TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE III-NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION * * CHAPTER 2-NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION § 329. Naturalization through active-duty service in the Armed Frces during World War I [or], World War II [or], the Korean hostilities, or in combatant areas after February 28, 1961. Section 329(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. NATURALIZATION THROUGH ACTIVE-DUTY SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES DURING WORLD WAR I [OR], WORLD WAR II [OR], THE KOREAN HOSTILITIES, OR IN COMBATANT AREAS AFTER FEBRUARY 28, 1961 SEC. 329. (a) Any person who, while an alien or a noncitizen national of the United States, has served honorably in an active-duty status in the military, air, or naval forces of the United States during either World War I or during a period beginning September 1, 1939, and ending December 31, 1946, or during a period beginning June 25, 1950, and ending July 1, 1955, or after February 28, 1961, in an area which the President by Executive Order has designated as an area in which Armed Forces of the United States have engaged in military operations involving armed conflict with a hostile foreign force, and before the date designated by the President by Executive Order as the date of termination of such military operations in such area, and who, if separated from such service, was separated under honorable conditions, may be naturalized as provided in this section if (1) at the time of enlistment or induction such person shall have been in the United States, the Canal Zone, America Samoa, or Swains Islands, whether or not he has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence, or (2) at any time subsequent to enlistment or induction such person shall have been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. The executive department under which such person served shall determine whether persons have served honorably in an active-duty status, and whether separation from such service was under honorable conditions: Provided however, That, no person who is or has been separated from such service on account of alienage, or who was a conscientious objector who performed no military, air, or naval duty whatever or refused to wear the uniform, shall be regarded as having served honorably or having been separated under honorable conditions for the purposes of this section. No period of service in the Armed Forces shall be made the basis of a petition for naturalization under this section if the applicant has previously been naturalized on the basis of the same period of service. Section 318 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. SEC. 318. Except as otherwise provided in this title, no person shall be naturalized unless he has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence in accordance with all appli cable provisions of this Act. The burden of proof shall be upon such person to show that he entered the United States lawfully, and the time, place, and manner of such entry into the United States, but in presenting such proof he shall be entitled to the production of his immigrant visa, if any, or of other entry document, if any, and of any other documents and records, not considered by the Attorney General to be confidential, pertaining to such entry, in the custody of the Service. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 405(b), and except as provided in [sections 327 and 328] sections 328 and 329 no person shall be naturalized against whom there is outstanding a final finding of deportability pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued under the provisions of this or any other Act; and no petition for naturalization shall be finally heard by a naturalization court if there is pending against the petitioner a deportation proceeding pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued under the provisions of this or any other Act: Provided, That the findings of the Attorney General in terminating deportation proceedings or in suspending the deportation of an alien pursuant to the provisions of this Act, shall not be deemed binding in any way upon the naturalization court with respect to the question of whether such person has established his eligibility for naturalization as required by this title. Section 328 (b) (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. SEC. 328. (b) A person filing a petition under subsection (a) of this section shall comply in all other respects with the requirements of this title, except that (2) notwithstanding section 318 insofar as it relates to deportability and section 336(c), such petitioner may be naturalized immediately if the petitioner be then actually in the Armed Forces of the United States, and if prior to the filing of the petition, the petitioner and the witnesses shall have appeared before and been examined by a representative of the Service; Section 329 (b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. SEC. 329. (b) A person filing a petition under subsection (a) of this section shall comply in all other respects with the requirements of this title, except that (1) he may be naturalized regardless of age, and notwithstanding the provisions of section 318 as they relate to deportability and the provisions of section 331 [of this title]; 90TH CONGRESS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session { No. 1130 REPORT TRANSFER OF PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS IN FEBRUARY 28, 1968.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. CELLER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, REPORT [To accompany S. 159] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. 159) to provide for the temporary transfer to a single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of civil actions pending in different districts which involve one or more common questions of fact, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. PURPOSE The bill adds a new section 1407 to title 28, United States Code, to provide judicial machinery to transfer, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, civil actions, having one or more common questions of fact, pending in different judicial districts. