No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
In the application of statutes and regulations governing naturalization in the United States, an ingenious administrative device has been evolved which avoids the ineffectiveness and cumbersomeness of the ordinary courts as well as the abuses occasionally characterizing the non-reviewable action of executive agencies at the other extreme. Under an act of 1926, “preliminary hearings” on naturalization petitions are conducted by examiners of the Naturalization Service designated by federal district judges, and recommendations are made to the court which has jurisdiction to grant or withhold citizenship. The examiner resembles a master or a referee rather than an administrative tribunal; yet, unlike many officers of courts in equity matters, he is subject to effective supervision by his administrative superiors.
1 See Gettys, Luella, The Law of Citizenship in the United States (1934)Google Scholar, Chap. 3.
2 To implement the policy of the act of 1906, provisions as to uniform records, forms, fees, and reports were included, and a delay of 90 days was prescribed between the filing of a petition for citizenship and “final hearing” thereon.
3 Annual Report, 1924, p. 18Google Scholar.
4 The Naturalization Bureau had suggested the creation of naturalization courts, “preferably administrative, with the right of appeal to the appropriate United States court.” Report, 1924, p. 18Google Scholar. For spirited opposition to special administrative tribunals for this function, see Kohler, Max J., “Should Naturalization be Made an Exclusively Administrative Function?”, Foreign Language Information Service, March 28, 1934Google Scholar.
6 “Recommendations of the National Council on Naturalization and Citizenship”, New York State Bar Association Bulletin, May, 1934, p. 288Google Scholar.
7 Commissioner of Naturalization, Annual Report, 1927, p. 7Google Scholar.
8 “Recommendations of the National Council on Naturalization and Citizenship”, New York State Bar Association Bulletin, May, 1934, p. 289Google Scholar.
9 Department of Labor, Report, 1933, p. 84Google Scholar.
10 Of the total number of naturalization certificates issued, the federal courts granted 23 per cent in 1914, 45 per cent in 1926, and 63 per cent in 1932. See appropriate Annual Reports of the Commissioner of Naturalization.
11 The precise proportion of all court actions on petitions (grants, denials, continuances) preceded by “preliminary hearings” cannot be ascertained, although it probably does not diverge markedly from the proportion of grants and denials preceded by such action.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.