Jack, and others: I'm pretty sure that is the case as I recall it. I thought about it for a few minutes when I saw Monica's message. But I think it was pretty accurate. The only distinction I would have made would be that if a woman was born in Ireland and came to the U.S., she would become a citizen when her husband became a citizen and if she got divorced and remarried a non citizen, she would lose her citizenship, just like a nativeborn person would. Since women had virtually no rights under the law in those days, I'm not sure what her status would have been if she didn't remarry after a divorce or the death of her husband. The only thing that a woman would have needed citizenship papers for in those days would be to vote and to run for office. I don't know if it was specifically written that you had to be a man to run for office, but I suppose most laws were written with the masculine nouns. I don't think countries issued visas and passports in those days (only exit permits) so a non-citizen woman probably wouldn't have had any problem returning to Ireland for a visit and coming back to the U.S. I suppose if she happened to be captured by pirates during her voyage, that might have been an issue as to whether or not to mobilize the fleet and send the Marines out after her. The issue of citizenship became important when women received the right to vote in national elections by virtue of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution in 1920. They had been able to vote in school elections for 20 or more years in some states by that time and in Wyoming and other states in local and state elections for a lesser number of years. But that didn't require U.S. citizenship, only local residence. If you look at the "Declarations of Intent" to become a citizen that our ancestors filed upon first arriving in the U.S., you will see that it required that you forswore allegiance to the Queen of England (in our Irish case) and intended to become a U.S. Citizen. But I think it took seven or more years residence to become a citizen and many never bothered. (The political parties were aggressive with the voter registration drives and they made sure all the newcomers (men only) filed that "intent" and then voted. In those days, you didn't have to be a citizen to vote, you only had to have filed that "intent." In looking through old newspapers, regularly there were campaign issues in local elections as to whether or not a candidate really was a citizen. You could vote having signed the intent, but you did have to be a citizen to hold office. In the early days, the political parties even printed the ballots in their own color paper so that their poll watchers could be sure that the newcomers were voting for the correct party. Some are lobbying for that type of a policy today so that immigrants can vote immediately after arriving in the U.S., long before they become citizens. As you might imagine, that is a controversial issue. Ray -----Original Message----- From: John L. Sweeney [mailto:sweelab@enter.net] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 9:34 PM To: Ray Marshall Subject: Fw: [IRL-KERRY] IRL-KERRY Digest, Vol 2, Issue 295 Ray: Is this statement correct? Do you know? It doesn't sound right to me. " If she was born here and married an alien she lost her citizenship." Jack ______________________________________________________ > Just an interesting note that you may or may not be aware of -- Woman did > not become citizens on their own until 1922. Prior to that she became a > citizen automatically when her husband did - 'derivative citizenship'.. > She also became a citizen automatically when she married a US citizen. If she was born here and married an alien she lost her citizenship. > Cheryl >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:46:53 EDT >> From: MonicaBOS@aol.com >> Subject: Re: [IRL-KERRY] Naturalization Records >> >> Clifford, I have the naturalization records of 4 Sheehy brothers who were >> minors when they came to the US in 1850 - 1852. Their father did not come >> but their mother did come. They all filed for naturalization at older ages. >> Daniel's and Bartholomew's papers are both dated on the same day (1862) >> and they were witnesses for each other. Daniel was 27 and Bartholomew was 25. >> John's papers are dated 1871 and he was 31. William's papers are dated 1876 and >> he was 32. I was told at the National Archives that if their father had come >> and gotten his naturalization, the sons would have automatically gotten >> theirs when they were minors. As for their mother, Hanora, I was told that she could >> have become a citizen automatically through marriage but she never remarried >> and I have no record of her becoming a US citizen. I found all of these >> records at the National Archives and the people there are very helpful and will >> give >> you any help or information that they can. >> >> Monica