Hon. JAMES M. MEAD,

Member of Congress, Washington, D. C.

BUFFALO, N. Y., January 19, 1933.

DEAR JIM: A German couple, who have resided in the town of Cheektowaga for many years and both of whom have been citizens of the United States for many years, while on a trip to Germany, about 10 years ago, legally adopted under the laws of Germany, a German female child, then about 4 years of age, and brought her back to the town of Cheektowaga where she has resided with them for the past 10 years. She does not know that she is not their natural child and is a pupil in one of the public schools of the town of Cheektowaga and almost ready to enter high school. Her foster parents are well to do and do not wish the child to learn that she is not their natural child. They have no natural child.

Under the Revised Statutes, the natural children of naturalized citizens of the United States, although foreign born, if residents of the United States at the time they attain their majority, become citizens of the United States by virtue of the United States citizenship of their parents. This rule apparently does not extend to the legally adopted foreign-born children of foster parents who are citizens, and I think the statute should be amended so that legally adopted foreign-born children of citizen parents, who reside with their citizen parents in this country at the time of attaining their majorities, shall likewise become citizens of the United States by virtue of the citizenship of their foster parents.

I trust, therefore, that you will be able to secure the passage of an amendment to the United States statutes to that effect, so that it will not be necessary for these people, or for others similarly situated, to endure the embarrassment and torture that is needlessly inflicted upon them under the present state of the statute relating thereto. If the natural foreign-born children of foreign-born citizens of the United States are permitted to become citizens by virtue of their parents' citizenship, when they reside with them here in America, I can see no reasonable objection to the extension of this privilege to the legally adopted children of such parents; particularly if such child is not of oriental birth.

Sincerely yours,

W. BRENNAN, Jr. And so my appearance this morning is merely to ask your committee to consider this proposed new section.

Mr. DIES. Mr. Mead, would not that amendment open the door to let people adopt alien children and automatically make them citizens of the United States? Would not that open the door to a great deal of racketeering?

Mr. MEAD. It probably would be necessary to safeguard the amendment with restrictive provisions; but it certainly would cover and do justice to many humane cases such as the one that I suggest here this morning.

Mr. DIES. I can see that case; but the trouble is, it seems to me, that with that amendment, if any citizens of the United States wanted to bring children in and give them citizenship, all they would have to do would be to adopt them. There would not be any limitation against it, and we would not have any safeguards against abuse.

Mr. MEAD. I imagine there might be abuse if they adopted a child within a few years, who was about to attain its majority, and brought it to the United States, and in that way abrogated the restrictions imposed in our immigration policy. But where a child is adopted in its youth by American citizens and is educated in this country, sent through the public schools and the high schools of this country, as in the case which I just cited to the committee, it would seem that we would be doing an act of justice in providing that that child, when it attains its majority, after spending the major part of its life in this country, should be eligible to citizenship.

Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Mead, if you would limit the age of the child to where it was almost in infancy at the time of adoption, I believe that would probably take care of it.

Mr. MEAD. Yes; or if you would specify a particular period of time which they must have

Mr. KRAMER (interposing). I would be in favor of limiting the time-most of the times in my experience they have been adopted in their childhood-for instance, from the time of infancy on to about two years, and then restrict them from that time on. That would probably do away with the objection of Mr. Dies.

Mr. MILLARD. You do not think that people generally would make a practice of legally adopting children and taking all that responsibility? Mr. MEAD. I doubt very much whether the amendment I suggest would accelerate that.

Mr. DIES. They can take out naturalization papers regardless. What would be the effect of this amendment-just to make it unnecessary for a child to go through the process of becoming a naturalized citizen?

Mr. MEAD. A legally adopted child of citizens of the United States would become a citizen of the United States when it attained its majority.

Mr. DIES. Without taking out naturalization papers?

Mr. MEAD. Yes; by reason of the citizenship of its legally adopted parents.

Mr. DIES. Such child can become a citizen now, just like any other alien who goes through the process of taking out naturalization papers.

Mr. MEAD. No; under our immigration laws

Mr. PALMISANO (interposing). As I understand, the Congressman's idea is not to disclose to an innocent child that its parents are not its lawful parents; in other words, that it is an adopted child.

