Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

(Colon Hospital) of citizen parents, born, reared, and educated in New Cristobal in the Republic of Panama, for example, who have never lived in the United States or the Canal Zone. In such cases the persons would not be citizens under this bill, although they would be citizens under section 2 of the 1937 act. There should be no distinction, in reference to citizenship at birth, between residence of Canal and Railroad employees in the Canal Zone and residence of such employees in residential areas provided by the Canal in the Republic of Panama.

"Section 201, subsection (d): Confers citizenship at birth upon a person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is'a citizen who resided in the United States prior to the birth of such person and the other of whom is a national. Consider the case of a person born in the Republic of Panama of parents who reside in the Republic but work for the Panama Canal or Panama Railroad Company, of which a typical case is that of a child born in Colon Hospital to parents who reside in New Cristobal in the Republic and one of whom is a citizen while the other is a national but not a citizen. This subsection is unsatisfactory as applied to a case where the citizen parent, born and reared in New Cristobal, for example, has never resided in the United States or the Canal Zone or other outlying possession prior to the birth of the child. In such case the child would not be a citizen under this bill, although he would be a citizen under the 1937 act.

"Section 201, subsection (e) : Confers citizenship at birth upon a person born in an outlying possession of parents one of whom is a citizen who has resided in the United States or an outlying possession prior to the birth of such person. Thus a person born in the Canal Zone of parents who reside in the Canal Zone and one of whom is a citizen would be a citizen at birth. Consider, however, the case of a person born in the Canal Zone of parents who reside in the Republic of Panama and one of whom is a citizen of the United States employed by the Canal or Railroad. A typical case is that of a couple residing in New Cristobal in the Republic, the husband is a citizen of the United States employed by the Canal, and the child is born in Gorgas Hospital in the Canal Zone. The citizen parent may have been born and reared in New Cristobal, never having resided in the United States or the Canal Zone or other possession, in which case the child would not be a citizen, although it would be a citizen under section 1 of the 1937 act.

"Section 201, subsection (g): Confers citizenship upon a person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has had 10 years' residence in the United States or an outlying possession, the other being an alien. The subsection further contains provisos with respect to the child's residence in the United States and the taking by him of the oath of allegiance, which provisos are, however, inapplicable where the citizen parent resides abroad on behalf of the Government. In the case of parents residing in the Canal Zone, where the citizen parent has not 10 years' residence in the United States or the Canal Zone or other outlying possession, and the child is born in the Republic of Panama (Panama Hospital or Colon Hospital), the child would not be a citizen, although such child would be a citizen under section 2 of the 1937 act. A typical case in reference to the citizen parent is that of one born and reared in New Cristobal in the Republic of Panama who removed to the Canal Zone but had not acquired 10 years' residence when the child was born. In the further and more common case of parents residing in the Republic of Panama, where the citizen parent is employed by the United States or the Panama Railroad Company in the Canal Zone but has not 10 years' (or in fact any) residence in the United States or the Canal Zone or other outlying possession, and the child is born in the Republic of Panama, the child would not be a citizen, although such child would be a citizen under section 2 of the 1937 act. A typical case in the above category is that of a citizen parent born and reared in New Cristobal, where he subsequently is employed by the Canal, marries an alien, and has a child born at Colon Hospital.

"The foregoing illustrations indicate the compelling need for the insertion in the bill of the provisions of the act of August 4, 1937, particularly because of the fact that a very considerable number of employees of the Canal and Railroad reside in quarters erected by the Canal in New Cristobal, in the Republic of Panama. While these employees do not reside in the Canal Zone, an 'outlying possession' under the bill, their conditions should be maintained on an identical basis insofar as citizenship rights are concerned. These employees are frequently

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

transferred between the Atlantic side, where they reside in the Republic, to the Pacific side, where they reside in the Canal Zone. With respect to employees, whether residing within or without the Canal Zone, the laws of citizenship at birth should be identical and should permit them to utilize hospitals, whether in the Canal Zone or in Panama, without any compulsion in the matter of citizenship.

