Mr. FLOURNOY. Under section 312 a child cannot become a citizen automatically.

Mr. REES. No.

Mr. FLCURNOY. Unless both parents are citizens or the child only has one parent and that parent is a citizen.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. And that parent was a citizen.

Mr. REES. I just wondered why you did not stick to 312.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Well, it seems to me that it was giving that child who happened to have, let us say, the good fortune or misfortune to be born to parents one of whom happened to be a citizen, the opportunity to acquire citizenship and acquire it earlier than the child who happened to be born abroad of parents both of whom are aliens, unless one of those parents died. In that case that child would have to go through certain formalities up to 18 years. This child happened to have an American citizen parent, who could move for and on behalf of the child through a court process to acquire citizenship for the child, but the child himself could do it after reaching the age of 21 years. This operated against him in case he wanted to go abroad, in obtaining an American passport, or in passing a piece of property, it might be a question of title to property. So this was suggested so that they can make that child a citizen through court process, where it is all done in the open, and it seems to me to be a desirable proposition.

Mr. REES. All right.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Section 315. This is entirely new legislation, too. SEC. 315. An adopted child may, if not otherwise disqualified from becoming a citizen, be naturalized before reaching the age of eighteen years upon the petition of the adoptive parent or parents if the child has resided continuously in the United States for at least two years immediately preceding the date of filing such petition, upon compliance with all the applicable procedural provisions of the naturalization laws, if the adoptive parent or parents are citizens of the United States and the child was:

(a) Lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence; and (b) Adopted in the United States before reaching the age of sixteen years; and (c) Adopted and in the legal custody of the adoptive parent or parents for at least two years prior to the filing of the petition for the child's naturalization.

We have had in the past considerable difficulty with regard to these adopted children. Sometimes a child would be adopted and that child would seek to get a derivative certificate through adoptive parents. The child could not get it in that way. Then the natural parents, if living the child might apply through the naturalized natural parents and the natural parents, having given up all custody of the child, the question would become pertinent as to whether or not the child could acquire citizenship through the action of such parents. We have held strictly to the natural parents. This clause makes provision for the acquisition of citizenship through adoption, and I think all of the provisions for the adopted child are sufficiently safeguarded so that there will not be the acquisition of citizenship by a person who should not get it. In other words, the code as adopted as a whole will prevent in other clauses the naturalization, say, of persons who are not amenable to naturalization or not within the provisions of the naturalization statutes-such, for instance, as Japanese and Chinese.

Mr. REES. How old should the child need to be to become a citizen under this section?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Well, almost any time before reaching the age of

18 years.

Mr. REES. In other words, if we have a man and his wife who are naturalized citizens of the United States, they can adopt a child at the age of 5 and make that child a citizen at the age of 6?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. If the child resided here for 2 years prior to the adoption. I do not think that will involve many cases. I think that the average case

Mr. REES. You have told us that there was quite an involvement on account of it.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes. I say we have had cases like that to which I referred, but they are not numerous. I did not want to give you that impression, but the question was pertinent as to whether or not a child who is, to all intents and purposes, the child of these adoptive parents, could get any citizenship as an adopted child, and it has been felt throughout many years that some provision should be made for this class of cases-not that they are so numerous, but when they come up they are very vexing and perplexing.

Mr. REES. In what way?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Because no provision has been made for the child from, say 1 year old, who has lived with the parents up to 21 years

of age.

Mr. FLOURNOY. We have those cases occasionally in the State Department. As Mr. Shoemaker says, they are not so numerous, but they come up. We get them in the case of passport cases. For instance, a man who wants to go abroad with his wife, naturally wants the child to go along with him, and naturally the child is not a citizen. We get them right along, but we cannot give them passports because they are not citizens now.

Mr. REES. We have a bill pending before this committee which provides for the bringing in of several thousand refugee children. According to the testimony introduced on behalf of the bill, it is suggested that there were families in this country who were willing to adopt these children. Under this law these refugee children, if brought in, could be adopted by American citizens, either native-born or naturalized, and become full-fledged citizens in 2 years under this

measure.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Upon the petition of the adoptive parent. They would have to go through the court process, of course.

Mr. REES. Yes.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. They would not simply be cloaked with citizenship.

Mr. REES. No. That is true. Of course, that would be a formality, almost.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Well, I am rather inclined to the view that the average court would want to know something about a new proposition of that kind and would be inclined to look into it. As I say, that is the average court. There might be some courts who would say, "What is your recommendation?" and be inclined to accept that, but they would not be unanimous at all.

Mr. REES. Of course, under the present law, the child would have to wait until she is the same age as anybody else?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. That is right. The child could file the application at the age of 18 and then at the age of 21, having 5 years' residence,

would become naturalized. But this is to take care of the child who has not reached the age of 18 years and give it some status.

Mr. REES. It would give him the status of a citizen of the United States.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. That is what I mean; and, after all

Mr. REES. That would be better than a child 14 or 15, so far as that is concerned.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. I was going to say that very thing, Congressman. Mr. REES. Well, all right.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Shall I go on?

Mr. REES. Yes.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Section 316 (a):

A person who was born a citizen of the United States or who otherwise acquired citizenship of the United States, and who prior to September 22, 1922, lost United States citizenship by marriage to an alien or by the spouse's loss of United States citizenship, and any person who lost United States citizenship on or after September 22, 1922, by marriage, to an alien ineligible to citizenship, may, if no other nationality was acquired by affirmative act other than such marriage, be naturalized upon compliance with all requirements of the naturalization laws with the following exceptions:

(1) No declaration of intention and no certificate of arrival shall be required, and no period of residence within the United States or within the State where the petition is filed shall be required.

