« ÎnapoiContinuați »
H. Usual legal conditions.-Continued.
e. Residence within State.
(A) Under Act of 1906.
(B) Under prior laws.
(C) Merchant Seamen.
(A) Under Act of June 29, 1906.
(i) Physical inability.
(iii) Where declarant makes homestead entry.
(A) In general.
(i.) Oath of applicant.
a. Time of
nesses before the court.
(i.) In general.
(ii.) Filipinos and Porto Ricans.
(G) Change of name.
a. In general.
H. Usual legal conditions.-Continued.
(i.) The record.
(iii.) Certificate of naturalization.
i. Naturalization not retroactive. I. Impeachment of naturalization.
1. Before municipal courts.
a. Under Act of 1906.
b. Under prior laws.
(A) Power to treat certificate as invalid.
(B) Right of foreign governments to impeach denied.
(A) In general.
(E) Spanish Treaty Claims Commission, 1905. J. Crimes and offenses against naturalization laws.
1. In general.
1. NATURALIZATION IN PURSUANCE OF THE STATUTES OF
THE UNITED STATES BY TAKING OUT FORMAL PAPERS.
Naturalization is the act of adopting a foreigner and clothing him with the privileges of a citizen. 9 Ops. Atty. Gen. 359; Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U. S. 135.
A naturalized citizen becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. Chief Justice Marshall, in Spratt v. Spratt, 1 Pet. 343.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Sec. 1.
B. Power to Regulate Naturalization Vested Exclusively in
Congress. In the United States the naturalization of foreigners is within the exclusive control of the Federal Government. It is one of the powers expressly granted to the National Government.
Prior to the establishment of the government under the Constitution, the different colonies and states had enacted laws regulating the naturalization of aliens. They had manifested very diverse views in their legislation on the subject. One state, desiring to foster immigration, conferred on foreigners all the rights of citizenship on their landing on its shores, while another required a probation of many years before conferring those privileges upon the immigrant. It was feared that if the states were to be left to themselves, the same diversity would continue under the Constitution. As early as 1782, Mr. Madison strenuously urged the adoption of a uniform rule of naturalization by the states.
The Constitution (Art. 1, Sec. 8) provides that “the Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” The Constitution went into operation on the 4th of March, 1789. The first Congress that assembled under it, at its second session, exercised the power vested in it by the Constitution, and passed an act to establish a uniform system of naturalization. Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. at L. 103.
The question arose whether, after this act went into effect, any authority existed for the naturalization of foreigners under state laws. The United States Supreme Court, in Collet v. Collet (1792), 2 Dallas, 294, expressed the opinion that the states still individually enjoyed a concurrent authority upon the subject, but that this authority could not be exercised so as to contravene the rule established by the authority of the Union.
But in United States v.Villato (1797), 2 Dallas, 370, it was decided that a Spaniard by origin who had complied with the requirements prescribed by the laws of the State of Pennsylvania in relation to naturalization was not a citizen of the United States. While the decision in this case was based on the ground that the naturalization laws of the state had been repealed by the new constitution of that state, doubt was expressed by one of the judges of the court as to the correctness of the view expressed in Collet v. Collet, and he indicated his belief that the power of naturalization operated exclusively as soon as it was exercised by Congress.
And in Chirac v. Chirac (1817), 2 Wheaton, 259, Chief Justice Marshall said: “That the power of naturalization is exclusively in Congress does not seem to be and certainly ought not to be controverted."
Matthews' Lessee v. Rae (1829), 3 Cranch C. C. 699, involved the question of the status of the naturalization law of Maryland of 1779 and that of Pennsylvania of 1789. The court held that one who, after the Act of Congress of 1790, had gone through the forms of naturalization prescribed by the laws of the states, had not been naturalized, “the state naturalization laws being superseded and annulled by the Act of Congress whose jurisdiction upon that subject is, under the Constitution of the United States, exclusive."
Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 Howard, 393, said: “Previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States every state had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character, of course, was confined to the boundaries of the state and gave him no rights or privileges in other states beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of states.
Each state may still confer" these rights and privileges “upon an alien, or
any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States.
The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the state which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently no state, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a state under the Federal Government, although, so far as the state alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the state attached to that character. It is very clear, therefore, that no state can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution of the United States. It can not make him a member of this community by making him a member of its own; and for the same reason it can not introduce any person, or description of persons, who were not intended to be embraced in this new political family, which the Constitution brought into existence, but were intended to be excluded from it."
Mr. Justice Gray, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, said: "The power granted to Congress by the Constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,' was long ago adjudged by this court to be vested exclusively in Congress.”
In Minneapolis v. Reum, 56 Fed. 576, the court said, referring to the power vested in Congress by the Constitution in relation to naturalization : "Congress has exercised this power, established the rule, and expressly declared