 years' job which we have completed just now, and I hope that the membership will take this with them and we will take it up at the first opportunity. It is very interesting. The committee will stand adjourned until 10:30 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Thereupon, at 12:03 p. m., the committee adjourned until 10:30 a. m., the following morning, Saturday, May 4, 1940.) TO REVISE AND CODIFY THE NATIONALITY LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES INTO A COMPREHENSIVE NATIONALITY CODE TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1940 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, Washington, D. C. The Committee on Immigration and Naturalization resumed hearings on H. R. 6127, in the committee room, Old House Office Building, at 10:20 a. m., Hon. Samuel Dickstein (chairman), presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please be in order. We will now take up the revised draft of H. R. 6127, a bill to revise and codify the nationality laws of the United States into a comprehensive nationality code. Mr. Rees, you may proceed. We were considering section 315 on page 21 and section 401 on page 81 of the proposed bill. Mr. REES. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Flournoy was discussing the proposed amendment of section 401. Suppose we hear him at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD W. FLOURNOY, JR., ASSISTANT TO THE LEGAL ADVISER, DEPARTMENT OF STATE Mr. FLOURNOY. In regard to section 401 (a) I might state that the difference between the Department of Labor and the State Department relates to the question of the citizenship of persons during minority as a result of naturalization in foreign countries through the naturalization of their parents prior to the effective date of the act. Our proposal is to have no provisions in the act which will be in effect retroactive. In other words, we think that it is desirable to limit this to the cases arising in the future, that is, the effects of naturalization in the future. As was stated last week the Department of Labor would prefer to retain the original provisions. Questions were raised as to possible modifications and then the two Departments made proposals which were not in agreement. The original provisions say that: 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; Mr. AUSTIN. Would the gentleman prefer interruptions now, or rather have us wait until he concludes his statement? |
