Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

apply to aliens, either white persons, or aliens of African nativity or descent.

Mr. LESINSKI. It applies to South America and the West Indies. We have some trouble there. These Negroes say that they are waiting for a quota opportunity to come in.

Mr. HAZARD. This has nothing to do with quotas. It does not open up anything, but it is repeating what is in the present law. It does not change it at all.

Mr. LESINSKI. As I understand it, persons of African nativity or descent would take in people from Turkey, Japan, and other countries.

Mr. HAZARD. No, sir; they would be African Negroes.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. This would take in people coming from the Canal Zone?

Mr. HAZARD. It does not permit those in the Canal Zone to be counted as residents of the United States.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Negroes down there are people of African nativity or descent. All of those Negroes of African nativity or descent can come over here and would be eligible to citizenship.

Mr. HAZARD. This would be the same as under present law. That has been the law since 1870. This simply follows the present law. It does not change it at all.

Mr. REES. I think I can simplify that by saying that there are two changes here. One is that persons who are indigenous to North and South America, which would include only Indians and Eskimos, may be admitted to citizenship, and the second provision or change includes Filipinos who served in the Army and are now residing in the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, section 303 will be agreed to. The committee amendment will be agreed to, and we will strike out that portion from line 6 to line 15.

(Sec. 303 and the amendment, striking out lines 6 to 15, were agreed to.)

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendments in line 17, striking out the word "chapter" and inserting the word "Act,” and striking out the words "or admitted,” will be agreed to.

(The amendments were agreed to.)

Nr. AUSTIN. I think that the language in section 305 is about as hazy as anything could possibly be. The intent in putting that provision in there was either a positive or a negative intent. If the intent was a positive one, there is certainly nothing positive about section 305. Mr. LESINSKI. That covers anarchists. Mr. AUSTIN. It is hazy.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Why not say "those who advocate the overthrow of the Government by force"? That would cover it.

The CHAIRMAN. Then we would be getting into a squabble about what constitutes certain overt acts. We hope to get around that in another way.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. I think it would be easier to clarify a situation which apparently has existed for years, and that is now the subject of an investigation on the part of Congress. I think it would be easier to settle that problem right here in this paragraph.

Mr. LESINSKI. Section 305 starts with the words "No person who disbelieves in or who is opposed to organized government,” and so

forth, and that is in connection with the words on page 10, "shall be naturalized or made a citizen of the United States."

Mr. AUSTIN. It forbids them from becoming citizens.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. It says, “No person who disbelieves in or who is opposed to organized government," and so forth, “shall be naturalized or made a citizen of the United States."

Mr. Austin. I think we should clarify that language. That is not clear.

Mr. Van ZANDT. I think it would save some discussion on the floor. It might arouse some opposition to the bill.

Mr. AUSTIN. You have a chance right here to give them a knock-out.

Mr. LESINSKI. I still maintain that the reading here is not proper. This language reads:

No person who disbelieves in or who is opposed to organized government, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization entertaining or teaching disbelief in or opposition to organized government, or who advocates or teaches the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers, either of specific individuals or of officers generally, of the Government of the United States, or of any other organized government, because of the official character of such officer or officers, shall be naturalized or made a citizen of the United States.

I think there should be a closer connection between the language, “No person who disbelieves in or who is opposed to organized government," etc., and the language, “shall be naturalized or be made a citizen of the United States."

Mr. Mason. No person shall be naturalized or become a citizen of the United States who does those things.

Mr. LESINSKI. I know that is what is intended, but does it mean that?

Mr. Mason. It says that no person who disbelieves in or is opposed to organized government, and so forth, shall be naturalized or become a citizen of the United States.

Mr. MACIEJEWSKI. That is the law at the present time, is it not?
Mr. MASON. Yes.
Mr. LESINSKI. I want to make it clear.
Mr. Mason. You want the prohibition before you analyze it.
Mr. AUSTIN. He wants to make it affirmative instead of negative.

