THEA~TORNEYGENERAL 

OF %-EXAS 

Honorable John H. Winters, Executive Director 

State Department of Public Welfare 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion NO. o-7496 

Re: Is a woman who was a native born 

American citizen but who was 

expatriated because of her marriage to an alien and who comes 

within the provisions of the 

statutes of June 25, 1936, and 

the amendatory act of July 2, 

1940, eligible to apply for and 

receive assistance before she 

has taken the Oath of Allegiance? 

In your letter of November 8, 1946, you stated that in 

. the administration of old age assistance and ai.d to the needy 

blind your department has had the occasion to consider the 

citizenship status of many women who were born Ian the Uni.ted 

States but whose citizenship had been affected by reason of 

their marriage to aliens during the period of time when the 

Federal Law provided that the marriage of a native born woman 

to an alien resulted in her expatriation. You further state 

that many of these people are applying to you for aid who come 

within the purview of the Repatriation Act of June 25, 1936, 

as amended on July 2, 1940, except for the fact that they have 

not taken the oath of allegiance as Is provided therein. With 

these facts In mind, you have posed the captioned question of 

whether these women are eligi,ble to apply and receive assistance 

before they have taken the oath of allegiance. 

Before a woman is eligible to receive old age assistance 

or assistance to the needy blLnd, she must be a citizen of the 

United States. Article 695c Section 12 and Section 20, V.A.C.S. 

Your question therefore Is whether a woman comi 

“$5 

within the 

provlslons of the above said Act of June 25, 193 as amended 

July 2, 1940, is a citizen of the United States within our Public Welfare Act before she takes the oath of allegiance. 

This Act reads as follows: 

“That hereafter a woman, being a nativeborn citizen, who has or is believed to have 
.- , 

Honorable John H. Winters, page 2 o-7496 

lost her United States Citizenship solely by reason of her marriage prior to September 22, 1922, 

to an alien, and whose marital status with such 

alien has or shall have terminated, or who has 

resided continuously in the United States since 

the date of such marriage, shall be deemed to be 

a citizen of the United States to the same extent 

as though her marriage to said ali,en had taken 

place on or after September 22, 1922: Provided, 

however, that no such woman shall have or claim 

any rights as a citizen of the United Statesuntil 

she shall have duly taken the oath of allegiance 

as prescribed in section 4 of the Act approved June 

29, 1906." 

Although the cases upon the point involved herein are 

few, they are unfortunately~in conflict. The courts in the 

cases of In re Waston's Repatriation, 42 F. Supp. 163, and 

Petition dDavls, 53 F. SUQQ. 426 held that the woman regained citizenship on June 25, 1936, the effective date of the 

act, and that it was unnecessary for her to take the oath of 

allegiance except as tangible evidence of the existence of her 

rights of citizenship. These cases are authority for the proposition that every woman coming within the purview of the 

Act of June 25, 1936, on that day became a citizen of the 

United States, yet these courts said that such a woman "Is not 

entitled to any rights or privileges as a citizen of the United 

States until she shall have taken an oath of allegiance to the 

United States." 

The foreaolna cases have been criticized and deemed, 

weak by subsequent d&lsions. In re Portner, 56 F. Supp. 103; 

Petition of Norbeck, 65 F, Supp. 748. These cases have pointed 

out that the traditional function of an oath of allegiance in 

restoration of citizenship or the assumption of citizenship, is 

to mark the time when the assumption of duties as well as the 

rights and privileges of citizenship, takes place. 

This department la of the opinion that these subsequent 

decisions coupled with the considerations set forth in the case 

of Shellg v. United States, 120 F. 2d 734, present the proper 

construction that should be placed on this Act. We further believe that even under the former decisions, a woman who has not 

taken the oath of allegiance could not receive assistance under 

our Welfare Act, for receiving such assistance is a right or 

privilege enjoyed only by a United States citizen; as heretofore 

shown, these former decisions recognize that although a woman 

automatically becomes a citizen on June 25, 1936, she is not 

entitled to the rights or privileges of a citizen until ahe has 

taken the oath of allegiance. 
Honorable John H. Winters, page 3 o-7496 

In view of the foregoing, we answer your question In 

the negative. 

We call your attention to the fact that this Act of 

June 25, 1936, as amended July 2, 1940, was repealed by the 

Nationality Act of 1940, however the repeal did not terminate 

the nationality acquired under,this Act of June 25, 1936. 

Under the Nationality Act of 1940, 8 U.S.C.A. Section 717 (b) 

(l), it is rather well established~from the plain language of 

the act and the interpretation placed thereon that a woman 

coming within its Qrovislons becomes a citizen from and after 

taking the oath of allegiance. 

We trust that the foregoing satisfactorily answers 

your question. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

By s/Robert 0. Koch 

Roberts 0. Koch 

Assistant 

ROK:ms:wc 

APPROVZI DEC 7, 1946 

s/Grover Sellers 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

Approved Opinion Committee By s/BWB Chairman