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY A predecessor measure, H.R. 8276, introduced upon the request of the Judicial Conference of the United States, was the subject of hearings in the last Congress ("Judicial Administration," hearings before Subcommittee No. 5 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., second sess., Serial No. 21). Senate hearings were held on a similar measure, S. 3815, in the 89th Congress and on S. 159 in the present Congress ("MultidistrictLitigation," hearings before Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., second sess.; 90th Cong., first sess., pts. 1 and 2). S. 159 passed the Senate on August 9, 1967, without objection. STATEMENT S. 159 was originally drafted by the Coordinating Committee for Multiple Litigation of the U.S. District Courts, established by the Judicial Conference of the United States and its enactment is recommended by the Conference. The bill is based on the experience of the Coordinating Committee in supervising nationwide discovery proceedings in the electrical equipment cases which flooded the Federal courts in the early 1960's. Following the successful Government prosecution of electrical equipment manufacturers for antitrust law violations, more than 1,800 separate damage actions were filed in 33 Federal district courts. This wave of litigation threatened to engulf the courts. Unless coordinated action was undertaken it was feared that conflicting pretrial discovery demands for documents and witnesses would disrupt the functions of the Federal courts. Through the consent and cooperation of all parties and the numerous presiding judges and the labors of the Coordinating Committee joint pretrial proceedings were conducted. The procedures worked successfully and today all of the electrical cases have been finally disposed of. The steps taken by the Coordinating Committee to restore order to the litigation are outlined in the Senate Report on S. 159 (S. Rept. 454) as follows: 1. The Coordinating Committee recommended a schedule of pretrial discovery proceedings and a series of uniform pretrial and discovery orders covering common issues of fact. This recommended schedule was accepted by the district courts involved and, after consultation with the lawyers for the parties, the judges of the district courts entered the uniform orders. 2. National depositions were held, attended by large numbers of plaintiffs' and defendants' counsel. Lead counsel, chosen by the lawyers for the plaintiffs and defendants, propounded questions on behalf of all the parties. Other attorneys present, however, were given the opportunity to ask additional questions to protect their particular interests. Arrangements were made for the additional deposition of any witness if the need arose. 3. Central document depositories were established, one for plaintiffs and another for defendants. Close to 1 million documents were filed at the depositories, and made available for copying by the parties. This arrangement minimized inconvenience and expense. The purpose of S. 159 is to furnish statutory authority for the kind of pretrial consolidation and coordination successfully implemented in the electrical cases but which, in that situation, entirely depended on the voluntary agreement of all the parties as well as presiding judges. The objective of the legislation is to provide centralized management under court supervision of pretrial proceedings of multidistrict litigation to assure the "just and efficient conduct" of such actions. The committee believes that the possibility for conflict and duplication in discovery and other pretrail procedures in related cases can be avoided or minimized by such centralized management. To accomplish this objective the bill provides for the transfer of venue of an H.R. 1130 action for the limited purpose of conducting coordinated pretrial proceedings. The proposed statute affects only the pretrial stages in multidistrict litigation. It would not affect the place of trial in any case or exclude the possibility of transfer under other Federal statutes. Existing law is inadequate for such pretrial consolidation, since under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) transfer is restricted to a district where the action "might have been brought." Moreover, the present statute does not permit or provide for transfer of related cases for pretrial purposes only. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (rule 42(a)), consolidation for pretrial purposes is authorized only when multiple actions are pending in a single district court. The proposed new section 1407 establishes a Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation which is empowered to: (i) initiate transfer proceedings and hold hearings thereon; (ii) transfer civil actions for consolidated pretrial proceedings; (iii) assign a judge or judges to conduct such proceedings and request the Chief Justice to make intercircuit assignments for this purpose; (iv) act as and designate other judges as deposition judges in any district, and (v) remand transferred actions to the districts from which they were transferred. By the term "pretrial proceedings" the committee has reference to the practice and procedure which precede the trial of an action. These generally involve deposition and discovery, and, of course, are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., rule 16 and rules 26-37. Under the Federal rules the transferee district court would have authority to render summary judgment, to control and limit pretrial proceedings, and to impose sanctions for failure to make discovery or comply with pretrial orders. To qualify for pretrial transfer under the proposed section 1407, civil actions would have to meet certain general requirements: first, they must involve one or more common questions of fact; second, they must be pending in more than one district, and third, pretrial consolidation must promote the "just and efficient conduct" of such actions and be for "the convenience of parties and witnesses." It is expected that such transfer is to be ordered only where significant economy and efficiency in judicial administration may be obtained. The types of cases in which massive filings of multidistrict litigation are reasonably certain to occur include not only civil antitrust actions but also, common disaster (air crash) actions, patent and trademark suits, products liability actions and securities law violation actions, among others. As noted earlier, the Judicial Conference of the United States recommends enactment of this legislation. The Department of Justice also supports the bill. At hearings in the 89th Congress on a predecessor measure, this committee was advised of the opposition of the section of antitrust law of the American Bar Association. Subsequently, however, the section altered its position and now recommends enactment of S. 159. On February 20, 1968, the house of delegates of the American Bar Association adopted the recommendation and it now urges approval of the measure. The committee believes that the legislation will provide desirable improvements in judicial administration and will assure uniform and expeditious treatment in the pretrial procedures in multidistrict litigation. It accordingly recommends favorable condideration of S. 159. H.R. 1130 |