Speech #710187118

Mr. Speaker. in the report of the Committee on Elections of tle William C. LawsonRuth Bryan Owen contestedelection case. filed March 24. 1930. the majority reaches the conclusion that the contestee now stands as a naturalized. as distinguished from a naturalborn. citizen of the United States. I beg leave to suggest that apparently the committee overlooked the fact that section 4 of the act of September 22. 1922. applies not only to the natural born but also the naturalized citizen of the United States. For example. prior to September 22. 1922. ifan alien woman married an American citizen or her alien husband became in American citizen through naturalization. such alien woman. by reason of such marriage or naturalization. likewise became an American citizen. but her status was that of a naturalized as distinguished from a naturalborn citizen. Assume. then. that a naturalized woman. upon the death of her husband or upon her divorce from him. married a citizen of Great Britain prior to September 22. 1922. Under the act of March "2. 1907. she lost her American11 citizenship and acquired that of her alien husband. Assume that a naturalborn wonmn. as in the case of Mrs. OWEN. likewise married a citizen of Great Britain prior to September 22. 1922. She also lost her American citizenship. The Committee oIl Immigration and Naturalization and Congress. in passing the act of September 22. 1922. wished to give to any woman who had thus lost her United States citizenship the same citizenship status upon repatriation that she held prior to her marriage to an alien. Section 4 of the lct provides: That a woman who. before the passage of this act. las lost her United States citizenship by reasoa of her marriage to an alien eligible for citizenship may be naturalized as provided by section 2 of this act: Provided. That no certificate of arrival shall be required to be flied with her petition if during the continuance of the marital status she shall have resided within the United States. After her naturalization she shall have the same citizensllip status as if her marriage had taken place after the passage of this act. This clearly distinguishes between the natural born and the naturalized citizen who married an alien and thereby lost her citizenship. and gave to each the same citizenship status that she had prior to her marriage. namely. to the naturalborn woman a naturalborn citizenship status and to the naturalized woman a naturalized citizenship status. The woman who married after the passage of the act of September 22. 1922. did not lose her American citizenship and continued a naturalborn citizen. or a naturalized citizen. as the case might be. tie act providing: 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 the passage of this act. unless she mlakes a formal renunciation of her citizenship before a court having jurisdiction over naturalization of aliens. The right of Congress to obliterate I11e aliencitizenship status of a naturalborn woman who had lost her citizenship by her marriage to all alien is fortified by article 3 of the convention between United States and Great Britain. ratified July .9. 1.870. and relating to naturalization. Article 3 provides: If any such citizen of the United States as aforesaid. naturalized within the dominions of Her Britannic Majesty. should renew his residence in the United States. the United States Government may. on his own application and on such conditions as that Government may think fit to impose. readmit him to the character and privileges of a citizen of tile United States. and Great Britain shall not in that case claim him as a British subject on account of his former naturalization. Congress has seen fit to grant to a woman upon repatriation the same citizenship status she had prior to her marriage to a citizen of Great Britain. natural born or naturalized as the case may be. MxY 2 That Congress had full power to enact retroactive laws affecting citizenship. so far as the American status is concerned. is not only evidenced by the above treaty but also by the fact that there is no provision in the Constitution of the United States prohibiting such a law. It therefore appears to me that if the Elections Committee had considered the fact that section 4 of the act of September 22. 1922. was intended to apply to naturalized as well as naturalborn citizens. the majority (as did the minority) would have reached the conclusion that Mrs. OWEN does now enjoy the status and privileges of a naturalborn citizen such as is defined in section 1 of Article II of the Constitution of the United States.