Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Mr. REES. We already have in the law a provision that reads, “anybody who disbelieves in organized government," and so forth, that is part of the present law. Now, if you want the legal side of it Mr. Shoemaker is here from the Department of Labor.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. I just want to say that the language seems to be right. This is in addition to and not in substitution of the law. Therefore, you are getting something more than what the present law is. I think you covered all the ground. I think this amendment should be adopted because that will cover all of the multitude of discussions you had this morning.

Mr. REES. Mr. Schulte has asked a question and says that if some Italian came over here and was opposed to the Italian Government we would be expected to prosecute him. In using the term “organized government” I am using it in the sense of a government that

was existent just the same as it was used in connection with the act of June 5, 1920, in connection with the deportation of aliens who were in that category. And I think the chairman made the remark that it was simply adding to and not in substitution of the existing law.

Mr. SCHULTE. Isn't it true we are taking in all other governments? It says "all organized government."

Mr. Rees. That would be true. Something like that.
Mr. SCHULTE. You bet your life it would.
Mr. Rees. It is the present law.

Mr. Austin. It doesn't make any difference if that is the present law, and the present law is wrong. Why fall back in defense on the fact of the present law if the present law is not right?

Mr. Rees. The present law is working very effectively as far as the expulsion of other isms is concerned.

Mr. SCHULTE. I want to drive out the Communists and every one of the other isms. I want to run them out. But I do not want to leave any loopholes that they might hide behind.

Mr. LESINSKI. Isn't the thought in back of that term “organized government" directed to a situation of foreigners coming into the United States and attempting to make a revolution in another country? Isn't that what that means?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Frankly, I do not think it makes any great difference if it goes out.

Mr. REES. This is intended to cover anarchists.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. A man must show he is attached to the principles of the Constitution anyhow. I do not think it would do any harm in view of the requirement that he must show an attachment to the principles of the Constitution and is well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States. I do not think it will do any harm.

Mr. Mason. Again I move the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Rees. I do not want any member of the committee to go on the floor and fight this amendment. I think it is a good one, but I want the committee to be satisfied with it.

Mr. SCHULTE. At the time Blanton came in and put a so-called Red rider in one of the

appropriation bills, I am telling you nothing in the world split this House more than that one proviso.

Mr. Rees. Mr. Austin says even though it is the present law, we ought to correct it. It has been the law for a number of years, to

take care of those who are opposed to organized government generally and its real intent, as I understand it, was to take care of those who believe in anarchy.

Mr. Poage. Isn't that also in the immigration law, and it would be in the immigration law even if it were struck out of this? And wouldn't we be in a position, if we do not keep that wording in here, of saying a man could not come to the United States if he advocated the overthrow of, say, the Italian or German Government, if he revealed the desire to overthrow that Government, he could not come to the United States. But after he got here he could plot the overthrow of a foreign government to his heart's content and then rush in under the cover of American citizenship to prevent that foreign government from prosecuting him. This simply makes your immigration law conform to the words of the naturalization law.

Mr. Mason. That is true. Mr. AUSTIN. This is in regard to the law I hear so much about. Have you any idea of when that was passed !

Mr. SHOEMAKER. I cannot tell you. I think 1903.

Mr. AUSTIN. That is when Hector was a pup. When did communism begin to loom up in this country? That is a difficult question, I know, but what would be your suggestion?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. I should say about the latter part of 1920.
Mr. AUSTIN. Twenty years ago.
Mr. Mason. After the Soviet Government was formed.

Mr. AUSTIN. Is there very much of a problem now relative to anarchists in this country?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Not so far as anarchy is concerned.
Mr. Mason. We have had cases.
Mr. WARREN. We have had cases.

Mr. AUSTIN. The point I am trying to make is this. Why stress so much attention on the anarchistic element when what we are after are the Communists?

Mr. Mason. We do not want to stop protection against anarchists. We want to hang on to that protection and add to it. That is what this amendment does.

Mr. AUSTIN. At the same time I must bear in mind the remark made a little while ago if we are going to do anything, and we have got to do something. The problem today is not the anarchy but the problem is communism. Why this about force and violence ?

Mr.-REES. In other words, if we strike this out I am inclined to believe you would have a tendency to naturalize a person we would not permit to come into this country. That is just an opinion.

Mr. AUSTIN. I will yield to your judgment on that.

Mr. SCHULTE. The only thing that bothers me here is I know of any number of cases where the Italians in particular who are here now and in here legally, are condemning the actions of Mussolini over there something scandalous and they are condemning organized government.

