(Testimony of Abram Chayes)
Mr. Chayes.
No; it was not.
Mr. Ehrlich.
Actually this report did go to the Department of Justice because it was submitted before the Commission was formed.
Mr. Chayes.
Yes; but it wasn't submitted to the Department of Justice for consideration.
Mr. Dulles.
For concurrence or anything of that kind.
Mr. Chayes.
For concurrence, no.
Mr. Coleman.
Now, the first section which I assume you address your attention to was section 349 (a) (1).
Mr. Chayes.
We could do it that way.
Mr. Coleman.
Do you want to start with 349(a) (6)?
Mr. Chayes.
We started with (a) (6) in the memorandum because there was likely to be a better case under (a) (6) than almost anything else. The reason why one might argue more about (a) (6) than anything else, is that there were written statements by Oswald saying, "I renounce my citizenship" or words to that effect, and they were made in writing, and in a way that appeared to be intended as a formal, considered statement.
But (a) (6) says that a U,S. national may lose his nationality by "making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State."
Now, even if you resolve every other issue in favor of expatriation, that is if you say handing a fellow a letter of the kind that Oswald handed to Mr. Snyder was a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer, it was clearly not on the form prescribed by the Secretary of State, and the courts have been very precise on that.
Representative Ford.
Do you have those citations, Mr. Chayes?
Mr. Chayes.
The form we have here, it is called "Form of Oath of Renunciation." It is volume 8 of the Foreign Affairs Manual of the Department of State, and it is an exhibit to section 225.6, and you can see here that it is a fully prescribed form.
Mr. Coleman.
Do you have any case where (a) it was a written statement, and (b) it was given to a consul and yet because it was not on the form prescribed by the Secretary of-State, a court has held that it was not a renunciation?
Mr. Chayes.
No case has been decided under 349(a) (6), but the general line of cases under 349 is to resolve every doubt in favor of the citizen, and there are innumerable citations to that effect. I feel quite confident when the statute itself prescribes that the form should be one established by the Secretary, and where the Secretary has in fact prescribed such a form, that one cannot bring himself under (a) (6) unless he uses the form.
Mr. Coleman.
Wouldn't the two letters that Oswald delivered be considered as making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, which is an act under (a) (2)?
Mr. Chayes.
That would be (a) (2), and we consider that at page 7 of the memorandum, subsection G.
Mr. Dulles.
Are we through with all pages up to 7?
Mr. Chayes.
No; we probably go back to 1. But there we do have cases, and the cases are clear, that the oath or affirmation or formal declaration under section (a) (2) has to be to an official entitled to receive it on behalf of the foreign state, and even then the courts have been very sticky about holding people to that.
For example, there is one case where a dual national, a Philippine and U.S. national, made an oath of allegiance to the Philippines in the usual form in order to get a Philippine passport, and it was asserted that this was an expatriating act, and the court held no, it wasn't. In re Bautista's Petition, 183 F. Supp. 271 (D.C. Guam, 1960). There is a case where a man took an oath of allegiance to the British Crown, but the recipient of. the oath was his employer, private employer, and it was held that that was not the kind of oath that is involved. In The Matter of L. 1 I. & N. Dec. 317 (B.I.A. 1942).
The courts have said that this is a reciprocal relationship in which in order
|
