A-1607902
Decided by Central Office September 7, 1948
Racial eligibility to citizenship — Section 303 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended — Father of Siamese blood, mother a white person — Lawful admission for permanent residence in 1920 when he entered to study here.
(1) An alien, born in Germany of a pure-blooded Siamese father and a white mother, is not eligible to citizenship under the provisions of section 303 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended; the phrase "persons of Chinese descent" as used in the 1943 amendment to section 303 ( supra) does not cover such an alien, in the light of its legislative history; accordingly, he is not deemed eligible for a certificate of lawful entry in view of the provisions of section 328 (b) of the Nationality Act of 1940.
(2) The alien's entry here in 1920 for study may be considered a lawful admission for permanent residence in view of the provisions of 8 C.F.R. 110.37 (b) (1), since the legality of his residence here is not affected by the provisions barring the entry of natives of the so-called "Asiatic-barred Zone" (section 3 of Immigration Act of February 5, 1917) in which Siam is included, because he was found not to be a "native" of such "zone" and it was found that he always maintained a status exempted (student and chemical engineer) from the bar of section 3 ( supra). Accordingly, an application for a certificate of lawful entry under section 328 (b) of the Nationality Act of 1940 is not in order.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL OFFICE
Discussion: This record relates to the above-named subject, a 50-year-old married male, native of Germany and citizen of Siam, who is applying for a certificate of lawful entry. He entered the United States on June 19, 1920, at the port of New York, ex S.S. Baltic, and as the record indicates, he has remained here continuously. Entry has been verified.
The District Director recommends denial of the application on the ground that the subject is racially ineligible to citizenship. Counsel in his brief contends that the subject is racially eligible. Hence this question is the first issue to be considered in this case.
It is established that the subject was born in Berlin, Germany of a Siamese father and a German mother. The subject testified to the effect that his father was of Siamese noble blood, and that his research into the matter has convinced him that Siamese of noble lineage, such as his father, are "predominantly Chinese in blood." Substantially, it is his contention that, being the offspring of a pure blooded German, i.e., a white person, and a pure blooded Siamese, who he says is a person of Chinese descent, he is racially eligible to naturalization. In the brief counsel argues that the subject comes within the purview of section 303 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended (8 U.S.C. 703), because he is "one-half white person, one-half Siamese and the Siamese are persons of Chinese descent."
In support of their position, the subject submitted a 1943 Smithsonian Institute Study of Siam and the Siamese, and counsel has cited in his brief from the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and from a book published in 1924 which treats of the history of the Siamese. Examination of these proffered authorities discloses that they agree that the Siamese are much mixed in race and that such admixture goes back thousands of years. These authorities do not appear to bear out the assertions of the applicant and counsel as to the purity of present day Siamese noble blood. However, whatever be the merits of the ethnological contentions advanced here, it is unnecessary to explore their ramifications in order to settle this racial issue.
Section 303, which is here involved, of the Nationality Act of 1940 was amended in 1943 to add Chinese, and again in 1946 to add races indigenous to India, to the classes of persons racially eligible to naturalization. It appears that there has been no ruling, administrative or judicial, upon the question of the racial eligibility to naturalization of Siamese since the enactment of these amendments.
The racial issue in this case turns on the meaning of the phrase "persons of Chinese descent" as used in the 1943 amendment to section 303 of the Nationality Act. Counsel construes this phrase to include persons who ethnological research may tend to show were descended in antiquity from the Chinese. It is possible to spell out such a meaning for this term only by taking it out of context, and ignoring the purpose of the statute of which it was a part.
If there be any question as to its interpretation, the phrase, and the section in which it appeared upon enactment must be construed with reference to the purpose of the entire statute in which they were embodied, inasmuch as a statute is passed as a whole and is animated by one general purpose or intent.
