Mr. Robert Kennedy. in testifying before the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee recentlyas Senators will find in the reported hearings. which have reached our desks only today. though we have been debating the question for nearly a weekobjects to subjective determinations of comparable qualifications by State officials. and that he advocates the measure before us as a means of establishing an objective standard binding upon State officials. However. no such objective standards have been established for making the finding required by the naturalization statute. which is administered and enforced under the Attorney Generals jurisdiction. I wonder how consistent it might be for the learned Attorney General to appear and demand that some State officials be deprived of their right. in good conscience. to go into the question and determine subjectively the intelligence. the education. and the literacy of an applicant for registration. while at the same time he denies that they will do so honorably. or honestly. or well. But then he says. to the contrary. by his enforcement of the naturalization law. that he has implicit trust in the examiners of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to make a determination on a higher level. including the determination of many additional facts. going far beyond the requirement of a sixthgrade education and. subjectively to determine whether or not an applicant is entitled to be naturalized. I do not believe it is a crime to be consistent. I have tried to be consistent on the subject of civil rights. a fought for an antipolltax constitutional amendment because I knew the measure was constitutional.
Keywords matched
naturalization Immigration Naturalization naturalized