whether or not the violation of a law of the State of Massachusetts involves moral turpitude. FINDINGS OF FACT: Upon the basis of all the evidence adduced at the hearing, it is found: (1) That the respondent is an alien, a native and subject of Italy; (2) That the respondent last entered the United States on October 26, 1937; (3) That on October 28, 1930, the respondent was convicted in Massachusetts of the crime of polygamy. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, it is concluded: (1) That under section 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917 the respondent is not subject to deportation on the ground that he has been convicted of a felony or other crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude prior to entry into the United States, to wit: polygamy; (2) That under section 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917 the respondent is not subject to deportation on the ground that he admits having committed a felony or other crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude prior to entry into the United States, to wit: polygamy. ORDER: It is ordered that the warrant of arrest be canceled and the proceedings closed. IN THE MATTER OF L In EXCLUSION Proceedings 56107/487 Decided by the Board October 3, 1942 Citizenship-Expatriation-Section 401 (b), Nationality Act of 1940—Oath of allegiance to foreign state. A citizen of the United States is not expatriated under section 401 (b) of the Nationality Act of 1940 by taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign state in connection with employment by a private company when the oath was administered pursuant to a regulation of the employer, but was not required or accepted by the foreign state. EXCLUDED BY BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY: Act of 1924-Immigrant without immigration visa. Mr. Edward J. Ward, Board attorney-examiner. STATEMENT OF THE CASE: The appellant appeared before a board of special inquiry at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on August 10, 1942, and applied for admission to the United States to enlist in the United States Air Force. The board found him to be an alien and excluded him on the grounds above stated. He appeals. DISCUSSION: The appellant stated that he was born in Dauphin, Manitoba, March 2, 1921, and that he now resides with his father and mother in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Asked concerning his nationality, the appellant responded: "To my knowledge right now, I am a citizen of both Canada and the United States." Asked his preference, he answered, "America." He then stated that his claim to United States citizenship is based on the fact that at the time of his birth his father was a citizen of the United States. In proof of this he submitted his own birth certificate showing his birth date to be March 2, 1921, and also his father's Canadian certificate of naturalization showing that his father, who was born in Red Lake Falls, Minn., and was a United States national, became a citizen of Canada on August 15, 1921, that is, 5 months after the appellant was born. He was then asked whether he had ever taken an oath of allegiance to any foreign country, and he answered "yes," and stated that he did so "the end of December 1941 or the beginning of January, this year," adding "I took that because of my employment with them. At that time the Trans-Canada Air Lines required their employees to take an oath of secrecy and an oath of allegiance." At this point the chairman of the board of special inquiry read into the record from correspondence contained in the file of the United States consulate general at Winnipeg the following letter addressed to the Honorable Secretary of State, Washington, by the consul general at Winnipeg under date of April 16, 1942: Sir: I have the honor to submit, in duplicate, a certificate of the loss of the nationality of the United States in the case of A- - I. L, who appears to have expatriated himself under section 401 (b) of chapter 4 of the Nationality Act of 1940 by taking oath of allegiance to His Majesty, King George VI, on or about January 2, 1942, in connection with his employment by the Trans-Canada Air Lines, a company controlled by the Dominion Government. Mr. L— is particularly anxious to retain his American citizenship as he states he wishes to join the United States Army Air Corps in the near future. Although the applicant has already performed the above-mentioned act of expatriation, he has requested further consideration of his case, in the light of a letter obtained from an assistant vice president of Trans-Canada Air Lines, W. F. English stating that the company is willing to waive the oath and to destroy that already taken, if it will assist the applicant in retaining his American citizenship. The letter also states that there was no law prohibiting the company from employing an American citizen at the time Mr. Lentered the service, January 21, 1941. So, it would not appear that the applicant lost his American nationality at that time under section 401 (b) of the Nationality Act of 1940. Mr. English has stated orally that Americans can still be hired, but it is not policy to employ them, although several Americans not dual nationals are now with the company. Very respectfully. (Signed) A. S. Klieforth, American Consul General. The chairman of the board of special inquiry then noted that "with the above-quoted letter are several enclosures, a part of which are the oath of allegiance and the oath of secrecy taken by the applicant, the oath of allegiance reading, as follows:" I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty, King George VI, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God. The chairman then read into the record a letter from the Trans-Canada Air Lines addressed to the