Mr. DIES. You would have to disclose it under any process. There would need to be some proof, would there not?

Mr. PALMISANO. No. This child is innocent of the knowledge that it is an adopted child, and when the child must obtain naturalization papers, the parents, being citizens, would naturally disclose that they are not its parents.

Mr. DIES. They would have to disclose it anyway. There would have to be some proof. How does the Government know whether or not that child is entitled to become a citizen? There has got to be some proof that the parent adopted the child.

Mr. KRAMER. The records of any court proceedings that I have had in adoption cases show in those proceedings who the parents of that child were.

Mr. DIES. Surely.

Mr. MEAD. The record at the time of the adoption. That, of course, is unknown to the child.

Mr. KRAMER. Oh, yes.

Mr. MEAD. And it would probably eliminate the torture and embarrassment.

Mr. KRAMER. Therefore I suggest that you fix a reasonable time limit, from the infancy of the child to say two years, or even three years.

Mr. MEAD. It will be perfectly agreeable to me if the committee in its wisdom will add to the amendment the suggestion which you have made, limiting the application of this provision to such children as are adopted in their infancy. I think that would eliminate the possibility of racketeering, as indicated by the gentleman from Texas, and it would be very agreeable to me.

I thank you.

Mr. KERR. Let me ask you this: There might be only half a dozen of these cases. This is just a rare thing?

Mr. MEAD. This is a rare thing, and if it was amended so as to apply to those who are adopted in their infancy, I think it would be a very humane amendment, and it would not apply in very many

cases.

Mr. KERR. You have only one case in mind?

Mr. MEAD. Just one.

Mr. WEIDEMAN. Mr. Mead, do you think it is wise to encumber this law for the purpose of accommodating these four or five cases, when they can go through the regular course of naturalization?

Mr. MEAD. Of course it is to humanize the law and eliminate the humiliation and embarrassment that must result in making known to the child that its parents are dead and that it is an adopted child, and so on. Of course it would be so rare in its application that it is questionable whether it would be embarrassing to the Government. Perhaps it would only be helpful in a few cases.

Mr. TAYLOR. Don't you think it might cease to be a rare thing if we should insert this amendment in the act?

Mr. MEAD. I hope not. I think it would be very helpful if we could accelerate the adoption of children, taking them out of institutions and placing them in a home where the environment would be more helpful.

Mr. DIES. Mr. Mead, the effect of these things in the administration of the immigration laws is simply this: We come in with a special case; other gentlemen come in with special cases. We are in sympathy with such of those cases as are meritorious, but if we pass a law, there are many people who, the moment it becomes a law, proceed to take advantage of it, and it becomes a racket. We have had it time and time again. It is not that we are not in sympathy with those meritorious cases, but in a general law somebody has got to suffer. Now, do you think we are justified in taking care of one or two isolated cases and running the risk of having another loophole in the immigration law?

Mr. MEAD. Of course, the observation you make is of considerable influence if we assume that at all times people are just rushing to crowd into our country and if it is necessary for us to maintain a barricade against their coming. But there are other times when it seems that immigration is practically nil.

Mr. DIES. Well, that is under a Republican administration.
Mr. MEAD. Yes.

Mr. DIES. Now that we have a Democratic administration, and are going to have prosperity, everybody will want to come here.

Mr. MEAD. I agree with the gentleman that with the return of prosperity and personal liberty we will probably have a greater degree of immigration into this country. But nevertheless it seems to me that we could at least be liberal and humane and permit of the

adoption of cases of this particular kind, because it has a tendency to bring within the one roof people who are naturally closer associated together, and perhaps these adoptions are adoptions that are within the family circle, so that it really permits of the reuniting of families. At any rate, I will be very glad to leave it to your judgment. Mr. KERR. All right, Mr. Mead.

Now, with respect to H.R. 3673, I have before me a list of persons who wish to be heard, under the direction of Mrs. Florence Bayard Hilles.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW FURUSETH, PRESIDENT INTERNATIONAL SEAMEN'S UNION OF AMERICA

Mr. FURUSETH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest to this committee to amend section 1, on line 7, by striking out the word "or" and inserting the word "and."

