« ÎnapoiContinuă »
(See also Expatriation.)
In order to obtain a passport, the applicant must state that he intends to return to this country and how long he purposes to remain abroad. If his absence is to be permanent, he forfeits his right to Permanent receive a passport.
How long he may remain abroad without losing Duration of the right to receive a passport depends upon his intention of returning, which is to be determined by the circumstances of his business and social relations.
But the obligation of returning is not held to Barbarous apply to American citizens and their descendants tries. living in American communities in countries where extraterritorial jurisdiction exists, or to those who are engaged as missionaries in barbaric or uncivilized countries.
1887, p. 23.
According to your statement, Mr. László, a Hungarian For. Rels., by birth, who emigrated to this country at the time of the political disturbances in Hungary thirty-seven years ago and was duly naturalized, returned, after residing here sixteen years, to Hungary, where "he has remained uninterruptedly for twenty years, having what is apparently permanent employment."
You state also that his children were born in Hungary, and from this I infer that his family relations were there established. On the face of these circumstances the presumption is he is now domiciled in Hungary. It is true that this presumption may be rebutted by proof on his part that his residence was without animus manendi; but,
For. Rels., 1887, p. 1125.
For. Rels., 1888, p. 20.
until such proof is received, the presumption continues in force. Hence, under the established rule of this Department, he can not, as a person domiciled in Hungary, obtain from the Department or its representatives a passport averring him to be entitled to the immunities of a citizen of the United States.-Mr. Bayard to Mr. Lee, July 12, 1887.
I. Persons who are members in Turkey of a community of citizens of the United States of the character above described do not lose their domicile of origin, no matter how long they remain in Turkey, provided that they remain as citizens of the United States, availing themselves of the extraterritorial rights given by Turkey to such communities, and not merging themselves in any way in Turkish domicile or nationality.
2. The American domicile they thus retain they impart to their descendants, so long as such descendants form part of such distinctive American communities, subject to the above proviso.
3. Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes, providing that "the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States," does not apply to the descendants of citizens of the United States members of such communities. Such descendants are to be regarded, through their inherited extraterritorial rights recognized by Turkey herself, as born and continuing in the jurisdiction of the United States.—Mr. Porter to Mr. Emmet, August 9, 1887.
As appears by his certificate of naturalization, Mr. Löwinsohn was naturalized in the court of common pleas of New York City on the 5th of February, 1872. was born in Pressburg, Hungary, on the 5th of February, 1851, and therefore had just reached the age of twenty
He came to
one years on the day of his naturalization.
Your action (in refusing him a passport) is approved.-
Frank R. Blackiston applied to the legation in Paris for a passport. He was born in this country, went abroad at the age of twenty and resided there, returning for a few months at a time on nine different occasions. He owns property and pays taxes in North Adams, Massachusetts, but in making application declares "that at present I have no plan, intention, or desire to return to the United States to perform the duties of citizenship therein."
1889, pp. 168,
The laws of the United States enjoin upon its authori- For. Rels., ties the recognition of the right of its citizens freely to 169. renounce their allegiance, and this injunction the Executive is not at liberty to disregard. At the same time it is forbidden to issue passports to any but citizens of the United States, which has always been held to mean not persons who may be able merely to produce evidence that at a certain time they were citizens of the United States,
For. Rels., 1890, p. 11.
but those who at the time they apply for the protection of the Government are its loyal citizens, bearing, in the language of the oath they are required to take, "true faith and allegiance to the same;" when, therefore, a person declares that he has "no plan, intention, or desire" to perform the duties of citizenship, he by his own act excludes himself from the class of persons who, in bearing "true faith and allegiance," are entitled to the protection of the Government whose allegiance he renounces.—Mr. Blaine to Mr. Reid, December 2, 1889.
I have to say that there is no fixed term of foreign residence by which the loss of American domicile is decided. The domicile of a person depends upon his intention, which is to be determined upon all the facts in the case. In the determination of this question no distinction is made between native and naturalized citizens, but the comparative periods of residence in this and in foreign countries are to be considered in arriving at the real intention of the individual. * * *
I have to say that where, in his application for a passport, a person makes oath that he intends to return to the United States within a certain time, and afterwards, when he applies for a renewal of his passport, it appears that he has not fulfilled that intention, this circumstance raises a doubt as to his real purposes and motives, which he may be called upon to dispel.
* * *
An American, whether by birth or by naturalization, residing abroad, in representation of an American business, and keeping up an interested association with this country, is in a different case from an alien who returns, immediately after naturalization, to his native place, there to engage in a local calling and, it may be, marrying there and exhibiting every evidence of an intention to make his home among his kindred. In the latter instance
it would require strong proof to countervail the prima facie presumption that his naturalization was obtained solely to enable him to dwell thereafter in his native land without subjection to the duties and burdens of native citizenship. Mr. Blaine to Mr. Grant, March 25, 1890.
1892, pp. 189,
I have received your No. 418, of the 8th ultimo, re- For. Rels.. specting an application for a passport made by Ludwig 190. Henckel, who states that he was born in St. Louis, Missouri, January 10, 1874. He was taken in 1875 to Venezuela by his father, who claims to have previously declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and who, on January 13, 1882, was appointed consular agent of the United States at San Cristobal, Venezuela. After thirty years' absence, the father returned to Hanover, his native city, taking the son with him. The latter, it appears, is now serving an apprenticeship at Hamburg, and at its expiration, three years hence, “declares it to be his intention to return to America to reside.'
Notwithstanding the allegiance of the father, the son is by birth a citizen of the United States. His absence from the country during minority and while under the control of his father should not be counted too strongly against him, especially in view of the fact that he declares his intention of returning to this country to reside after the completion of his apprenticeship. If he will take the necessary oath to that effect, he would seem to come substantially within the rule, and a passport may be issued to him.-Mr. Blaine to Mr. Phelps, May 3, 1892.
1893, P. 320.
Mr. Iby, son of a Roumanian subject, is stated to have For. Rels., come to the United States at the age of fifteen and to have been duly naturalized in December, 1888, when twenty-five years old. Quitting the United States in