Speech #830114349

January 10. 1954. Mr. Phillips was in error when he wrote that the President suggested an amendment to the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1940. There is no such law. and there never was one so named. There was on the statute books the Nationality Act of 1940. but it was repealed on June 27. 1952 (effective December 24. 1952) when the Congress overrode President Trumans veto and enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act (commonly referred to as the McCarranWalter Act). Section 349 of this act (title 8. U. S. Code. sec. 1481) governs the matter of loss of nationality by nativeborn or naturalized citizens of the United States. At this point Mr. Phillips made two more errors. He reported to the Times readers that existing law provides for the loss of nationality by naturalized citizens only. and "through court action." No. it is not so. Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. very similar to the repealed section 401 of the Nationality Act of 1940 (formerly 8 U. S. C. 801). specifies 10 instances in which the loss of United States nationality occurs automatically. without court action. in the case of nativeborn and naturalized citizens alike. Briefly stated. the 10 points include: (1) Naturalization in a foreign state. (2) taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign state. (3) serving in foreign armed forces without a written authoriz:ion by the Secretary of State. (4) accepting an official position with a foreign government if such office entails the acquisition of foreign nationality or declaration of allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. (5) voting in an election held in a foreign state. (6) renouncing United States nationality while abroad. or (7) renouncing it in the United States while this country is at war. (8) deserting United States Armed Forces in time of war. (9) committing treason against. or attempting by force to overthrow. or bearing arms against. the United States. if convicted of such crime by courts. (10) leaving the United States in time of war or national emergency in order to evade military service. The constitutionality of some of these provisions was often under attack in cases brought before courts. but the preponderance of decisions. including Supreme Court decisions. sustains the basic principle of the statute as it was. and is now. expressed in the law. A classic in this respect is Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes decision in the Perkins v.