When women were stripped of US citizenship
Here is an immigration historical fact which can be filed under the “We didn't have the power then” column.
In March 1907, Congress passed the Expatriation Act. Through this Act, Congress mandated that “any American woman who marries a foreigner shall take the nationality of her husband.” More specifically, this meant that upon marriage, regardless of where the couple resided, the woman was stripped of her American citizenship and her legal identity morphed into her husband's. Yes, they did ladies!
By stripping American citizenship from those women who were guilty of nothing more than marrying noncitizen immigrant men the law had the effect of further expanding the principle that women assumed the citizenship of their husbands. This immigration law extended equally to all women even if they never traveled outside of the United States. Losing their citizenship barred these formerly American women from certain kinds of employment and made them candidates for detention and deportation.
The new immigration law specifically stated that upon marriage a woman was required to take the nationality of her foreign-born husband. A 1915 challenge to the expatriation act (Mackenzie vs Hare) which involved a woman married to a British citizen reached the Supreme Court and the justices allowed the law to stand, arguing expatriation was a self-inflicted wound. The women chose to marry knowing this would be the consequence, so the Act was not forcing them to expatriate. Then World War I began, and hundreds of women, who did not know they were stateless, found they were no longer qualified to hold defense jobs reserved for US citizens.
If your husband later became a naturalized citizen, you could petition the government to regain your American citizenship but you had to go through the naturalization process. This was of some consolation to the victims of this immigration law. But check this out --- none of these rules applied to American men when they chose a spouse. They could marry a citizen of any country without suffering a penalty.
According to Linda Kerber, a professor of gender and legal history at the University of Iowa, "It's as though she walks under his umbrella. He puts his arm around her and poof! She's a citizen." She had the good sense to come out from these monarchies and opt for an American man. She's a sensible woman, we adore her." Professor Kerber continues, "An Americanborn woman who marries a foreign man, oh my goodness, she is disloyal and of an inferior standard to boot.”
In 1917, when America entered World War I, American-born women who married German immigrants who had not yet been naturalized not only lost their citizenship but were required to register as enemy aliens," Professor Kerber says. Changing this immigration law became an important part of the agenda for the women's suffrage movement, along with things like prenatal care and anti-child labor laws. "The key item on that list is what we would describe as the integrity of the citizenship of married women," says Professor Kerber.
Once American women fought for and won the right to vote in 1920, they started lobbying lawmakers to recognize that their citizenship should not be tethered to that of a husband. After winning the right to vote, Congress was scrambling to get women to join their constituency. They promised to quickly rectify this wrong but their enthusiasm faded without action. Eventually, Congressman John Cable, from Ohio, introduced a bill to address the disparity.
The Cable Act of 1922, also euphemistically known as The Married Women's Independent Nationality Act, permitted women to keep their citizenship if they married a man who could become a citizen even if he opted not to. Problem solved right? Maybe not.
The Cable Act fixed the problem for women who married a man eligible for citizenship; however, there was a lot of fine print in the law. Even women who had never left the United States were expatriated. They had to petition the government to regain their citizenship but their husband's status still played a role. If he was not eligible for citizenship her application was denied. Further, if she lived on foreign soil with her husband for two years, she could not regain her citizenship.
But attitudes softened over time and laws evolved so by the 1940s women born in the U.S. no longer had to limit their marriage prospects to native-born men or naturalized citizens. This is tommyrot! There is no wrong way or wrong time to do the right thing. No one should have to wait for a softening of attitudes for a solution to a wrong to evolve. According to Dr. Martin Luther King, “Justice delayed is justice denied”
Ladies, you have the power to change the course of all political events in America. Women have registered and voted at higher rates than men in every presidential election since 1980, with the turnout gap between women and men growing slightly larger with each successive presidential election. Women, who constitute more than half the population and the majority of registered voters have cast almost 10 million more votes than men in recent elections. Ladies, you have the power of “Do Right” but you must vote collectively to make your voices heard. Unite and vote! Ricardo Inzunza, a native of San Diego, California, was posted in the Pentagon and the Departments of Energy and Justice in the Administration of President Ronald Reagan. He was appointed Deputy Commissioner of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) by President George H. W. Bush. During his tenure with INS, his office was the central source for the development, implementation and oversight of all immigration service policies and practices including the “Sanctuary Movement.” Now, as CEO of RIA International, Ltd, Ricardo is often asked to serve as a business consultant to clients such as the World Bank and the People's Republic of China. He can be reached at 662 694 2650 or riatria@aol.com.