The section has been held applicable even though such absence is involuntary and in spite of strenuous efforts on the part of the individuals involved to return to this country before the expiration of the 5year period. No penalty whatever attaches to similar residence abroad by nativeborn citizens. The reason for this overt discrimination against naturalized citizens is obscure. In the light of our naturalization proceedings the discrimination is wholly illogical. Both nativeborn and naturalized citizens are in all respects citizens and equal in rights and duties. Their allegiance runs to the Government of the United States and to no other. There is only one distinction. in fact. between a nativeborn citizen and a naturalized citizen: One of them never owed fealty anywhere else. the other at the time of his naturalization solemnly abjured forever all allegiance to a foreign state. As one of our former attorneys general cogently remarked: "If this does not work a dissolution of every political tie which bound him to his native country. then our naturalization laws are a bitter mockery and the oath we administer to foreigners is a delusion and a snare." We believe. and we must believe. that the oath of allegiance is a ritual of deep substance and meaning. Therefore. there can be no conceivable justification for legislation which deprives naturalized citizens of their rights of nationality solely because of residence abroad. It is an espzcially brutal and illogical perversion when. as in section 404 (c). the expatriating residence is in a country with which the citizen never before had connection. There can be no demonstrable difference between the natural citizen and the naturalized citizen under such circumstances. The attempt to manufacture distinctions must be branded as arbitrary and improper. It is sometimes contended that the provision I object to. and the nationality lawyers object to. is an indispensable adjunct of American foreign policy.
Keywords matched
naturalization naturalized