711.60 i 4/1
The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Estonia ( Sussdorff )56
Sir: Your attention is called to the Joint Resolution of Congress, approved by the President May 28, 1928, reading as follows:
“That the President be, and he is hereby, respectfully requested to endeavor as soon as possible to negotiate treaties with the remaining nations with which we have no such agreement, providing that persons born in the United States of foreign parentage, and naturalized American citizens, shall not be held liable for military service or any other act of allegiance during a stay in the territory subject to the jurisdiction of any such nation while citizens of the United States of America under the laws thereof.”
You are instructed to bring the above Resolution to the attention of the Estonian Government with a view to the conclusion of an appropriate convention between the United States and Estonia.
It will be observed that the Joint Resolution relates to two classes of persons. First, those born in foreign countries and naturalized as citizens of the United States, and second, those born in the United States of alien parents. While this Government does not admit that a person of foreign origin who has lawfully acquired naturalization as a citizen of the United States can properly be regarded as still owing allegiance to the country of which he was formerly a national, it is obliged to admit the existence of dual nationality in [Page 501] the cases of persons who are born in the United States of alien parents and who, although they are born citizens of the United States under the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, are also regarded as nationals of the countries of which their parents are nationals under the laws thereof. Nevertheless, it seems only reasonable that, when persons of the class last mentioned have a permanent residence in one of the two countries concerned, they should be able to visit the other temporarily without being arrested and held for military or other national services.
I enclose herewith, for submission to the Estonian Government a draft treaty concerning naturalization and military service, designed to carry out the provisions of the Joint Resolution. As you will observe, the first three articles of the treaty relate to the status of naturalized citizens and closely resemble the first three articles of the Naturalization Treaty of 1924 between the United States and Bulgaria.57 The fourth article, as you will observe, relates to liability for military or other national services in cases of persons born in either country of parents having the nationality of the other.
In presenting the draft treaty to the Estonian Government you will call attention to the fact that the Government of the United States endeavors consistently to observe two principles with regard to the status and right to protection in foreign countries of persons of foreign origin who have obtained naturalization as citizens of the United States under the laws of this country. The first is that such persons, having left their countries of origin and established themselves permanently in this country, and having solemnly foresworn allegiance to their former sovereigns while at the same time taking an oath of permanent allegiance to the United States, should be regarded as owing allegiance to the United States only. The second is that this Government will not extend its protection abroad to a person of foreign origin who has obtained naturalization as a citizen of this country fraudulently or, although his naturalization may have been obtained in good faith, has abandoned his ties with the United States and established himself permanently in the country of his former nationality. In this relation you will direct especial attention to the provisions of the second paragraph of Section 15 of the Naturalization Act of June 29, 1906,58 providing for the cancellation of the naturalization, as void ab initio, of naturalized citizens who establish a residence of a permanent character abroad within five years after naturalization, and the provision of the second paragraph of Section 2 of the Expatriation Act of March 2, 1907,59 under which [Page 502] the presumption of loss of American citizenship arises against a naturalized citizen who has resided for two years in his native land. Under the provisions of the statute first mentioned, this Department has forwarded to the Attorney General in recent years hundreds of reports received from consular officers concerning naturalized American citizens of foreign origin who established residences of permanent nature in a foreign country within five years after naturalization; and also the Department has refused to grant American passports or consular registration certificates to large numbers of naturalized citizens who have brought upon themselves the presumption of expatriation under the provisions of the Act of March 2, 1907, because of their protracted residence in their native land. These statutory provisions and the action taken under them show clearly that this Government, while it desires to extend full protection to naturalized citizens who appear to have obtained their naturalization in good faith and to have maintained their ties with the United States, has no desire to extend its protection to those who fail to meet these conditions. It is believed that the proposed naturalization treaty, while it is, of course, intended to guarantee due protection to naturalized American citizens of Estonian origin who wish to visit their native land for legitimate objects, makes due allowances for the just demands of Estonia, and thus tends to foster friendly and mutually beneficial intercourse between the two countries.
Especial attention is called to the provision of Article 2 of the proposed treaty to the effect that nationals of either country naturalized in the territory of the other shall not, upon returning to the country of origin, be punished “for failure to respond to calls for military service accruing after bona fide residence was acquired in the territory of the country whose nationality was obtained by naturalization”. It seems obvious that unless a provision to this effect is included in the treaty it will be of little or no value.
With reference to article four of the draft it will be observed that it does not seem reasonable to ask the Estonian Government to enter into an engagement concerning persons born in the United States of foreign parents and desiring to visit the countries of their parents’ nationality, unless it is coupled with a reciprocal engagement by this Government. You are therefore instructed to propose to the Estonian Government agreement upon an article reading as follows:
“A person born in the territory of one party of parents who are nationals of the other party, and having the nationality of both parties under their laws, shall not, if he has his habitual residence, that is, the place of his general abode, in the territory of the state of his birth, be held liable for military service or any other act of allegiance during a temporary stay in the territory of the other party.”
If the Estonian Government should consider that the term “temporary stay” is too vague and requires definition, you are authorized to add the following proviso to the proposed article:
“Provided, That, if such stay is protracted beyond the period of one year, it may be presumed to be permanent, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary.”
[Here follow two paragraphs, the same, mutatis mutandis, as the last two paragraphs of instruction No. 167 to the Ambassador in Belgium, printed on page 497.]
- The same, mutatis mutandis, on the same date to the chiefs of missions in Finland (No. 90), Latvia (No. 582), Lithuania (No. 584), Netherlands (No. 612), and Rumania (No. 11).↩
- Treaty of Nov. 23, 1923, proclaimed May 6, 1924; Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. i, p. 464.↩
- 34 Stat. 596.↩
- 34 Stat. 1228.↩
- The same draft, mutatis mutandis, for treaties with Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, and Rumania.↩