We cannot name the Japanese specifically. because to do so would be class legislation and unconstitutional. What the amendment does is this. and it is the dangerous part of the amendment which has been offered by the gentleman from California. We all agree if a man wants to renounce his citizenship voluntarily. let him do it. but this amendment gives any court of naturalization the right to determine and the right to interpret. if you please. any statement that a citizen of this country has made in a Government document or questionnaire during the last 2 years or since the war started. A proceeding such as that is a civil proceeding. We have approximately 2.000 naturalization courts in this country. Under this amendment a complaint could be brought by one private citizen in the nature of a civil suit or proceeding to question the statement or answer of another citizen to a question. made any time since December 7. 1941. and the court. if you please. would have the right to say whether what a man said. whether he intended it that way or not. was sufficient to divest him of citizenship. and the court could say: "Well. it is my opinion that by this statement* you intended to divest yourself of your United States citizenship." and make a finding accordingly. The intent of the individual would not necessarily control.. but rather the construction placed on his words by any of 2.000 naturalization judges. That is the thing that is so dangerous and far reaching in this amendment and basically wrong with the whole business. I think an amendment offered on that basis should be defeated.
Keywords matched
naturalization