(2) The petition need not set forth that it is the intention of the petitioner to reside permanently within the United States.

(3) The petition may be filed in any court having naturalization jurisdiction, regardless of the residence of the petitioner.

(4) The petition may be heard at any time after filing, if there is attached to the petition at the time of filing, a certificate from a naturalization examiner stating that the petitoner has appeared before such examiner for examination. Such person shall have, from and after the naturalization, the same citizenship status as that which existed immediately prior to its loss.

I think that is simply restoring to the persons something which they had and which they lost frequently and generally simply due to the fact of marriage, we know that they did lose it, and who have continued in the vast majority of cases to remain here. It is simply giving them back what they lost purely through the fact of marriage.

Mr. REES. All right. Here is a person who became a citizen of the United States, natural-born or naturalized, or either way, and then, by reason of her marriage, lost citizenship. She lost it because she married an alien. Isn't that it?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes; or the husband went up to Canada or somewhere else and became naturalized.

Mr. REES. Yes. And then———

Mr. SHOEMAKER. There are others.

Mr. REES. And she may have resided outside of the United States all the time for years and years, but she comes back after she has been gone all these years, to the United States, and we say to her, "We could have your citizenship restored without the filing of a declaration of intention. You do not happen to have a certificate of arrival in the United States, because you left here once and were a citizen." The petition does not have to set forth that, the intention that you intend to reside here in the United States from now on.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. That is not different from the present law. That runs parallel on the other side.

Mr. REES. She does not even have to declare that she is going to reside in the United States. If some good Britisher or German or Frenchman comes over here he has to say that he means to make this country his home.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes, sir. But this girl does it as her own affirmative act. She may have continued to reside in the United States continuously, all the time.

Mr. REES. Or she may not.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Or she may not; that is true. She may have been here all of the time or she may have been abroad, but even being abroad, she did not even go to this foreign nation and ask them to make her a citizen. Let us assume in the average case an American citizen in heart, although she was not so in fact, I do not think that the code as drawn will make much difference, and I think it is an attempt to give her back a status which she lost simply through the fact of marriage. Mr. REFS. Do I understand that an American citizen under the present law who marries a Rumanian, lived over there for a good many years and lost her citizenship, and decided she would divorce him; do I understand that she could come back to the United States now and have the citizenship immediately?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. REES. What would she have to do in order to retain her citizenship?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. If she married after September 22, 1922, she would not lose her citizenship. If she married and removed prior to September 22, 1922, she loses it and the status continues; if she wants to regain her status, she goes into a court and asks to regain her status. She does not have to remain in the United States.

Mr. REES. Does she get a naturalization certificate?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. REES. In other words, this is a restatement of the present law. Mr. SHOEMAKER. Not exactly.

Mr. FLOURNOY. The present law has that in it.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. That feature is in it, but there is a slight change in some respects.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Is the case of a woman who lost her citizenship practically the same as a woman who has married since?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. That is correct.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Why should there be a distinction?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. There is not any. Take, for instance, the person who married an alien ineligible for citizenship under the old law. She lost her citizenship and today she does not. She can marry a Hindu or a Chinaman or a Jap and not lose her citizenship status, and this is to give that person-that is one of the individuals who would reacquire that status which he had prior to losing it.

Mr. REES. If she married a Chinaman prior to 1922, she would not lose her citizenship, and after that she would. Isn't that about it? Mr. SHOEMAKER. I think that is the act of July 3, 1930.

Mr. SHOEMAKER (reading):

From and after the effective date of this Act, a woman, who was a citizen of the United States at birth, and who has or is believed to have lost her United States citizenship solely by reason of her marriage prior to September 22, 1922, to an alien, and whose marital status with such alien has or shall have terminated, if no other nationality was acquired by affirmative act other than such marriage, shall, from and after the taking of the oath of allegiance prescribed by subsection (b) of section 334 of this chapter, be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922.

That is almost identical with existing law. That amounts to allowing this woman to come in and take an oath of allegiance and become a citizen where the marital relationship has terminated. Mr. REES. All right.

Mr. SHOEMAKER (reading):

(2) Such oath of allegiance may be taken abroad before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or in the United States, before the judge or clerk of a court having jurisdiction to naturalize aliens as citizens of the United States.

Mr. REES. Isn't that the present law?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. That is the present law-not identically. Right opposite there you see it says:

No such woman shall have or claim any rights as a citizen of the United States until she shall have duly taken the oath of allegiance as prescribed in section 4 of the act approved June 29, 1906—

and so forth.

Mr. REES. That is all right.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. No. 3, on page 19:

Such oath of allegiance shall be entered in the records of the appropriate embassy or legation or consulate or naturalization court, and upon demand, a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered, under the seal of the embassy or legation or consulate or naturalization court, shall be delivered to such woman at a cost not exceeding $1, which certified copy shall be evidence of the facts stated therein before any court of record or judicial tribunal and in any department of the United States.

Mr. REES. All right. This may be the present law, and all that. Do I understand that an American woman who goes abroad and marries a Frenchman and loses her citizenship, and then divorces the Frenchman, all she has to do is to go before a consular officer and take oath and she is an American citizen again?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. If she had married this man before September 22, 1922, yes.

Mr. REES. Suppose she married him after that?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Then she does not lose her citizenship. She can lose it by renouncing it, of course.

Mr. REES. If she renounced it she would not come under this provision.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. That is it.

Mr. REES. All right.

Mr. SHOEMAKER (reading):

SEC. 317. (a) A former citizen of the United States, expatriated through the expatriation of such person's parent or parents and who has not acquired the nationality of another country by any affirmative act other than the expatriation of his parent or parents, may be naturalized upon filing a petition for naturaliza