American Consul General at Winnipeg and reading as follows: DEAR SIR: Mr. A- - I. L who is at present employed by this company, has requested us to forward to you certain information in connection with his application for the retention of dual citizenship. This we are pleased to do. Since the commencement of hostilities, one of the formalities we have required of new employees has been the signing of an oath of secrecy and oath of allegiance. Mr. L has completed such a form, but if it will assist him in retaining his dual American and Canadian citizenship we are prepared to waive this requirement and arrange for the documents to be destroyed. This is to advise also that at the time when Mr. L entered our service, January 21, 1941, there was no law or regulation prohibiting us from employing an American citizen. We trust this is information you require and that it will enable you to grant Mr. L's request. Yours truly. (Signed) W. F. English, assistant vice president. The chairman then read the following communication from the Department of State, Washington, addressed under date of May 20, 1942, to the American Consular Officer in Charge, Winnipeg, Manitoba : The Department has received your dispatch No. 246, dated April 16, 1942, with which you transmit a certificate of the loss of nationality of the United States by AI. L, who took an oath of allegiance to Great Britain on or about January 2, 1942, in connection with his employment with Trans-Canada Air Lines. Before rendering decision in Mr. L's case, the Department desires that additional information be obtained indicating whether the taking of an oath of allegiance in connection with his employment with Trans-Canada Air Lines was required by the laws of Canada or was required without sanction of law by the Trans-Canada Air Lines. Finally, the chairman read into the record a letter dated July 31, 1942, from the Department of State, Washington, D. C., addressed to the American Consular Officer in Charge, Winnipeg, Manitoba, reading: The Department has received your dispatch No. 293, dated June 3, 1942, with reference to the case of A- I. L who has been the subject of previous correspondence with your office. Since it appears that the oath of allegiance taken by Mr. L was taken pursuant to the laws of Canada but was administered under an administrative regulation of the company by which he was employed, the Department is of the opinion that by taking such an oath Mr. L- did not expatriate himself under section 401 (b) of the Nationality Act of 1940. Accordingly, the certificate of the loss of the nationality of the United States by Mr. A- I. L———— is disproved. Thereafter the appellant was questioned as to whether he had ever voted in Canada, filed on a homestead in Canada, or joined the armed forces in Canada. He answered these questions in the negative. He was then asked before whom he took the oath of allegiance on or about January 2, 1942, and stated that he took this oath before F. T. Wood, a notary public, who was office manager of the Trans-Canada Air Lines. Mr. Wood was then called before the board of special inquiry and testified that he had received authorization from the company to administer oaths in connection with the company's documents. His further testimony appeared to indicate that the principal oath taken by the company's employees was the oath of secrecy with regard to communications transmitted by the Canadian Air Lines rather than the oath of allegiance to the British Crown, and that the binding effect. of allegiance to the British Crown was chiefly to the faithful performance of the duties of employees of the Trans-Canada Air Lines. Section 401 (b) of the Nationality Act provides for the loss of nationality by taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state. An oath or formal declaration mentioned by the statute must mean not only the giving of the oath by the individual but the acceptance of that oath by the foreign state. An oath of allegiance has no real significance unless the oath be made to the state and accepted by the state. Such acceptance on the part of the state must be made in accordance with the laws of that state. In the case before us an oath of allegiance was not made to the British Crown in accordance with any law or regulation of the British Government. On the contrary, the obligation was between the appellant on the one hand and a private employer on the other. So far as this record reveals, the employer was neither required nor authorized to exact an oath of allegiance from its employees. The appellant's oath was not directed to and accepted by the British Crown. We, therefore, conclude that he did not take an oath of allegiance to a foreign state. Hence, he has not lost citizenship in this country acquired through his birth. FINDINGS OF FACT: Upon the basis of all the evidence it is found: (1) That the appellant was born a citizen of the United States; (2) That on or about January 2, 1942, the appellant swore that he would be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King George VI, his heirs and successors according to law; (3) That the appellant took the said oath in connection with his employment by the Trans-Canada Air Lines; (4) That the foregoing oath was neither required nor authorized by any law of the British Government. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, it is concluded: (1) That under Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes the appellant was born a citizen of the United States; (2) That under section 401 (b) of the Nationality Act of 1940 he did not lose his United States citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign state on or about January 2, 1942. ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be sustained and the appellant admitted as a citizen of the United States. |