armed forces and served during the war for two years, between 1943 and 1945, although he also, as noted, had been a Bund member.
In 1935, the petitioner joined the ladies group attached to the Bund. She was single and employed as a housekeeper. She attended weekly evening meetings when coffee and cakes were served. The dues were seventy-five cents a month. Once a month the ladies met with the men, when they heard speakers. She also attended dances. To petitioner the songs sung at the joint meetings were 'folk songs'.
After her marriage in 1936, petitioner and her husband moved to Croydon, where they received living quarters at the Deutschhorst Country Club in return for caretaker's services. Carl Markert testified it was necessary for him to belong to the Bund in order to obtain the position. In 1937, the Markerts left the Club and purchased their own home in Croydon. Petitioner dropped out of the Ladies Aid of the Bund in 1938 because 'it was too far to go'. Carl Markert stated he left the Bund some months later, because he was dissatisfied with its aims and felt it was time to get out. Although admitting she went to Camps Nordland and Siegfried, and to the rally at Madison Square Garden, she testified she went but once to each place, on Sundays, for the ride.
It must be noted that the petitioner, other than by her affiliation with the Bund, has not done or said anything which indicates lack of attachment to the principles of our Constitution. On the contrary, the evidence adduced in her behalf reveals the elements of attachment. The crucial question in the instant case, it appears, is how far it may be said the petitioner was imbued with Bund ideology, which, on analysis, is the basis of the doubt concerning her fitness as a citizen.
Although petitioner was a member of the Ladies Aid of the Bund for approximately three years, ending in 1938, her testimony indicates to the Court that she was not fully aware of the conflict between our own political philosophy and that fronted by the Bund. It is evident, in the opinion of the Court, that she was attracted to the Ladies Aid because of the opportunities afforded her to mingle with others of her own descent: she regarded her Bund association in a social light and her activities in connection therewith were limited to its social aspects. Despite the fact that she was exposed to Bund propaganda, her conduct both during her membership and after bespeaks the failure of the association to affect her.
If the evidence here were simply that petitioner was a Bund member and participated in its activities, the doubt concerning attachment would be sufficient to justify denial of the petition for naturalization. However, having seen and heard petitioner, and the witnesses in her behalf, I am of the opinion that petitioner has not failed to overcome that doubt.
Accordingly, the petition is granted and an Order may be entered pursuant hereto.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.