Mr. KERR. What page?

Mr. FURUSETH. On the first page.

Mr. JEFFERS. Line 7?

Mr. FURUSETH. Line 7; strike out the word "or" and insert the word "and", so as to make it read "father and mother." That would equalize it.

And on page 2, on line 26, make the same amendment, striking out the word "or" and inserting the word "and."

Mr. JEFFERS. You have two "ors" on that line.

Mr. DIES. You want it changed to "husband and wife"?
Mr. JEFFERS. You mean the second word "or"?

Mr. FURUSETH. Yes; the second word "or."

Mr. WEIDEMAN. What section are you referring to now?

Mr. FURUSETH. I am referring to section 4, on page 2, line 26, striking out the second word "or", so as to make it read "husband and wife".

Mr. DIES. In other words, it is your idea to fix it so that both father and mother have to be citizens of the country before transmitting that citizenship to the child?

Mr. FURUSETH. Right.

Mr. DIES. And your idea is that that will equalize the matter?
Mr. FURUSETH. Yes; that would equalize the law.

Mr. DIES. That would change the present law which now gives the father the right to transmit citizenship to the child?

Mr. FURUSETH. Yes; since we have adopted woman suffrage. Mr. DIES. Will your amendment give the women the same rights as the men?

Mr. FURUSETH. Absolutely.

Mr. DIES. It will not give either one of them any rights.

Mr. FURUSETH. Yes; when they are married.

I have very serious reasons for suggesting this amendment, by the way. I think that the better way altogether to make it equal would be to strike out all of that stuff altogether; that is to say, in section 1993 and that part of the act of March 2, 1907.

Mr. JEFFERS. You say that on line 26, page 2, where it says, "husband or wife" it should be "husband and wife", and you say that that would be all right provided they are married. How would it be if they were not married?

Mr. FURUSETH. Well, they would be married before they had the child, I presume.

Mr. MILLARD. Mr. Furuseth, the law is with you.

Mr. FURUSETH. I wanted to say that there are certain remarkable instances developing now, to a very large number, that later on I beg permission to lay before you.

Mr. KERR. Let me suggest to the gentleman that he leave his amendment with the clerk.

Mr. FURUSETH. All right.

Mr. KERR. Now we will hear Mrs. Hilles.

STATEMENT OF MRS. FLORENCE BAYARD HILLES, CHAIRMAN NATIONAL COUNCIL, NATIONAL WOMAN'S PARTY

Mrs. HILLES. Mr. Chairman, my name is Florence Bayard Hilles, chairman of the National Council of the National Woman's Party. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, five generations of men of my family in this country have come into the halls of Congress for the purpose of making laws. We come today representing various groups to ask you to make some of those laws equal for men and for women.

We regard this as an emergency measure. We feel that there must be an equal and a just law for women regarding their own children.

We have brought here today various national organizations and a representative of the Department of Labor, and we would like to discuss with you this bill on the subject of citizenship and nationality, and I would like to introduce to you, as our first speaker, Miss Emma Wold, of Oregon, who speaks for the National Woman's Party. Miss Wold is a member of the Supreme Court bar of the United States, practicing law in the District of Columbia. She is a member of the American Society of International Law. Miss Wold was sent by the United States Government as technical advisor on nationality to the American delegation at The Hague conference on the codification of international law in March, 1930.

I will ask Miss Wold to address you.

Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Chairman, don't you think we ought to have some limitation on the time that we shall spend here today? I have some other engagements this afternoon.

Mr. DIES. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we limit each speaker to a certain length of time, so that no speaker will trespass upon another's time.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dickstein, there are too many witnesses, I can see now. I would like to listen to all of them, if possible, but inasmuch as we cannot, we will have to ask the ladies to be kind enough to confine their time a little bit. We want to dispose of this if we can, but we cannot sit here all day, despite the fact that Congress is not in session today, because members of the committee have other things to do.

A report upon H.R. 3673 has been received from the Department of State, and this report will be inserted in the record at this point. We are also considering H.R. 77 by Mr. Millard.