(9) That subsequent to January 13, 1941, the appellant has not accepted or performed the duties of an office, post, or employment in the government of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof for which only nationals of such state are eligible; (10) That at no time subsequent to attaining the age of 21 years has the appellant taken an oath of allegiance to any foreign state. Conclusions of Law: Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, it is concluded: (1) That under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the appellant was born a citizen of the United States; (2) That under section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1907, the appellant has not expatriated himself; (3) That under sections 401 and 402 of the Nationality Act of 1940, the appellant has not expatriated himself; (4) That the appellant has retained his United States citizenship with which he was vested at birth; (5) That under Executive Order 8766, the appellant is not inadmissible to the United States as a person not in possession of a valid Canadian passport or a nonresident alien's border crossing identification card. Other Factors: The appellant testified that he has no intention of returning to the United States for permanent residence but stated that, should anything happen to him, his wife, who is a native citizen of the United States, would return to this country with their daughter. His reason for not desiring to leave Canada permanently is that his business is located there. He has relatives in the United States consisting of a sister, a brother, aunts and uncles and it is his desire that he be permitted to visit them from time to time. The appellant also testified that he was recently refused a Canadian passport on the basis that he is not a British subject. Order: It is ordered that the appeal be sustained, and the appellant admitted as a citizen of the United States. 844885-50 IN THE MATTER OF W In EXCLUSION Proceedings 56156/708 Decided by the Board March 21, 1944 Previous Attack of Insanity-Admissibility-Section 3 of the Act of February 5, 1917-Evidence. An alien, merely certified by an examinining board as requiring treatment and observation in a State Hospital, where her case was diagnosed as “psychoneurosis-mixed type," who has never been adjudicated as insane or mentally incompetent, is not regarded as having suffered from a previous attack of insanity within the meaning of section 3 of the Act of February 5, 1917. EXCLUDED BY BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY: Act of 1917-Previous attack of insanity. BEFORE THE BOARD Discussion: The appellant is a native and citizen of Canada who applied on December 2, 1943, at Portal, N. Dak., for admission to the United States as a returning legally resident alien. She was found to be inadmissible by a Board of Special Inquiry on the ground stated above and has appealed from that decision. The appellant was married to a citizen of the United States on October 20, 1937, and was admitted to the United States in December 1937. Her second child was born on December 25, 1942, at which time she was apparently suffering from gall stones. Within 2 weeks after the birth of the second child she suffered a severe attack of gall stones. Approximately 2 weeks after the birth of her second child she complained of headaches and suffered from an inability to remember things. She did not become violent at any time. A few days after these symptoms became apparent her husband took her to their family physician who made arrangements to present her to an examining board. She was certified to be a person who required treatment and observation at the State Hospital in Jamestown, N. Dak. The certificate and commitment do not contain a diagnosis of her ailment. She was received by the said institution on January 31, 1943, and was released in April 1943 on parole. A letter from the Superintendent of the Hospital states that the diagnosis of her case was psychoneurosis, mixed type and that she "made a very marked improvement under treatment and appeared normal at the time of her parole last April." Her husband testified that she has been apparently normal since her release on parole. He states that she did show some symptoms since her release from the institution but attributes them to homesickness which was overcome by a visit from her parents. One Dr. W. H. Gilsdorf, of New England, N. Dak., issued a statement on September 22, 1943, for the purpose of obtaining an extension of the time of her parents' visit, which states that the appellant was suffering "Maniac Depressive Insanity." This diagnosis is in conflict with that of the psychiatrists at the hospital for mental cases to which she was sent. It does not appear that Dr. Gilsdorf is other than a general practitioner of medicine or that he is qualified as a specialist in psychiatry. The appellant testified that she has not been to see a physician since her release from the hospital with the exception of one occasion during the harvest season of 1943 when she received treatment from Dr. Gilsdorf for a sore on her finger. Since the record does not disclose Dr. Gilsdorf's qualifications and whether or not he examined the appellant with respect to her mental reactions, the diagnosis made by the psychiatrists at the hospital must be assumed to be correct. The appellant's testimony discloses that she realized her condition and that she could notice her own improvement while undergoing treatment. It is also to be noted that on the occasion of her departure from the United States on November 15, 1943, the immigrant inspector who issued the "Watch For" warning described her condition as "She appeared to be entirely rational when in this office today." The record of the hearing held on December 2, 1943, does not disclose any irrational tendencies and her testimony is clear and concise. "The term insanity is a purely legal term," and in the legal sense is "such a degree of mental unsoundness as to call for the restraint of the person afflicted or to justify the authorities in depriving him from the management of his property and affairs." Medically the term is not definable. It has been stated that "in milder forms of mental illness, the neuroses and the psychoneuroses conditions, that are on the border line between the normal and the abnormal and are consistent with a considerable capacity for adaptation and apparent normality, the forms which the symptoms take are somewhat different." (Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 15, pp. 154, 155; Vol. 22, p. 744, by William A. White, M. D., late Superintendent of St. Elizabeths Hospital, Washington, D. C.) Psychoneurosis has been