Speech #880285328

Mr. President. according to an article appearing in a recent edition of the Honolulu StarBulletin. "An estimated 40.000 former Americans. stripped of their citizenship for 3 years of continuous residence in their foreign homelands. are eligible to recover U.S. citizenship." The article goes on to say that this was made possible by a most significant and. in my opinion. a landmark decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court on May 18. 1964a decision which goes a long way toward protecting the constitutional rights of naturalized American citizens. The High Court. in Angelik L. Schneider against Dean Rusk. struck down as unconstitutional a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that takes citizenship away from a naturalized person who returns to live in his native country for 3 years. According to the Courts decision. such a provisionsection 352(a) (2) of the actunconstitutionally discriminates against naturalized citizens. since there are no similar restrictions on native born Americans who live abroad. The facts of the case involve a suit by Angelik L. Schneider to regain her American citizenship. She had come from Germany at the age of 4. grew up in this country. and was naturalized while in college. Although deeply attached to the United States. she ha. been living in Germany since 1956 with her husband. a German national. By living in her native land continuously for 3 years. under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. she was deemed to have lost her American citizenship. The only difference the framers of our Constitution drew between the native born and the naturalized citizen is that only the native American is eligible to be President. In all other respects. all citizens--native and naturalized alikestand on equal footing. As the Court pointed out: The rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The Constitution. the Court held. does not authorize Congress to abridge these rights. Section 352(a) (2) of the Immigration Act providing for withdrawal of citizenship of naturalized persons is an extreme and drastic measure. It deprives our naturalized citizens of their rights as Americans for merely living abroad for a few years. It discriminates against our naturalized citizens whose rights to live and Work abroad are drastically limited. as compared with the natural born citizens. It creates a secondclass citizenship for our naturalized citizens who are assumed to have less reliability and allegiance to this country than do the native born. I am both pleased and deeply encouraged that this grave injustice has at last been wiped off our law books. and that henceforth. naturalized American citizens may in no way be treated differently under our laws. State Department figures show that about 1.000 naturalized Americans have lost their citizenship each year under the 1952 Immigration Act. As significant a milepost as the Schneider case is. we still have a very long way to go before the law on withdrawal of citizenship will be clear and satisfactory. For example. section 352(a) (2) of the Immigration Act provides that a naturalized citizen living anywhere abroadnot only in his native countryfor 5 years loses his citizenship. The Schneider ruling almost certainly means that this provision is also unenforceable. But this needs to be clarified. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 discriminates not only against our naturalized citizens. As I have repeatedly pointed out previously. it also is replete with racially discriminatory provisions--against persons of Pacific. Oriental. Negro. and Mediterranean background. As a member of the Immigration and Naturalization Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. I will continue to push for elimination of these discriminatory and unwise policies. and for the enactment of a fair and just immigration law. Mr. President.