Page images
PDF
EPUB

CITIZENSHIP AND NATURALIZATION OF MARRIED

WOMEN

FEBRUARY 16, 1931.- Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. CABLE, from the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 16975)

The Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 16975) to amend the law relative to the citizenship and naturalization of married women, and for other purposes, reports it back to the House without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

Representatives of the following organizations appeared before the subcommittee on naturalization in the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization in behalf of the measure: National Association of Women Lawyers, National Council of Jewish Women, General Federation of Women's Clubs, National League of Women Voters, National Woman's Party, Woman's Bar Association of the District of Columbia, Business and Professional Women's Clubs.

Communications in support of the principle of the bill were received by the committee from the representatives of other organizations interested in its enactment.

PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO AMEND THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1922, AS

AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JULY 3, 1930

In general, the purpose of the bill is to eliminate the remaining discriminations against married women in the statutes relating to citizenship and naturalization.

(1) The bill permits a woman who since September 22, 1922, has suffered an actual or presumptive loss of her United States citizenship because of foreign residence after marriage to an alien to resume her citizenship in the same manner now prescribed for the resumption of United States citizenship by American women who married aliens prior to September 22, 1922. It will be remembered that an act approved July 3, 1930, repealed the presumption of loss of United States citizenship by a woman on account of foreign residence after marriage to an alien; but since the repeal is not retroactive this bill indicates a way whereby the American woman whose citizenship rights were affected by the presumption may reestablish her citizenship. At the present time there are notive-born American women who have presumptively lost their United States citizenship by foreign residence after marriage to foreigners and who have not been able to overcome to the satisfaction of the State Department the now obsolete presumption. Apparently they are not permitted United States passports and are not afforded protection abroad. Yet, since their loss of United States citizenship is merely presumptive, it is doubtful whether any court proceeding for naturalization is now available to them.

(2) The bill repeals the provision of the existing law by which a woman ceases to be a citizen of the United States by her marriage to an ineligible alien. Since a man citizen of the United States does not lose his citizenship by marriage to an ineligible alien, this repeal places the man and the woman citizen on the same footing.

(3) The bill stipulates that if any woman was a citizen of the United States at birth her race shall not preclude the resumption of United States citizenship heretofore lost by her because of her marriage to an ineligible alien. There are native born American women of a race ineligible for citizenship who have married men of their own race and thus lost their United States citizenship, their husbands not being Anierican citizens. A man born in the United States and of a race ineligible to citizenship suffers no loss of his Cnited States citizenship because of his marriage to a person of his race.

(4) The bill closes the simple method of resumption of United States citizenship (set forth in the act of July 3, 1930) to a women originally an alien and who never possessed United States citizenship except by marriage to a citizen. She may, however, pursue the regular course of naturalization.

(5) The bill (sec. 2) repeals the existing law which declares “that no woman whose husband is not eligible to citizenship shall be naturalized during the continuance of the marital status." The repeal will equalize as between men and women the law on that point, since no man is refused naturalization as a citizen of the United States because his wife is not eligible to citizenship.

In the opinion of the committee, there should be no distinction between men and women with regard to nationality rights. The citizenship of the American man has never been affected by marriage; but the same privilege has not been enjoyed by the American woman. Congress has gradually removed all discriminations excepting those sought to be corrected by H. R. 16975.

Jane Addams, of Hull House, offers the following constructive criticism of the situation this bi is intended to correct:

A curious inconsistency of the Cable Act is that it takes away the birth right of an American-born woman if she marries an ineligible--that is, a man from a country whose people can not be made citizens-although it is precisely under such circumstances that a woman most needs her citizenship.

The situation was graphically presented by Miss Laura Berrien, who represented the National Association of Woman Lawyers at the hearings. She said:

*

*

Just as long as my Government takes the position that a woman's nationality is not as sacred and intimate as a man's, I feel that it is a reflection not only on me but on all women as well.

Nationality is the relation one bears to one's country. You can not make one law for the man and another for the woman without making an attack on the woman by putting her in an inferior position and creating a sense of humiliation.

We women of America wish to be able to feel, and wish the men to feel, that our relation to our country is as fine, intimate, and sincere as a man's.

Dr. Emma Wold, technical adviser to the United States delegates to the recent Conference on the Codification of International Law at The Hague, made the following statement:

If the objection to removing the present discrimination against women in our Cable Act is due to sentiment against racial mixtures, let me call your attention to the fact that it largely fails of its purpose. It does not affect many white or Caucasian women. The provision in the law touches the large number of Chinese and Japanese girls born in the United States with the precious heritage of United States citizenship. If, unfortunately but perfectly legitimately, such a girl falls in love with one of her own race who is an alien and marries him, she is the one who is penalized.

So far as white women are concerned, the fact is that under the laws of many of our States, especially the Western States, where Japanese, Chinese, and Hindus are found in large numbers, the laws make illegal a marriage between a white person and a Mongolian or Asiatic person. A white woman who enters upon an attempted marriage of this sort may be punished for the violation of the laws on marriage, but the penalty of loss of citizenship can not fall upon her for the reason that there is no marriage.

H. R. 16975 will remove the last vestige of discrimination as to nationality between men and women in America. Justice to American women demands that this bill be enacted into law. There is no other country in the world which deprives its women nationals of their citizenship for the sole reason that they marry aliens ineligible for naturalization.

*

*

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW SHOWN

In compliance with paragraph 2 (a) of Rule 13 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law, act of September 22, 1922, as amended by the act of July 3, 1930, made by the bill are shown as follows:

Existing law proposed to be repealed is included in black brackets; new matter is printed in italics; existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman:

Sec. 3. That a woman citizen of the United States shall not cease to be a citizen of the United States by reason of her marriage after this [act] section, as amended, takes effect, unless she makes formal renunciation of her citizenship before a court having jurisdiction over naturalization of aliens. [Provided, That any woman citizen who marries an alien ineligible to citizenship shall cease to be a citizen of the United States]. Any woman who has heretofore suffered an actual or presumptive loss of her United States citizenship by residence abroad after marriage to an alien or any woman who has heretofore ceased to be a citizen of the United States by marriage to an alien ineligible to citizenship may resume her United States citizenship in the manner prescribed in section 4 of such act of September 22, 1922, as amended, and if any woman was a citizen of the United States at birth her race shall not preclude the resumption hereunder of her United States citizenship. visions of such act of September 22, 1922, as amended, for the resumption oj citizenship shall not apply to any woman whose United States citizenship originated solely by reason of her marriage to a citizen of the United States. Sec. 2. Section 5 of such act of September 22, 1922, is repealed.

[Sec. 5. That no woman whose husband is not eligible to citizenship shall be naturalized during the continuance of the marital status.] (Repealed.)

O

The pro

[ocr errors]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL

1932

FEBRUARY 17, 1931.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. DICKINSON, from the committee of conference, submitted the

following

CONFERENCE REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 15256]

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 15256) making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1932, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the Senate recede from its amendments numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 78, 79, 81, 86, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 10, 6107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, and 128.

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate numbered 40, 63, 64, 75, 76, 83, 84, 87, 91, 96, 97, 98, and 112, and agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 14:

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 14, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows:

In lieu of the sum proposed insert $2,585,200; and the Senate agree

to the same

« PreviousContinue »