Mr. Dulles. Are we through with all pages up to 7?
Mr. Chayes. No; we probably go back to 1. But there we do have cases, and the cases are clear that the oath or affirmation or formal declaration under section (a) (2) has to be to an official entitled to receive it on behalf of the foreign state, and even then the courts have been very sticky about holding people to that.
For example, there is one case where a dual national, a Philippine and U.S. national, made an oath of allegiance to the Philippines in the usual form in order to get a Philippine passport, and it was asserted that this was an expatriating act, and the court held no, it wasn't. In re Bautista's Petition, 183 F. Supp. 271 (D.C. Guam, 1960). There is a case where a man took an oath of allegiance to the British Crown, but the recipient of the oath was his employer, private employer, and it was held that that was not the kind of oath that is involved. In The Matter of L. 1 I. & N. Dec. 317 (B.I.A. 1942).
The courts have said that this is a reciprocal relationship in which in order to come under this section, the citizen or the U.S. citizen must offer his allegiance to the foreign state and the foreign state must accept it.
Mr. Dulles. There has to be action on both sides. Unilateral action is not enough if the affirmation is not accepted.
Mr. Chayes. That is the way I read the cases. Now, of course, if it comes before, if the oath is taken before an official of the foreign state that is authorized to take oaths of allegiance, why then nothing more is needed than that. But making an oath or statement of allegiance to another American or to a private party, whatever his nationality, has been held not to fall within 349 (a)(2).
Mr. Coleman. Do you know whether Oswald had to make any statement or take any oath when he got employment in the Soviet Union?
Mr. Chayes. I don't personally, but it may have been inquired into by the consul when Oswald came back for a renewal passport.
I think the record shows that it was concluded that there was no evidence that he became a naturalized Soviet citizen, and so far as I know, there is no evidence that he in any other way took an oath of allegiance of the kind that would bring him under 349(a)(2).
Even if he had had to do so, for example, in connection with his employment, there are cases which may say that that is not a voluntary oath if it is done out of economic necessity and it will not, therefore, serve to expatriate. See Insogna v. Dulles, 116 F. Supp. 473 (D.D.C. 1953); Stipa v. Dulles, 233 F. 2d 551 (3d Cir. 1956); and Bruni v. Dulles, 235 F. 2d 855 (D.C. Cir. 1956). In at least one other case, Mendelsohn v. Dulles, 207 F. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 1953), a court held that the plaintiff had not expatriated himself by residing abroad for more than 5 years since he had remained abroad to care for his sick wife, who was too ill to travel.