defined as: A mental disease without recognizable anatomical lesion, and without evidence and history of preceding chronic mental degeneration * * * The term psychoneurosis is now employed by Freud and other European specialists to describe that class of exaggerated individual peculiarities or idiosyncrasies of thought towards special objects or topics which are absent from the perfectly normal mind, and which yet have so little influence upon the patient's conduct or his general modes of thought they cannot properly be described as "insanity" or as any form of “mania” especially because ordinarily unaccompanied by any kinds of delusions. At most, they lie on the debatable borderland between sanity and insanity (C. J. vol. 32, p. 69, Black L. D.). The problem of defining insanity is not new. Lord Blackburn stated in the House of Commons some 50 years ago, "I have read every definition (of insanity) which I could meet with and never was satisfied with one of them, and I have endeavored in vain to make one satisfactory to myself. I verily believe it is not in human power to do it." (The Mentally Ill in America by Albert Deutsch.): Indiscriminately used in both a medical and legal sense, the word insanity lacks scientific sanction or precise meaning in either. As a medical or psychiatric term, fortunately, it is fast falling into disuse, having been discredited by the great majority of psychiatric authorities (The Mentally Ill, etc., supra). Webster's New International Dictionary (2d Edition: 1940) defines Insanity-1. a. State of being insane; unsoundness or derangement of mind, especially without recognition of one's own illness. Insanity is rather a social and legal than a medical term and implies mental disorder resulting in inability to manage one's affairs, and perform one's social duties. The term has been variously defined by statutes and variously interpreted in the courts. It covers a variety of disorders, the principal forms being manic-depressive insanity, dementia precox, paranoia, general paralysis, and the alcoholic insanities. Mental deficiency, temporary delirious conditions and trance are sometimes but not usually included. Psychoneurosis and psychopathic states are distinguished from insanity, but with no sharp line of demarcation. Psychosis is stated to be “a purely psychiatric term, without the legal implications of the word, insanity." and neurosis as "a functional nervous disorder without demonstrable physical lesion." [Italics supplied.] The following are some of the definitions given by the courts to the word "insanity": 1. "Insanity" is the absence of reason, thought, and comprehension. (Somers v. Pumphrey, 24 Ind. 231, 245). 2. "Insanity" is the generic term for all unsound and deranged conditions of the mind (Burnham v. Mitchell, 34 Wis. 117, 136). 3. "Insanity" may be total, complete, general, or partial in character and it may be either permanent or temporary in duration. The term "insanity" is a very uncertain, ambiguous, and flexible one, and both legal and medical authorities recognize that there are different kinds and degrees of insanity (U. S. v. Kiles, 70 F. (2d) 880, 883). 4. "Insanity" in the question in an examination for life insurance as to whether insured's father had "insanity or other hereditary disease" refers to a disordered mind from a diseased or defective brain, and not necessarily to a mere temporary mental disturbance during a weakened condition from typhoid fever (Iowa Life Ins. Co. v. Haughton, 46 Ind. 467). 5. The word implies unsoundness or derangement of mind or intellect, not a mere temporary or slight delusion which might be occasioned by a fever or accident (Karow v. N. Y. Continental Ins. Co., 57 Wis. 56). 6. Hallucination temporary in nature is not per se "insanity". Permanent hallucination is “insanity” which is general or particular according to the nature of the delusion. Rawles Third Revision of Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines insanity in medical jurisprudence as "The prolonged departure, without any adequate cause, from the states of feeling and modes of thinking usual to the individual in health. Insanity is such a deprivation of reason that the subject is no longer capable of understanding and acting with discretion in the ordinary affairs of life. Snyder v. Snyder, 142 Ill. 60 * * *. It results that there can be no general definition of legal insanity. It is a state or condition which must be noted with reference to each class of actions to which it is applied * * The legal and the medical ideas of insanity are essentially different, and the difference is one of substance. The failure to keep it in mind has been the fruitful cause of confusion in trials involving the question of mental capacity for crime or contract and has tended to render valueless and often absurd the testimony of witnesses called as experts. The Regulations governing the Medical Examination of Aliens states "The term 'insane persons' shall be held to mean any mentally abnormal person who is suffering with a psychosis." However, the Medical Director, Chief, Medical Hygiene Division, United States Public Health Service, Washington, D. C., in a letter addressed to Mr. Thomas G. Finucane, chairman, Board of Immigration Appeals dated March 10, 1944, states "Psychoneuroses embrace a variety of nervous conditions which are of a so-called functional nature. It is estimated that there are at least three or four million people in the country who have a psychoneurosis of one form or another and which gives them more or less trouble. The various conditions that have been called psychoneurosis by different authorities are neuroasthenia, psychoasthenia, hysteria, and anxiety neurosis. Some of these, especially hysteria, are divided into several groups. None of them is regarded as insanity. They represent, as a rule, some sort of an emotional conflict which often appears as a physiological expression." [Italics supplied.] In view of the uncertainty of the meaning of the word "insanity" great care must be exercised in determining whether a person has actually suffered from one or more attacks of insanity within the meaning of the act of February 5, 1917. The diagnosis by the superintendent and his assistants at the institution to which the appellant was sent was that the appellant was suffering from "psychoneurosis, mixed type." We must accept their diagnosis as being made from the medical point of view, and not from the legal. The weight of medical authority is that psychoneurosis is not to be considered as a form of insanity though the line of demarcation between the two is not distinctly drawn. In view of this it is not likely that the psychiatrists |