VERMONT-L Archives

Archiver > VERMONT > 2002-08 > 1028190919


From: "Darrell A. Martin" <>
Subject: Re: [VERMONT] National Archives Naturalization Records for Vermont and N. E.
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 03:35:19 -0500
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020730195457.00a88dc0@mail.scn.org><002701c238ae$2e183ac0$fd7845cf@afjones>
In-Reply-To: <3D481829.FCA66B2C@worldnet.att.net>


At 10:02 AM 7/31/02 -0700, Pamela Booth wrote:
>Susan Jones wrote:
> >
> > Hi Wayne,
> >
> > Thanks for the website. I just learned something new. I could not figure
> > out why my grandmother was shown as having a date of citizenship on the
> 1920
> > census since she was born in the US. Well, according to this site, any
> > woman who marries a non-citizen, looses her citizenship even though she was
> > born in the US. Wow, what a way to treat people. It was ok for US men to
> > marry non-citizens but not for women.
[snip]

Hi:

I think you are looking at this from the point of view of what it would
mean if someone were treated like this TODAY. From late last century until
now, our culture has been focused almost completely on the individual. The
family "unit" is seen as being merely the temporary aggregation of a set of
two or more of these individuals; it has little reality, life, or
continuity of its own. (This is an exaggeration to make a point, of course.
But not as much of an exaggeration as it might seem.)

In 1905, however, it might have outraged them every bit as much to think of
a family where citizenship for one person was with one country, while
citizenship for another person was with another country, as you are
outraged at the idea that marriage might cause a person to lose her
citizenship. They might have said, "How can you have a truly whole family
unit, if one member has a right to be in this country and another member
does not? Wow, what a way to treat people!"

Of course it was perfectly OK for US women to marry non-citizens! Otherwise
the law would have prohibited it. The real issue, *to them, at that time*,
was where the FAMILY'S citizenship would be. Based on their values and
legal history, it was simple; citizenship followed the husband.

Which way is "better"? I'm not so sure the answer is as clear as you make
it sound, nor that the question even makes any sense at all....

Darrell


Darrell A. Martin
a native Vermonter currently in exile in Addison, Illinois



This thread: