Question about indexing US, Kansas--Naturalization Records
I am reviewing a batch of US, Kansas--Naturalization records and have a question about the Event Date and Event Place fields. Here is the link to the batch https://www.familysearch.org/indexing/batch/0cd19661-f367-4748-b246-db7cf043ca92. The indexer indexed the date of the person's arrival in the United States (22 Jul 1946), which I believe is correct since it is the most recent date on the document that is related to the naturalization process. However, I am uncertain about the correct event place. Does it need to be the place corresponding to the event date - in which case it would be Detroit, Michigan since that is the place the person arrived in the US? Or should it be Kansas City, Kansas since that is where the "Petition for Naturalization" was filed?
Thanks for your help!
Teresa Shippy
Best Answer
-
The field help says when there are multiple dates to index the most recent date as it relates to the naturalization process. (Some naturalization projects had an instruction in the field help not to use the arrival date or birthdate). The Naturalization process is a Declaration of Intention, A Petition with an affidavit of witnesses, An Oath, and a Certificate of Naturalization. Even the Certificate of Arrival isn't part of the process, except that they had to be requested to prove when they arrived.
Just my opinion: On your batch, the lady is seeking citizenship based on the law enacted in the 79th Congress allowing for alien spouses and alien minor children of military members to receive expedited approval. She came to the US, got married in Dallas Texas on 7/14/46, presumably left the country to return to Montreal, and re-entered through Detroit on 7/22/46. The date which shows she has continuously lived in the US since July 22 1946 would be indexed, because it is the most recent date that relates to the naturalization process on that page. The event place is definitely Kansas City, Kansas. (Often dates don't match up - for instance, when we index marriages, even though the field says Marriage Date, if none is given we are provided a list of other dates to use including the license date, the recording date, etc. On deaths, we are sometimes given leeway in the instructions to use the date of a funeral or the most recent date on the image. It just depends what the field helps say to do.)
What I find really confusing about this example is that 1939 has nothing to do with the current event. He applied the first time in 1939 and was denied due to falsification. The true date of these petitions in the sworn date on the back of the petition under the affidavit of witnesses. I'm not sure why they don't just use that date. The gentleman in the example was 49 years old, born Sept 25 1898. He arrived in 1913, first applied in 1939, was denied, and is currently re-petitioning the court. The date on the sworn statement on the back of the petition form is March 30, 1948. In September 1948, he will be 50 - proving that the date on the sworn statement is the true date of the petition (or at least closer than 1939). Usually the event place that is highlighted on these examples is the first line with the court. This one is different.
2
Answers
-
Looking at the Project Instruction example "How to Index a Petition for Naturalization," it indicates that the event place (the event being "naturalization") would be the place the petition was filed. Hope this helps! :)
1 -
It helps somewhat, but does not completely answer my question. In the example "Petition for Naturalization", the most recent date is for a previous petition for naturalization. In that case they index the place where that previous naturalization petition was filed, which happens to be the same place that the current petition for naturalization is being filed. However, they boxed and numbered the place name associated with the previous petition - not the current one. This leads me to believe that the Event Place should be the place where the event whose date is being indexed occured. Many of these places (especially points of entry) will not be in Kansas though. This seems to be a common issue so I would like to do it correctly.
1