(Reprinted from the Yale Law Journal, May and June, 1922, Vol. 31, Copyright, 1922 Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. NEW HAVEN YALE LAW JOURNAL COMPANY, INC. 1922 171 サ 215 49 NATURALIZATION AND EXPATRIATION RICHARD W. FLOURNOY, JR. Assistant Solicitor, Department of State Within the limits of this short article it will obviously be impossible even to touch upon, much less to discuss, all of the questions which arise under the subjects of naturalization and expatriation. I shall confine myself to a brief discussion of some of their outstanding features, with particular regard to the questions of domicil and diplomatic protection, and in this relation shall give special attention to the provisions of section 2 of the Expatriation Act of March 2, 1907,1 and section 15 of the Naturalization Act of June 29, 1906.2 The great movement of population in recent years from southern and eastern Europe to the United States, and the additional impetus given to this movement by the debacle of the World War have brought the subjects of naturalization and expatriation and the allied subject of immigration, that is, the whole citizenship problem, into special prominence. While in the present article it will be impossible to make more than brief allusions to the extremely important subjects of immigration, and while it will be possible to enter into a discussion of certain phases only of the subjects of naturalization and expatriation, their relation to the broader problem should be borne in mind. It may be desirable to review briefly the early history of our legislation concerning naturalization. Before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States the several States of the Confederation had naturalized aliens according to their individual laws, which varied considerably; but article I, section 8 of the Constitution authorized Congress "to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." On March 26, 1790, Congress passed the first national law of naturalization, the first section of which read as follows:3 "That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States." The debate in Congress leading up to the adoption of this statute is quite interesting. It related principally to the question of the length of residence in the United States to be required before naturalization. The debate opened on the third of February, 1790. The original bill provided for a partial naturalization, conferring all rights of citizenship except the right to hold public office, after a residence of one year, and full naturalization after a residence of two years. Mr. Tucker of South Carolina moved the elimination of the one-year requirement, because "he conceived it the policy of America to enable foreigners to hold land in their own right in less than one year," although he had no objection to extending the period of residence required as a preliminary to complete naturalization to as much as three years.* Mr. Page of Virginia, who seems to have been one of the original proponents of the "melting pot" theory, was in favor of adopting a most liberal policy toward immigrants.5 "I think," said he, "we shall be inconsistent with ourselves, if, after boasting of having opened an asylum for the oppressed of all nations, and established a Government which is the admiration of the world, we make the terms of admission to the full enjoyment of that asylum so hard as is now proposed. It is nothing to us whether Jews or Roman Catholics settle amongst us; whether subjects of Kings or citizens of free States wish to reside in the United States, they will find it their interest to be good citizens, and neither their religious nor political opinions can injure us, if we have good laws, well executed." Mr. Hartley of Pennsylvania was among those who took a stricter view. "He had no doubt of the policy of admitting aliens to the rights of citizenship; but he thought some security for their fidelity and allegiance was requisite besides the bare oath; that is, he thought an actual residence of such a length of time as would give a man an opportunity of esteeming the Government, from knowing its intrinsic value, was essentially necessary to assure us of a man's becoming a good citizen." Mr. White of Virginia was of a like mind with Mr. Hartley. It is interesting to note that at that early day he foresaw the importance of providing a definite rule of expatriation for cases of aliens who might take advantage of the proposed liberal law to procure naturalization for 5 'I Annals, Ist Cong. 1109. Ibid. 1110. The need of workers to assist in the development of the vast, unreclaimed wilderness in the west furnished a strong argument in favor of liberal rules governing immigration and naturalization. Moreover, it should be remembered that one of the charges against George III in the Declaration of Independence was that he had "endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands." |