"I have urged that section 307, subsection (a), subdivision (1), be amended so as to be inapplicable 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. The tugs, dredges, barges, and launches of the Panama Canal are, of course, vessels owned directly by the Government of the United States. On such vessels, as in other branches of the Canal service, there are employed a considerable number of tropical laborers, the majority of whom are of West Indian origin or descent. Under this subdivision, the service of such persons on vessels of the Panama Canal would constitute residence within the United States within the meaning of the naturalization chapter, 'whether or not rendered at any time prior to the applicant's lawful entry into the United States.' This subdivision would appear to enable these persons to petition for naturalization upon the occasion of their first entry into the United States. The subdivision would be likely to result in the acquisition of United States citizenship by many of these persons, without any intention on their part in many instances of taking up permanent residence in the United States. There would appear to be no substantial basis or reason for the subdivision, particularly as applied to tropical workers appointed or engaged on the Isthmus, and the subdivision would tend unnecessarily and unjustifiably to complicate employment problems. My views are that this subdivision should be rendered inapplicable to service on such vessels, and that the proper residence provisions for application to such persons are those general provisions which are contained in section 307, subsection (b), requiring residence in the United States for at least 1 year. There is no justifiable basis in my view for distinction between periods of seryice of such persons on vessels of the Panama Canal and periods of service by them in other branches of the work of the Canal.

"It is urged that section 307, subsection (d), subdivision (3), be deleted from the bill. It is my view that residence in the Canal Zone should not constitute residence within the United States for naturalization purposes except under the general terms and conditions prescribed in section 307, subsections (a) and (b), wherein there is required at least 1 year's residence in the United States. The grounds of objection to this subdivision are substantially similar to the grounds of objection to subdivision (1), set forth in the preceding paragraph. The subdivision is particularly objectionable as to aliens appointed or engaged in the Tropics for service with the Panama Canal or Panama Railroad Company. Under this subdivision, aliens employed by the Government or the Panama Railroad Company in the Canal Zone could, and doubtless would, in considerable number, obtain immigration visas, enter the United States ostensibly for permanent residence, and thereafter return to employment in the Canal Zone, and thus acquire the residential qualifications for admission to citizenship. This subdivision, by facilitating the acquisition of citizenship by aliens employed by the Panama Canal, would be detrimental to the employment policies of the Panama Canal, and is deemed unnecessary and unwarranted, particularly considering the special and peculiar status of the Canal Zone."

I concur in the views expressed by the Governor of the Panama Canal and in his recommendation that if this bill is to be considered it be amended to provide for the conditions which exist in the Panama Canal Zone.

The desired purposes may be accomplished by the following amendments :

On page 2, line 11, after "rights of", strike out "sovereignty", and insert the following: "sovereignty, except the Canal Zone."

On page 6, after line 19, add a new section, as follows: "SEC. 202. (a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

“(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, is declared to be a citizen of the United States,"

On page 13, line 15, after “United", strike out "States." and insert the following: ."States: 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."

On pages 13 and 14 strike out subdivision (3) of section 307 (d), beginning with line 22, page 13, and extending through line 3, page 14.

I am advised by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this letter. Sincerely yours,

HARRY H. WOODRING,

Secretary of War.

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION,

Washington, D. C., March 26, 1940. Hon. SAMUEL DICKSTEIN, Chairman, Committee on Immigration,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I am assuming to offer a further statement in conformity with the resolution of the majority of the American Bar Association's committee, copy of which resolution is before you.

In days of quick travel, radio, airplanes, telegraph, news covering, etc., enabling the individual in short space of time to scatter over the world and get into most hazardous situations, the wise policy of the United States Government should be to pull in and limit its responsibilities for protecting all but its bona fide and permanent citizens.

In section 201, subsection (g), certainly the 10 years' residence mentioned should be extended to not less than 20 years, and it would not be going too far, in times like these, to require that both parents be citizens.

Section 304 is vague. A person physically unable to speak the English language might be physically defective, such as a mute, or he might be physically unable to speak because of other illness, such as deformed jaw, split lip, nervous condition, or for many other obstacles. I would suggest that the concluding sentence be very much cleared up.

