341.1124/26
The British Chargé (Chilton) to the Secretary of State
Sir: I have the honour to inform you that His Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has instructed me to draw attention to the question of the acceptance by the United States Government as deportees of persons who, having acquired United States citizenship by naturalisation, have subsequently resided for many years abroad.
In particular Sir Austen Chamberlain wishes me to draw attention to the case of a man named George Wilfred Goode. This man was convicted in 1918 on his own confession of landing without leave in the United Kingdom, and was recommended for expulsion. He claimed to be a citizen of the United States and it was ultimately discovered that his father, George Goode, who is now understood to reside at Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, had been naturalised on September 26th, 1896. The son had been taken to the United States in 1892 and had continued to live there until March 1918 when he enlisted in the British Army. He appeared to have lost his British nationality by virtue of his father’s naturalisation, and application was made to the competent United States authorities for the necessary facilities for his journey to the United States. These facilities were, however, refused. It is understood that the competent authorities admitted that Goode acquired United States citizenship by virtue of his father’s naturalisation, but took the view that by reason of his absence from [Page 38] the United States and his residence in his native land since 1918 he had under Section 2 of the United States Act of March 2nd, 1907, become subject to the presumption that he had ceased to be a United States citizen, and further, that a naturalised citizen, as long as he is not in a position to overcome the presumption of loss of United States citizenship, must be regarded as “not a citizen”.
The case of George Wilfred Goode has ceased to be of any practical importance by reason of his voluntary departure from the United Kingdom. His Majesty’s Government are, however, anxious to clear up the general question involved. Section 2, the relevant section of the Act of March 2nd, 1907, reads as follows:
“When any naturalised citizen shall have resided for two years in the foreign State from which he came, or for five years in any other foreign State it shall be presumed that he has ceased to be an American citizen, and the place of his general abode shall be deemed his place of residence during said years: Provided, however, That such presumption may be overcome on the presentation of satisfactory evidence to a diplomatic or Consular Officer of the United States, under such rules and regulations as the Department of State may prescribe: And provided also, That no American citizen shall be allowed to expatriate himself when this country is at war”.
His Majesty’s Government fully recognise that the interpretation of the above Act is a matter which the United States judicial authorities alone are competent to determine. At the same time they venture to point out that the Act would not appear to them to give ground for refusal to accept a given individual as a deportee, inasmuch as the operation of the Act would not seem to amount to the revocation of a certificate of naturalisation, which may be considered a function of the courts under the provision of United States law. Further, it appears to His Majesty’s Government that the Act of 1907 was specifically intended merely to assist the State Department in refusing protection abroad to naturalised citizens who, by residing out of the United States of America, avoid all the duties and obligations of citizenship. It does not appear to have been intended to apply to naturalised citizens who return to the United States. In this connection His Majesty’s Government beg leave to quote the remarks of Mr. Perkins, who reported the Bill from the Committee, and had charge of the Bill in the House. In the course of the debate thereon he made the following statement (Congressional Record Vol. 41 pt. 2 p. 1466)
“The Statute provides that, having remained there five years continuously, there shall be a presumption which, unless he satisfies the officers of the State Department, their Consuls, or Ministers to the contrary, would authorise the State Department to refuse to extend him protection. It cannot affect any other rights which of course he can present in Court. No presumption is conclusive on a Court. [Page 39] It is a mere presumption but the presumption would protect the State Department. There is the object of the Bill and the result of the Bill and the only result of it.”
Further, in 1910 the United States Attorney General is understood to have given the following opinion as to the meaning of this Act in the case of a naturalised alien named Jabran Gossin who had resided abroad so long as to raise the presumption that he had lost his United States nationality. His opinion was as follows:28
“I infer from your statement of the facts that before leaving Syria Jabran Gossin did not make proof before a consular or diplomatic officer of the United States as provided by the regulations of the State Department. The question then is whether the presumption as to non-citizenship raised by the act by reason of his residence abroad continues notwithstanding his return to the United States.
“In my judgment the Act was not intended to apply to a case of this kind but its operation is limited to naturalised citizens while residing in foreign countries. The purpose of this Act is, I think, simply to relieve the Government of the obligation to protect such citizens residing abroad after the limit of two or five years, as the case may be, when their residence there is not shown to be of such a character as to warrant the presumption that they intend to return and reside in the United States and thus bear the burdens as well as enjoy the rights and privileges incident to citizenship. Until the time limit has expired the presumption is that they intend to return; after that time it is presumed that they do not intend to return, and it becomes necessary in order that they may continue to have this Government protection, to show affirmatively in accordance with the regulations of the State Department made in pursuance of the Act, that it is their bona fide intention to return to the United States to live.”
At the same time he added that:
“The fact that the act only authorises the submission of proof for the purpose of overcoming the presumption as to non-citizenship raised thereby to diplomatic and consular officers of the United States who necessarily reside abroad and makes no provision in respect to naturalised citizens coming within the purview of the act who return to the United States is a further evidence that Congress did not intend the act to apply to a case of this kind. To hold that it did, would produce the absurdity of a naturalised citizen seeking to re-enter the United States being held to have ceased to be such, and possibly denied admission, because he had failed to make proof before the proper diplomatic or consular officer abroad of his intention to return to the United States.
“As shown above, the presumption to non-citizenship raised by the act is created for the purpose of relieving the State Department of protecting naturalised citizens abroad when the conditions are apparently such as to indicate that they have no bona fide intention [Page 40] to return to and reside in the United States. When a citizen returns to the United States, the necessity for such protection no longer exists, and it is fair to assume that with the cessation of the necessity the presumption created by the Act also ceases.”
His Majesty’s Government also beg leave to refer to the case of a man named K. E. Svensen, a British subject by naturalisation in Australia, whom the United States Government desired to deport to the Commonwealth. This man’s case was dealt with in my predecessor’s note of February 18th, 1920, and in previous correspondence.29 In pressing this case Mr. Polk, the Acting Secretary of State, made the following statement:30
“This Government has in the past admitted, and stands ready in the future to receive, its nationals, native or naturalised, who may be deported, in accordance with the laws of any of the British Dominions. In view of this position, it is hoped that you will spare no effort to effect an understanding with the Australian authorities whereby there may be an interchange of deported aliens based on reciprocity.”
A similar case to that of Mr. Goode appears to have been that of a man named Adolph Aschengrau, a United States citizen by naturalisation. This man, whose case is understood to have been dealt with by the United States Embassy in London, was re-admitted as a deportee to the United States.
His Majesty’s Government have desired me to lay before you the foregoing considerations in the hope that they may be enabled to arrive at an understanding with the United States Government of the general questions involved and I shall be most grateful if I may be informed in due course of the views of your Government.
I have [etc.]