In the original Foreign Affairs Committee bill. I believe that the language was much stronger in this area. It expresses the understanding that immigration benefits extended by the U.S. Government to the citizens of the Freely Associated States are contingent upon the maintenance of the Freely Associated States of the citizenship requirements which are currently in effect. and that those requirements shall not be appreciably diminished. Now. there are two points I would like to bring up. In the compromise version between the two committees. it seems to me when the language now reads. "shall not extend any such naturalized citizen with respect to whom circumstances associated with the acquisition of the status of naturalized citizen are such as to allow a reasonable inference on the part of appropriate officials of the United States. and subject to United States procedural requirement that such naturalization status is acquired primarily in order to obtain such rights." That places a very substantial burden on the United States to make that determination. I understand that in the compact itself there is a 5year residency requirement. but what can the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from Ohio do to assure me that we are not asking for an extraordinary burden of proof which. by the change to this compromise language?
Keywords matched
naturalization immigration naturalized