Mr. Rees. It has been the law for 20 years. This clause only affects the question of naturalization.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Suppose they condemn anything in a lawful way by making a speech? Isn't that free speech as long as they do not commit an act of violence or advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States?

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Isn't it true no court in the land would have a case concerning an Italian naturalized in this country who was criticising Mussolini? The first thing they would recognize is the Constitution and the provisions which grant the right of freedom of speech. This law in no way could nullify the right of freedom of speech.

Mr. LESINSKI. Are the gentlemen ready to vote? Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. Chairman, might I ask Mr. Rees in view of the discussion going on if he would have any objection to changing the expression used in his amendment from organized government” to "Government of the United States"?

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Personally I do not think we should do it. If we feel at the time we reach this bill on the floor that that is the best method then we can offer a committee amendment. I think we should let it out as it is and we will have time to study these questions.

Mr. Mason. I still move, Mr. Chairman, that it be acted on favorably.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. I support the motion.

Mr. LESINSKI. The motion is made and supported, to strike out section 305 and insert the proposed section 305 submitted by the subcommittee and Mr. Rees.

Is there any objection?
The same stands approved.
Mr. DICKSTEIN. What is the next amendment you have?
Mr. REES. That is all.

Mr. LESINSKI. On page 14, section 308, the words “or nun” should be inserted after the words

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,

Mr. MASON. Let us vote on it.

Mr. LESINSKI. Is there any objection to this amendment? If not, the same stands approved.

Mr. SCHULTE. This is the most serious of all, which has been brought out in the hearings here, relative to dual citizenship.

Mr. Mason. We covered that.

Mr. SCHULTE. How did you decide it! I have gotten into some argument with Army officials.

Mr. Mason. We give them 2 years to qualify and if they do not qualify then out they go.

Mr. SCHULTE. What about Red Cross workers?

Mr. Mason. We don't care about anybody. They get 2 years to qualify, or then out.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. In other words, it gives them an opportunity to come back to their mother country.

Mr. SCHULTE. Anyone who leaves the United States as a citizen of the United States and dons the uniform of another country?

Mr. DICKSTEIN. That is right. Mr. Chairman, there is one more question I want to propound. This is a very important piece of legislation and took the Departments almost 5 years and took this committee much time, and Mr. Rees and the rest of the subcommittee, and the members who so attentively attended and I think all the hearings ought to be printed

because if this gets on the floor as a rule Members want to get some of the hearings.

Mr. AUSTIN. I so move.
Mr. VAN ZANDT. The motion is supported.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. I don't care how long it is. It is permanent legislation and will be on the books after we are gone.

Mr. LESINSKI. Is there a motion?
Mr. DICKSTEIN. It has been seconded.

Mr. LESINSKI. The motion is that the hearings be all printed. Is there any objection to that? If not, the same will stand approved.

Mr. REES. I move to favorably report H. R. 6127.
Mr. MACIEJEWSKI. I will support the motion.
Mr. LESINSKI. If there is no objection, so ordered.
(Whereupon the committee adjourned.)

TO REVISE AND CODIFY THE NATIONALITY LAWS OF

THE UNITED STATES INTO A COMPREHENSIVE NATIONALITY CODE

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 1940

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION,

Washington, D.C. The committee met pursuant to the call of the Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Before I lose my time I want to call up H. R. 9980. That is a new bill to revise and codify the nationality laws of the United States into a comprehensive nationality code, and so forth.

(The committee had under consideration H. Ř. 9980, which is as follows:)

[H. R. 9980, 76th Cong., 3d sess. ] A BILL To revise and codify the nationality laws of the United States into a

comprehensive nationality code Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the nationality laws of the United States are revised and codified as follows:

TITLE I

SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the Nationality Act of 1940.

CHAPTER 1-DEFINITIONS

SEC. 101. For the purposes of this Act,

(a) The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.

(b) The term "national of the United States” means (1) a citizen of the United States, or (2) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

(c) The term “naturalization" means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth.

(d) The term "United States” when used in a geographical sense means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.

(e) The term "outlying possessions” means all territory, other than as specified in subsection (d), over which the United States exercises rights of sovereignty, except the Canal Zone.

(f) The term "parent" includes in the case of a posthumous child a deceased parent.

(g) The term “minor” means a person under twenty-one years of age. SEC. 102. For the purposes of chapter III of this Act

(a) The term "State" includes (except as used in subsection (a) of section 301), Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.

(b) The term "naturalization court”, unless otherwise particularly described, means a court authorized by subsection (a) of section 301 to exercise naturalization jurisdiction. (c) The term "clerk of court" means a clerk of a naturalization court.

« ZurückWeiter »