No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Administrative Standards for Improving Naturalization Procedure
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
Naturalization procedure is a complex process involving a dozen different steps from the time the alien enters the country until he finally receives his order of admission from the court. In recent months, considerable attention has been given it in the hope that part of the red tape and resulting delay may be obviated. Criticism of red tape and useless steps in the procedure has been widespread. As a student of the administrative process, I tried, during my period of service in the Department of Justice, to devote as much time as possible to improvement and simplification of naturalization, and in this I was encouraged by the Attorney General and other officials of the Department. In my treatment of this subject, the analysis and recommendations are primarily the result of my own thinking and analysis, but it can also be said that on the general approach, all of us in the Department who were concerned with this problem saw eye to eye. In the study of administrative procedure and the determination upon improvements, we in Washington have been greatly assisted by the administrative studies of the National Council on Naturalization and Citizenship.
Before we can deal intelligently with administrative analyses and recommendations, we must make up our minds as to the results we are trying to achieve. I am one of those who think that administration cannot be intelligently considered apart from the social problems and objectives which it subserves; for if it is so considered, it is almost sure to fall wide of the mark. What kind of citizenship are we interested in producing? Some of the most important administrative determinations to be made depend upon the answer given to this question.
- Type
- Public Administration
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1943
References
1 See infra.
2 Fields, , “Making Naturalization Administrative,” Boston Univ. Law Rev., Vol. 15, p. 260 (1935).Google Scholar
2a For a concise statement of the two doctrines, see Research in International Law, Harvard Law School (1929), p. 27 ff. For a summary analysis of the laws of the various countries of the world with respect to the doctrines, see Appendix No. 1, pp. 80–83, of that work. For texts of laws, see Flournoy, and Hudson, , A Collection of Nationality Laws of Various Countries as Contained in Constitutions, Statutes, and Treaties (1929).Google Scholar On the history of jus sanguinis, with special regard to French law, see de Lapradelle, , Nationalité d'Origine (1893), pp. 1–28.Google Scholar On the history of jus soli, see Holds, worth, History of English Law (1938 ed.), pp. 72 ff.Google Scholar; U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1897), 169 U.S. 649 (18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890). The U. S. Constitution, XIVth Amendment, Sec. 1, adopts the jus soli theory; also act of April 9, 1866, Sec. 1922, Rev. Stat. (1878), 8 U.S.C. 1. For arguments in favor of each theory, see “Jus Soli or Jus Sanguinis,” The Grotius Society Publications, Problems of the War (1917), Vol. III, pp. 119–131, by H. S. Q. Henriques pro jus soli and Ernest J. Schuster pro jus sanguinis (1918).
2b For the same reason, various Latin American countries have adopted jus soli as the principal basis of their nationality laws. See Research in International Law, p. 81.
3 Nationality Act of 1940, Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 876, title I, subch. III, sec. 327(b), 54 Stat. 1150, 8 U.S.C. 727(b). As to loyalty requirements, see ch. 876, title I, subch. III. secs. 305, 306, 307(a), 309(a) (b). As to educational requirements, see ch. 876, title I, subch. III, secs. 304, 332(a).
4 See Hazard, , “The Trend toward Administrative Naturalization,” in this Review, Vol. 21, p. 342 (1927)Google Scholar; Fields, , “Making Naturalization Administrative,” Boston Univ. Law Rev., Vol. 15, p. 260 (1935).Google Scholar
5 In the opinion of prominent jurists, naturalization is essentially administrative in nature and not judicial. See Report No. 1328 of Hearings by Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. (1926), p. 4 (Chief Justice Taft), p. 7 (Judge Augustus N. Hand), p. 12 (Judge Learned Hand).
6 See Fields, op. cit.
7 Required in all cases where a certificate of arrival is required. See Nationality Act, 1940, supra, secs. 329(b), 332(b), 332(c).
8 8 CFR supra, sec. 365.1.
9 See note 1.
10 Nationality Act of 1940, supra, sec. 331.
11 See 8 CFR supra, secs. 354.1–354.8.
12 8 CFR supra, sec. 370.1.
13 8 CFR supra, sec. 370.8.
14 Nationality Act of 1940, supra, sec. 332.
15 Ibid., supra, sec. 333.
16 Ibid., supra, sec. 334(c).
17 Ibid., supra, sec. 334(a), 335.
18 Ibid., supra, secs. 334(a), 336.
19 Nationality Act of 1940, supra, sec. 332(a), 54 Stat. 1154.
20 See supra, p. 14, note 1.
21 See Report No. 1328 of Hearings by Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. (1926).
22 Act of June 8, 1926, C. 502, 44 Stat. 709, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 399a.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.