Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

time of the naturalization of their parents, shall, if [at the time] dwelling in the United States [or while dwelling in the United States] be considered as citizens thereof.' The former construction would allow a young man to join his father in the United States a week before his naturalization, and return to his native land a week after, a full-fledged American citizen, while still in his minority, and without renunciation of old allegiance or swearing to the new." For. Rel. 1884, 202.

In reply, Secretary Frelinghuysen stated that Mr. Kasson's query was hypothetical, and that no such case had, so far as he knew, been presented for the decision of the Executive or the courts of the United States. He said, however, that in the light of Rev. Stat., Sec. 1999 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, 1269), declaring any decision of any officer of the government tending to restrict the right of expatriation to be inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Republic, and of Sec. 2000 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, 1270), declaring that all naturalized citizens of the United States while in foreign countries are entitled to receive from this government the same protection which is accorded to native-born citizens, it was difficult to see how any branch of the government could well maintain that the children of persons duly naturalized in the United States, and therefore also citizens by law, should lose that status by the mere act of passing beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, especially if they passed within the limits of a third state not of the original allegiance, which could under no circumstances lay claim to their subjection. "It can be seen," said he, "how such an interpretation might regard a citizen of the United States as a citizen of no country whatever, through the sole fact of setting foot outside of our territory, and how, by again setting foot within our borders, his right of citizenship might be deemed to revive unimpaired."

Referring to Mr. Kasson's remark that the construction of the phrase as meaning that the minor children who become citizens through the naturalization of the father must be, at the time of the father's naturalization, dwelling in the United States, would allow a young man to join his father in the United States a week before his naturalization, and return to his native land a week after, a full-fledged American citizen, Secretary Frelinghuysen said: "That such a thing is possible is a defect in our existing naturalization laws." For. Rel. 1885, 395, 396; Van Dyne, Citizenship of the United States, 111,

112.

Jacob Lenzen, Jr., was born in Germany in 1881, and in 1882 was taken by his father to the United States, where he lived until August, 1898, when he went to Germany with the intention of remaining two or three years. His father was naturalized September 13, 1898-after young Lenzen had left the United States. Lenzen applied for a passport, to the United States embassy at Berlin. Upon the request of the embassy for instructions, Secretary Hay said: "The words 'dwelling in the United States,' in Rev. Stat., Sec. 2172 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, 1334), have been held by the Department to mean either at the time of the father's naturalization or afterwards during the child's minority."

After quoting Mr. Blaine's instruction to Mr. Kasson, supra, he added: "Taking this view, young Lenzen, who was not dwelling in the United States at the time of his father's naturalization, and has not dwelt here since, is not a citizen of the United States. Should he come to the United States and dwell here during his minority he would, however, be entitled to claim citizenship under the statute." Mr. Hay to Mr. White, October 15, 1898, MSS. Inst. to Germany; Id. August 18, 1898.

It is sufficient, therefore, it seems, if the children are "dwelling in the United States" at the time of the

naturalization of their parents, or at any subsequent period during their minority.

The naturalization of an alien, after his son, born out of the United States, has become of age, does not make the latter a citizen. Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U. S. 135, 36 L. ed. 103, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375.

Naturalization of the parent in the United States does not confer citizenship on his minor children born abroad before that event, and continuing to reside and attain their majority abroad. Mr. Foster to Mr. Lincoln, August 10, 1892, MSS. Inst. to Gt. Brit., For. Rel. 1892, 233. See, also, Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Brulatour, July 30, 1883, For. Rel. 1883, 274.

If the children remain abroad until they reach majority, they can not acquire citizenship through their parents' naturalization. In the case of Frank Fred Nicklas, the father emigrated to the United States from Germany in 1869, and was naturalized here in 1884. In 1885 he sent for his son, aged seventeen, to join him in this country. The son was arrested just before he started, was confined in jail for a couple of weeks, and was then brought before a court of justice and discharged. The father requested the intervention of this government in the son's behalf. Secretary Bayard said: "If, as is understood from your statement, the son, Frank Fred Nicklas, did not emigrate with his father to America, was not residing in America when his father was naturalized here in 1884, and has not at any time since been a resident of the United States, he can not be considered a United States citizen. Our laws require that the children of persons who have been naturalized here must be 'dwelling in the United States' to be considered citizens thereof." Mr. Bayard to Mr. Cole, November 9, 1885, MSS. Dom. Let.

And upon the application of Mr. Charles Drevet for a passport, it appeared that he was born, in 1864, in Paris, where he had always resided. His father, a Frenchman,

came to the United States in 1852; in 1858 he declared his intention to become an American citizen; in 1859 he married an American lady; in 1860 he went back to France; in 1869 he returned to America; in the same year he took out his second papers, and shortly after resumed his residence in France, where he continued to live. The son had always lived in France; the father had been domiciled there for many years; neither the son nor the father had expressed any intention of residing in the United States at any time in the future. The department held that, under Rev. Stat. Sec. 2172 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, 1334), as Charles Drevet was not, at the time of the naturalization of his father, dwelling in the United States; as he had never resided in this country, and never intended to do so, he could not be considered an American citizen. Mr. Bayard to Mr. McLane, July 2, 1885, MSS. Inst. to France, For. Rel. 1885, 373; 2 Wharton's Int. Law Digest, 410.

Section 2172, Rev. Stat. (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, 1334), only confers citizenship upon minors dwelling in the United States; and the Department holds that the prescribed minority residence in this country must have coincided with, or been subsequent to, the parent's admission to citizenship. Mr. Hay to Mr. Harris, April 1, 1899, MSS. Inst. to Austria.

Anton Macek was born in Vienna of Austrian parents August 13, 1875. In May, 1884, his father emigrated to the United States with his entire family and had resided in Chicago ever since. Before his naturalization and while the son Anton was yet a minor, August 16, 1894, his father sent him to Austria to be educated. The father was naturalized in Chicago October 22, 1894that is, subsequent to the return of the son Anton to Austria, where he had since remained. Upon application for a passport it was held that Anton Macek was not entitled to claim citizenship in the United States for the reason that "he was not dwelling in the United States at

the time of his father's naturalization, he has not at any time since dwelt in the United States, and of course is not now dwelling here."

In this case the view was advanced that the words of the statute, "dwelling in the United States," refer to the legal residence of a minor; that although at the time of the naturalization of the father Anton Macek was not actually within the jurisdiction of the United States, his legal residence was with the parent, and that he might be held to have been vicariously present in the person of his father, through whom he became a citizen of the United States, the same as though he had been personally present at the father's home in Chicago. The Department said that "the principle may be broadly stated that no country can naturalize an inhabitant of another country while that person is dwelling within the jurisdiction of the other country." Mr. Hay to Mr. Harris, January 22, 1900, For. Rel. 1900, 13.

And in answering the same contention advanced in the case of Miss Meta Schwartz in 1902, Secretary Hay said: "The law (Rev. Stat. Sec. 2172 [U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, 1334]) is anomalous enough in permitting the minor son of an alien to come to the United States immediately before his father's naturalization here, and to leave this country a full-fledged citizen the day after such naturalization. To construe the statute as conferring citizenship upon a minor who is not in the United States at the time of the father's naturalization, nor subsequently, would be to needlessly open the door to further abuses of our citizenship." Mr. Hay to Mr. Hardy, July 15, 1902, MSS. Inst. to Switzerland. See, also, the case of Antonio Basile, For. Rel. 1902, 685.

3. Act of March 2, 1907.

In order that there might be no further doubt as to the meaning of the phrase "dwelling in the United States," Congress, in pursuance of the recommendation

« ÎnapoiContinuă »