Speech #590143176

Speaker. that the objections to this bill are rather finical. As a matter of fact. it does not lay down a hard and fast rule. It only does what the gentlemen who are on the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization did themselves last year in the bill they reported. raise the presumptive question Whether or not a man had forfeited his citizenship. and that presumption is in the cognizance of the State Department. Now. as a matter of fact. the committee does not consider that this bill is a retroactive bill. or it is apparent that the State Department would not so apply the bill to those who are now living abroad. that it would only apply the bill to those men who would hereafter take up their residence abroad. The bill has been very carefully considered. I do not think it conflicts in any degree at all injuriously with the provisions of the naturalization bill of last year. and I do not feel the objections brought against it are of great weight. At least they have not convinced me. and I would have been perfectly willingfor my part. as a member of the committee. to an amendment bringing this bill into entire harmony with the bill of last year if it were necessary. but I do not feel that the bill conflicts in any way with the provisions of that bill. It is a fact. as shown to the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee. that a bill of this character is necessary. in view of what has taken place in the countries of the Orient and in view of the troubles our State Department has had. particularly in the case of certain naturalized citizens who. after receiving their citizenship papers here. have gone to those countries. remained there. and have caused our State Department and this coniutry much needless embarrassment. I believe the bill is proper. and with proper reasoning and common sense on the part of our State Department. it will work well. and I think it should be passed.