The statute, of which this phrase is a part, was enacted December 17, 1943, and bears the title "To Repeal the Chinese Exclusion Acts, to Establish Quotas, and for Other Purposes" ( 57 Stat. 600). This title is indicative, though not necessarily controlling, as to the legislative intent. The first section of the statute repealed the Chinese Exclusion Acts. Those acts had never been applied to Siamese. The second section provided for quotas for Chinese persons entering as immigrants, and clearly does not cover Siamese. The third section contains the amendment to section 303 of the Nationality Act in question. Clearly the purpose of the act as a whole was to benefit present day nationals of China and their progeny.
This observation as to the limited purpose of the statute is confirmed beyond dispute by the history of the measure during its enactment. The third section, the section of the statute here involved, was passed by Congress without change from the draft as introduced by the respective committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives. It is, therefore, proper to conclude that Congress adopted the committee's intent as its own.
The House Report (No. 732, 78th Cong., 1st sess., Oct. 7, 1943) sets forth that the purpose of the bill was to repeal the Chinese Exclusion Laws, to place Chinese persons on a small quota basis, and "to make persons of the Chinese race eligible to become naturalized United States citizens." Adverting to the Chinese Exclusion Laws, this report notes that those laws referred to the Chinese by the terms: "Chinese persons"; "persons of Chinese descent"; and "Chinese laborers." This report states specifically that section 3 "makes persons of the Chinese race eligible for United States citizenship through naturalization," and that the number of Chinese who would become eligible for naturalization thereunder is small. In its general statement, this report declares that it is proposed by this bill to "remove discriminations against the Chinese which have been a source of misunderstanding in the relations between our two peoples for over 60 years and have aroused widespread resentment among the Chinese people." So then, the House report makes it clear that the bill was concerned with the people of China, and that the House intended to limit the benefits of the measure to them, and did not intend that the benefits cover any other Asiatic peoples.
The Senate Report (No. 535, 78th Cong., 1st sess., Nov. 16, 1943) is even more specific with regard to the precise point here involved. Not only does this report repeat the exact language of the House report as to the purpose of the bill and the objects of each section, but also it discusses the use of the phraseology about which a question has arisen in this case. With respect to this language the report states:
Section 3 makes persons of the Chinese race eligible for United States citizenship through naturalization. * * * All this section does is to add Chinese (note: to the classes already eligible) * * *
During the course of the bill's consideration by the committee different members pointed out that the term "Chinese persons" was used in section 2, whereas the term "Chinese persons or persons of Chinese descent" was used in section 3. It was explained to the committee the terms are intended to be used synonymously. The term "Chinese persons or persons of Chinese descent" has come down through the various statutes relating to the exclusion of Chinese and has been used to include not only persons of the Chinese race born in China, and citizens of that country, but also to include persons of the Chinese race born in other countries of the world and citizens or subjects of such countries. It is clearly the intention of this committee to deal with persons of the Chinese race as that term has been interpreted throughout the years, both for the purpose of the Chinese exclusion laws and the statutes relating to racial eligibility insofar as naturalization is concerned. Therefore, both the terms "Chinese persons" and "Chinese persons or persons of Chinese descent" shall mean persons who are of as much as one-half Chinese blood and are not of as much as one-half blood of a race eligible to citizenship. This is consistent with the established administrative and judicial requirements in cases of persons of mixed blood * * *
The legislative intent on the point in question is, then, very manifest. As early as 1910, a Congressional Immigration Commission report entitled "Dictionary of Races or Peoples" (S. Doc. 662, 61st Cong., 3d sess.), which classified the five great races (white, black, yellow, brown, and red races) into ethnical subdivisions, distinguished as separate races or peoples between the Chinese and the Siamese. There is no question but that at the time of the passage of the statute under discussion, the Siamese were generally considered, and are considered today, to be a "race" of people distinct from the Chinese, regardless of the conjecture or opinion of ethnological authorities. Had Congress desired to benefit the Siamese, Congress would undoubtedly have referred to them by the racial appellative by which they are commonly known. Yet no mention of the Siamese appears in the committee reports cited above.