I move that section 305 be referred back to the committee for whatever further action the committee desires to take with reference to it.

Mr. Mason. In order that they may insert proper language to shut out Communists.

(The above motion was adopted.)
Mr. MACIEJEWSKI. There is a change in section 307.
Mr. REES. Yes.
Mr. MACIEJEWSKI. The only change there is in line 21.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. In section 306, could we not have some kind of a prohibition to stop people who deliberately come into the United States on board ships and desert the ships, or overstay their leave?

Mr. LESINSKI. I think section 306 is in the present law.
Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes, sir; that is the present law.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Could we not put something in there that would apply to persons who come here on board ship, and desert or overstay their leave? I am talking about foreigners who come in on board ship or are admitted on visitors' visas. I mean people who come in

on board foreign ships, then desert the ships, get married here, have children, and then come before the committee in an effort to obtain citizenship. It might be if we set up a prohibition in here, we would not have so many of them.

Mr. SHAUGIINESSY. There is no way for them to do that unless they have a certificate of arrival, and they cannot have a certificate of arrival unless the record shows lawful admission with a view to becoming permanent residents.

Mr. Mason. The only way by which that can be done is by special bills.

Mr. MACIEJEWSKI. We will have that as long as we are here. We will continue to do that.

Mr. LESINSKI. If there is no objection, section 306 is approved. (Sec. 306 was approved.)

Mr. LESINSKI. In section 307, there is a change in line 21, where the words "admitted to citizenship” are stricken out, and the word "naturalized” is inserted. Without objection the amendment is agreed to.

(The amendment was agreed to.)

Mr. LESINSKI. On page 11, line 4, insert the word “sub” making it read “subsection.” Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.

(The amendment was agreed to.)
Mr. MACIEJEWSKI. The next change is on page 12, line 9.

Mr. LESINSKI. In line 9, page 12, the words "residence outside" are stricken out, and the word "absence from” are inserted in lieu thereof. Without objection, the amendment is approved.

(The amendment was agreed to.)

Mr. LESINSKI. On page 13, line 9, the word “their” is stricken out, and the word “its” is inserted in lieu thereof. Without objection, that amendment is agreed to.

(The amendment was agreed to.)

Mr. LESINSKI. On page 13, line 15, the following proviso is inserted : Provided, That this subdivision shall not apply to service on vessels operating in and about the Canal Zone in connection with the maintenance, operation, protection, and civil government of the Panama Canal and Canal Zone. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.

(The amendment was agreed to.)

Mr. REES, I would like to call attention, if I may, to the language beginning with line 16, page 13. Beginning with line 10, the language reads:

The following shall be regarded as residence within the United States within the meaning of this chapter :

(1) Honorable service on vessels owned by the Government of the United States, whether or not rendered at any time prior to the applicant's lawful entry into the United States.

Then we add the provisoThat this subdivision shall not apply to service on vessels operating in and about the Canal Zone in connection with the maintenance, operation, protection, and civil government of the Panama Canal and Canal Zone.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. That takes care of the civilian labor.
Mr. REES. Yes. The next paragraph reads-

(2) Continuous service by a seaman on a vessel or vessels whose home port is in the United States and which are of American registry or American owned,

if rendered subsequent to the applicant's lawful entry into the United States for permanent residence and immediately preceding the date of naturalization.

Now, the question I want to raise with this committee is this, whether or not it is proper to allow the time that a person serves on a ship whose home port is an American port, or to have that time apply on residence in the United States. As you see, we may be going a little too far. This does not say necessarily serving on an American-owned ship, but, also, on ships of American registry. Of course, if it is an American ship all right, but is it right, or not, or is it the policy of the committee to want to say that a person who has served on such a ship, a Greek, Italian, or whatever he may be, if he gets employment on board a ship which is of American registry, can say that he has served there for 2 or 3 years, and to count that 2 or 3 years' period as entitling him to become a citizen.

