« ZurückWeiter »
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.
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 Sepcember 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 permanent:y 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. 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. 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. 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.
(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, 1906and so forth.
Mr. REES. That is all right.
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,
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.
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
tion before reaching the age of twenty-five years and upon compliance with all requirements of the naturalization laws with the following exceptions :
(1) No declaration of intention and no certificate of arrival and no period of residence within the United States or in a State shall be required ;
(2) The petition may be filed in any court having naturalization jurisdiction, regardless of the residence of the petitioner;
(3) If there is attached to the petition at the time of filing a certificate from a naturalization examiner stating that the petitioner has appeared before him for examination, the petition may be heard at any time after filing; and
(4) Proof that the petitioner was at the time his petition was filed and at the time of the final hearing thereon a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States, and that he intends to reside permanently in the United States shall be made by any means satisfactory to the naturalization court.
This brings somewhat into question the effect of the Elg opinion by the Supreme Court recently. As you gentlemen undoubtedly know, the Supreme Court considered the case of a girl who had been born in the United States and who had gone abroad and returned, as to whether or not that person could be expatriated through the act of a parent, and, broadly speaking, they held that expatriation was personal and she could not be expatriated through the act of the parent.
Mr. Rees. That is only applied to the parents and not to the child.
Mr. FLOURNOY. Furthermore, that girl returned to the United States almost immediately after reaching the age of 21.
Mr. REES. This says if she comes back after 25.
Mr. Flournoy. What the court would hold about that girl who lived there for 4 or 5 years after reaching majority, of course, we do not know. The court laid stress on the fact that she returned'here immediately after reaching her majority.
Mr. REES. She had passed 21, had she not?
Mr. SHOEMAKER. I believe that that will need just perhaps a little revamping because it says "expatriated," but that is a detail and not a feature of it. I think the provision was well considered and it would be advisable to pass it.
Mr. REES. All right. Mr. SHOEMAKER (reading): (b) No former citizen of the United States, expatriated through the expatriation of such person's parent or parents, shall be obliged to comply with the requirements of the immigration laws, if he has not acquired the nationality of another country by any affirmative act other than the expatriation of his parent or parents, and if he has come or shall come to the United States before reaching the age of twenty-five years.
That is new law, you will understand. There is nothing in existing law with regard to it.
Mr. REES. How does that apply? Tell us about that.
Mr. SHOEMAKER. Well, let us take a child born-take the old Tobiassen case. The child was born in the United States. Her parents were born in either Norway or Sweden. Her parents went back to Norway or Sweden. We had a treaty with the country from which they came,
which provided that if the parents remained there for 2 years it would be presumed that they had regained their Norwegian citizenship. After regaining the Norwegian citizenship, it was held that that applied also to the child, who was a minor, and so it was held by the Attorney General that the girl Ingrid Tobiassen, who had gone abroad, I think, at the age of 11 and came back at the age of 18, had lost her American citizenship.
Mr. REES. Had to become naturalized ?
Mr. SHOEMAKER. Had to become naturalized. And we had cases of children born in the United States to parents who go to Canada and become naturalized there. The children have a birthright under the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution and those children might be recognized as Canadian citizens, while they are in Canada at least. And then those children have come back to the United States and we have held that, by reason of the Tobiassen opinion of the Attorney General, to which I have referred, that they lost their Canadian citizenship status and must comply with the immigration laws upon their return. Now since the rendition of the Elg opinion, we are confronted daily with the question of who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, and we have to determine it, and we are doing that very thing. This child, when it comes in, will not have to comply with the immigration laws. That was the purpose of that clause to which I have just referred.
Mr. Rees. Is this true or not? Are there not a good many folks who have gone to Canada and become citizens—I am thinking of some of them who went up there to take up
land. Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes.
Mr. Rees. Went up there with their families, who were born here, and now conditions are not so good as they were, and a number of those American-born citizens who became citizens of Canada, because of their parents becoming citizens, they want to return to the United States and become citizens here. Under the present law, they cannot do that. They have to come under the immigration law. Is that not right?
Mr. SHOEMAKER. We have held that they lost their American citizenship up until the Elg opinion was handed down by the Supreme Court. Now, we are holding that if a child came here prior to the rendition of the Elg opinion but was a minor at that time, that that child is an American citizen.
Mr. REES. You do?
Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes, sir. And there are quite some problems in connection with it.
Mr. FLOURNOY. I would like to ask a question in that connection, Mr. REES. All right.
Mr. FLOURNOY. Suppose the child remained there 2 years after reaching majority, just lived there 1 year beyond his majority, and then wants to come back here and there is no vote, that he has never voted, that the child had acted as a Canadian but had never taken advantage of his Canadian citizenship; and suppose in another case that a child under similar circumstances, being of the same age, had taken advantage of his citizenship and had voted as a Canadiando you make any difference?
Mr. SHCEMAKER. We try to take these things into consideration and handle them on the individual circumstances in each case and