Section 326, subsection (e), authorizing depositions before a postmaster, without charge, would seem to be dangerous. Postmasters are conceded to be political appointments to a very large extent and any alien might be unduly influenced and taken advantage of by a politician. On the other hand, notaries public are not, generally, appointed for political motives.

Section 337, subsection (b), providing for notice by publication in the manner provided for the service of the summons by publication or upon absentees by the laws of the State or the place where such suit is brought, after a 60 days' effort to serve notice personally in the same locality seems to be futile. If he cannot be found in that particular jurisdiction by diligent search in 60 days, it would seem that he had moved on and should be traced and the action brought where he is found. It would seem that there should be some provision, in any event, that a person about to be proceeded against in court to deprive him of naturalization could be given notice by some infallible method. In subsection (c) of the same section, the period of 10 years is too brief, and the other phraseology of the section is too vague for the deprivation of citizenship. The meaning of the term "permanent residence," used therein, is, perhaps, still not definitely established by the courts. There are differences of opinion in the different jurisdictions. One of the latest cases, with which you are doubtless acquainted, is Sweeney v. District of Columbia, decided about 2 weeks ago by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Subsection (d) uses the term moral turpitude,” which is also in a judicial turmoil. Our local court of appeals, during the prohibition era, held that transporting a small quantity of liquor from Baltimore to Washington was a crime involving moral turpitude. Other States use the term for more or less weighty offenses. Doubtless on many million occasions liquor was transported during the prohibition era from Baltimore to Washington, sometimes by naturalized citizens, and this section presumes that such a person should be deprived of his citizenship.

Section 341, subsection (h), providing a limit of $25 for counsel fees, is too small when compared with the amounts that are allowed to the courts, clerks, notaries, commissioners, and many others by the same section. It will have the same general effect, if not more intense, as the Veterans' Bureau litigation and that in other departments, of impelling those seeking and requiring skilled legal services

to shysters who do not scruple to collect larger fees. I have known of cases where shysters who were restrained to a small fee in Veterans' Bureau litigation, wrote a needless will and charged an outlandish fee for the will. Section 345 with the easiest abandon makes many acts felonies. There is no equality between some of these offenses. For example, the grievousness of section 9 and section 31 and section 33 are not of the same weight. There is no equality for some of these supposed crimes and the light punishment of a clerk of the court (i), (k), page 79. Section 401, subsection (c), as a practical proposition has been flaunted during all of our military history, was in the Spanish Revolution and its disregard occurred in the Finnish-Russian episode.

As to (f) of the same section, I believe that some foreign countries require prior citizens to use their passports. As to subsection (h) of section 345, it seems extremely vague and inconclusive. I am wondering if there will be anything left of a deserter of the military or naval service if he is convicted by a court martial. Isn't it the general practice that they shoot them? There is no provision for what should be done about a deserter who isn't brought before a court martial. Defining the tribunal before which revocation of citizenship shall be decided, shifts from the courts to the departments and in this section to the courts martial.

Section 402, subsection (a) and (b), in conformity with the opening premise of these remarks should be tightened up considerably. There is no reason why a person who is naturalized and takes the oath of allegiance to this country should establish a situation of “residing” 2 or 3 years in the State or place of his birth. Again a definition of the word "residence" arises. In addition, it would seem that the situation of dual nationality should be avoided.

Section 403, subsection (b) and section 404, subsection (a), seem to be rankly discriminatory. One section gives ex-Government employees the privilege of residing on the Riviera and the other one gives the privilege of those who are financially able after getting the benefits of making their wealth in this country to go back home and spend it in their old age. If it is decided to make this discrimination law, the obvious intention should be made that it refers to the "Army service" or the “Army, Navy, and Marine service.” At the end of section 501, after detailing what the diplomatic or consular offices shall do as to report, etc., etc., then what happens ?

