Americanization; Civics; Immigrants -- United States; Naturalization -- United States; Noncitizens -- United States
Yes 48
No 222
---
270
GENERAL TREND OF JUDGES’ OPINIONS
The returns of this questionnaire, from a sufficiently representative
cross-section of the naturalizing agency of the government,
self-selected by the operation of substantial personal interest in
the problems embodied in the situation (as evidenced by taking the
pains to express opinion), make clear the opinion of the judges on
several important points, and may be summarized substantially as
follows:
(1) The judges on the whole believe that the present law requires no
drastic amendment in principle; they believe that the naturalizing
function should remain with the courts; should not be confined to the
Federal courts, and should be exercised in the open courtrooms as it
is at present. And this, notwithstanding the fact that the function
adds materially to the burden of ordinary litigation.
(2) In the matter of attitude toward both petitioners and their
witnesses, the judges are in the main liberal and humane, judging
of absence during the five years’ probationary period chiefly with
regard to the occasion for the absence and the continuing _intention_
to become an American citizen, and the witnesses’ knowledge of the
petitioner by the practical facts in the case.
(3) An overwhelming majority of the judges favor mitigation of the
technicalities now surrounding the proceeding by permitting the
substitution of witnesses and the supplying of evidence to convince
the court, by means of depositions covering portions of the period
of residence within the state in which the petition is filed. It may
be added that very many of the judges would accept testimony of the
same character as that which they would receive in any other sort of
proceeding before the court to establish any fact.
(4) A majority of the judges require of petitioners proof of ability
to _read_ the English language; some require also ability to write
it--although the law requires only ability to _speak_ it. There
is a marked weight of opinion in favor of requiring reading; some
also advocate writing--even among the judges who do not now require
it because the present law does not. The judges are about evenly
divided as to the desirability of a uniform educational test. Most
of those who oppose it emphasize the fact that, in the selection
of citizens, character and general reputation are more important
than book learning; that a bad man is made only the more dangerous
by education. A majority of the judges would favor a required
course of instruction, and would accept as _prima-facie_ evidence
of intellectual fitness a school certificate of the successful
completion of such a course. Increasingly, such certificates are in
fact accepted by courts all over the country.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account