It is established by the above-discussed committee reports that the amendment of section 303 of the Nationality Act here involved was intended by Congress to benefit only the nationals of the country of China, and their offspring whose Chinese ancestry in modern times can be proved. The Siamese are not "descended from the Chinese" in that sense, regardless of the fact that ethnological authorities may consider some of them to have descended in antiquity from the Chinese.
Accordingly, it is found that the subject is not a "person of Chinese descent" within the meaning of the use of the term in section 303 of the Nationality Act, as amended. The record shows clearly that the Siamese are not within any of the other racial classes enumerated in section 303 as eligible to become naturalized citizens. Since the subject is concededly half Siamese, his white blood does not preponderate, and he is, then, racially ineligible to naturalization. Accordingly, his application for a certificate of lawful entry must be denied on this ground.
There is an additional ground for denial in this case. The certificate of admission, which, as the record satisfactorily indicates, relates to the subject's 1920 entry, shows that he was a student at time of entry, that he intended to remain but temporarily, and that head tax was paid. While the certificate sets forth that he was destined to the Siamese Legation in Washington, D.C., the fact that head tax was paid indicates that he was not admitted as a Government official. In his registry application, the subject states that he entered for the purposes of study. The certificate contains an erroneous entry as to birth in Siam. As the following discussion makes clear, this is an immaterial discrepancy which does not bear upon the question of legality of entry (par. 3, O.I. 500 I).
It appears clear, then, that the subject's 1920 entry comes within the category authorized by section 110.37 (b) (1), title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, to be considered lawful admissions for permanent residence, provided that the legality of his residence here is not affected by the provisions of section 3 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, barring the entry of natives of certain territory on the continent of Asia and islands adjacent thereto within the geographical limits stated therein, except for specified exempt classes.
The territory comprising this Asiatic barred zone includes all of Siam. The first question arising in this connection is whether the subject is a "native" of the Asiatic barred zone, within the meaning of the use of that term in the provisions under discussion. The word "native" generally denotes the place of birth; when used as a noun, it ordinarily means a natural-born subject or citizen. However, its meaning may also include one born abroad, if his parents were citizens of the country at the time of birth and not permanently residing in foreign parts (45 C.J. 329; Black's Law Dictionary). The precise point to be resolved here is whether Congress intended to use the term in its ordinary sense of one born in a country subject to its jurisdiction, or in its broader meaning to include one born abroad under the conditions just set forth. A complicating factor in this case is the fact, as testified to by the subject, that at the time of his birth in Germany his father was the Ambassador of Siam to that country. Hence the subject was corn, constructively, within the allegiance of Siam ( U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649).
Examination of the report of the Senate committee responsible for the insertion of the Asiatic barred zone provision under consideration, in the draft bill which was later enacted as the act of February 5, 1917 (Report No. 352, 64th Cong., 1st sess., 1916), indicates that the committee did not go into the matter of the use of the term "native" in this proviso.
Since geographical limits, but not Asiatic countries, were prescribed in this provision, it is properly deductible that the term "native" was used in this clause in the literal sense of one born within the stated geographical confines. In the absence of any definite indications, the assignment of any broader meaning to the word is unwarranted. Upon the basis of this determination, it appears that the subject is not a "native" of the Asiatic barred zone within the meaning of the provision in question. Hence, it is found that his 1920 admission may be deemed a lawful one for permanent residence without regard to the Asiatic barred zone provisions.
Even were it held that the subject is a "native" of this Asiatic barred zone, he would be entitled to be considered as a lawful resident, inasmuch as the record indicates that he has maintained a status within the classes exempted from the bar by section 3 of the act of 1917. He entered as a student, and after completing his studies, he became employed, and remained employed to the present date, in his profession, chemical engineering. Both students and chemists are within the exempt classes specified in the afore-mentioned section. Having maintained an exempt status since entry, the subject may properly be considered to have retained his lawful status as a permanent resident in this country (Solicitor of Labor, file P-887943, Sept. 28, 1933).
It is therefore ordered that subject alien's application for certificate of lawful entry be denied on the grounds (1) that he is an alien racially ineligible to citizenship, and (2) that there does exist a record of his lawful admission for permanent residence.