In closing, just a few remarks about the American Bar Association's committee. I, as chairman, undertook to assemble and direct this work, and believe the committee has furnished some information and Henry F. Butler, Esq., in his testimony, although a member of this committee, made some remarks about the American Bar Association and this committee of the American Bar Association which seems to the majority of this committee to be entirely unfounded and out of place. His pique seems to be presumably that the committee did not consider all of his objections to the draft, and he has taken his objections and rallied the support of another group, which I believe is called the National Council on Naturalization and Citizenship. Mr. Butler, also, filed a written statement with your committee, signed "An American Citizen”, but did not see fit to send a copy thereof to this committee. He might either have signed it as a minority report of this committee or as a majority report for the Council on Naturalization and Citizenship. He evaded both these representations, straddled, and pretends to be the only "American Citizen." All the other members of my committee are American citizens, too, but they are not so envenomed by the great Elg case. However, he, as well as all other members of the American Bar Association's committee will receive by mail a copy of this statement.

Realizing that your committee desires to obtain as good a code as possible, at this session of the Congress, as to which all of the witnesses seem to agree, may I suggest that the questions be asked which I orally suggested at the hearing; namely, how many members there are in the National Council on Naturalization and Citizenship, where they are principally located, who composes the so-called council, the author of the report which Mr. Swensen presented and how closely it parallels the written statement of Mr. Butler. As I told your committee, this committee has encountered very few obstacles, but it looks as if Mr. Butler has gone out and sought objectors.

There is no personal feeling in this matter, as far as I am concerned, but it does seem to me that organization work entails some regard for the usual formalities. Respectfully submitted.

F. REGIS NOLL, Chairman.

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION,

Chicago, Ill., January 24, 1940. Hon. SAMUEL DICKSTEIN, House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: At a recent meeting of the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association, upon recommendation of the section of International and Comparative Law, a resolution was adopted with respect to the revision of the nationality laws of the United States. Copy of this resolution is enclosed for your information. Respectfully yours,

HARRY S. KNIGHT, Secretary.

Resolved, That the movement to have a thorough revision of the nationality laws of the United States be endorsed, and that it be embodied in a single nationality code similar to H. R. 6127, introduced May 3, 1939, and entitled 'A bill to revise and codify the nationality laws of the United States into a comprehensive nationality code.'”

I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the resolution adopted by the House of Delegates on behalf of the American Bar Association on January 8, 1940.

HARRY S. KNIGHT, Secretary.

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION,

March 16, 1940. The Honorable SAMUEL DICKSTEIN, Chairman, Committee on Immigration,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: At a special meeting of the Committee on Revision and Codification of the United States Nationality and Immigration Laws, held today, the following resolution was adopted :

"That the chairman of the committee, Hon. F. Regis Noel, was authorized to appear on behalf of the American Bar Association before the subcommittee of the House of Representatives at its hearing on Tuesday next and support the enactment of legislation looking to the adoption of the proposed nationality code, with such formal corrections as this committee has suggested or as in his judgment be deemed necessary." Yours respectfully,

GRACE KANODE VICKERS, Secretary.

VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES,

Washington, D. O., September 16, 1940. Re: H. R. 9980. Senator RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Chairman, Senate Committee on Immigration,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR RUSSELL: During the last several years, our organization has been advocating the codification of all naturalization laws into one act, all immigration laws into one act, and all deportation laws into one act.

Recently, upon the recommendations of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Labor, as concurred in by the President, a proposed Nationality Act was submitted to the Congress, and after careful study reported to the House of Representatives by its Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. Such proposed Nationality Act of 1940 was recently passed by the House, and is now before your committee.

It is believed that this bill codifies, uniformizes, and simplifies all laws of the United States pertaining to naturalization of aliens and concerning American citizenship, the enactment of which would facilitate a better understanding, on the part of all parties concerned, as to the status of various classifications of residents of the United States and its Territories, privileges of aliens who become American citizens, by certain processes, and the method by which persons may acquire or lose American citizenship.

We hope that it may be found possible for your committee favorably to report this bill, and to press for its adoption by the Senate.

« ZurückWeiter »