Mr. VAN ZANDr. The employment of aliens is restricted on ships flying the American flag.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Subsidized vessels can only have a small percentage of noncitizens.

Mr. Austin. The question is whether 2 or 3 years' service on board such a ship shall be considered as residence in this country.

Mr. REES. Suppose they are employed in the Foreign Service of the United States for 3 or 4 years, and then come to the United States.

Mr. AUSTIN. Suppose, for instance, an Italian is working for the American Embassy.

Mr. FLOURNOY. They are not permitted to employ aliens in the Diplomatic Service. They work in consulates.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. He will be working under the American flag just as he would be working under the American flag on board a ship of American registry.

Mr. AUSTIN. Unless he is attached to an American port.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. A man may be employed at an American consulate for 3 or 4 years, under the American flag, and could come to the United States.

Mr. Mason. This does not give him any residence.
Mr. AUSTIN. This might establish a precedent.

Mr. REES. Let me ask which Department suggested this amendment or proviso.

Mr. HAZARD. The War Department.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there not something in the La Follette law whereby we must give some sort of protection to men working on American vessels, or some allowance for the time they served so that it may count in the matter of citizenship? You cannot very well maintain a merchant marine if that service should deprive these men of citizenship.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. An American ship flying the American flag is considered to be American territory. Suppose he is employed in an American consulate, in Haiti, we will say, for 3 years, employed on American ground, and protected by the American flag. That is American territory, just as the ship of American registry on which he serves. Now, if he applies for citizenship, why should he not insist that that time should be applied ?

Mr. AUSTIN. He must have had a permanent residence before he served in the consulate in order to apply.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Suppose he met all those conditions !

Mr. AUSTIN. He must have entered the country lawfully, and have gone back and served the consulate for 3 years.

Mr. LESINSKI. A person must be in the country legally before he can start to work on an American merchant ship. It would not apply to an embassy employee who was never over here.

Without objection, the amendment is agreed to. (The amendment was agreed to.)

Mr. LESINSKI. On page 13, beginning with line 22, the remainder of the section is stricken out. Without objection, that amendment is agreed to.

(The amendment was agreed to.) Mr. LESINSKI. On page 14, following line 3, a new section 308 is offered, reading as follows:

Any alien who has been lawfully admitted into the United States for permanent residence and who has heretofore been or may hereafter be absent temporarily from the United States solely in his or her capacity as a regularly ordained clergyman, shall be considered as residing in the United States for the purpose of naturalization notwithstanding any such absence from the United States, but he or she shall in all other respects comply with the requirements of the naturalization laws. Such alien shall prove to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Labor and the naturalization court that his or her absence from the United States has been solely in the capacity hereinbefore described.

Without objection, section 308 is adopted. (Section 308 was adopted.)

Mr. LESINŠKI. Again on page 14, line 5, "308" is changed to "309”, and in line 14, after the word "character”, the following language is inserted : attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.

Without objection, that amendment is approved. (The amendment was approved.)

Mr. LESINSKI. On page 15, line 5, “327” is inserted, and “326” is stricken out. Without objection, that amendment is agreed to.

(The amendment was agreed to.)

Mr. LESINSKI. On page 16, line 12, "309" is stricken out, and “310” is inserted. Also, in the same section, line 13, the words “12 o'clock noon, eastern standard time” is stricken out. Is there any objection to that amendment ?

(The amendment was adopted.)

Mr. LESINSKI. In line 15, of the same page, the words “12 o'clock Tioon, eastern standard time” are stricken out. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.

(The amendment was agreed to.)

Mr. LESINSKI. On page 17, line 1, the words “Hawaii, Alaska, or Puerto Rico” are stricken out. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.

(The amendment was agreed to.)

Mr. LESINSKI. In line 4, page 17, after the word "who" the words “on or” are inserted, and in the same line, following the word “after” the words “12 o'clock noon, eastern standard time” are stricken out. Without objection, those amendments will be agreed to.

(The amendments were agreed to.)

« ZurückWeiter »