Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1859-07-27
THE NATURALIZATION QUESTION.

dressed by Mr.. Secretary Cass to the Minister of
our Government ut Berlin under date of July 8,
1859, in definition of the views entertained by the
Administration in the matter of the rights and liza
bltes of naturalizcd citizens of the United States
who voluntarily return to their native country:
1.-The right of repatriation cannot at this day be
doubted or denied in the United States. The idea
has been repudated ever since the origin of our
Government that a man is bound to remain forever
in the country of his BIRTH and that he has right
to exercise his free will and consult his own happ-
ness by selecting new home. The most eminent
writers on public law recognise the right of expa-
triation This can only be contested by those who,
in the nineteenth century, are still devoted to the
ancient feuda law, with all its oppression. The
doctrine of perpetual allegiance is relic of barba
rism which has been gradually disappearing from
Christendom during the last century.
The Constitution of the United States recognizes
the natural right of repatriation by comforting upon
Congress the power to establish uniform rule of
naturalization" Indeed it one Of the griev-
ances alleged against the British King in the Decla
ration of independence that he had "endeavored to
prevent the population of these States-for that
purpose obstructing the laws of naturalization of
foreigners refusing to pass others to encourage their
migration hither" &C. The Constitution thus clear
ly recognizes the principle of eXpatriatOn in the
strongest 1t would have been inconsistent
in itself and unworthy of the character of the
thors of that instrument to hold out inducements to
foreigners to abandon their native land, to
their allegiance to their native Government and to
become citizens of the United States if they had
not been convinced of the absolute and uncondi-
tiona. right of repatriation. Congress have uni
formly acted upon this principle since the COM
mencement of the Federal Government. They
tablished "a uniform rule of naturalization" nearly
seventy years ago. There has since been No period
in our history when laws for this purpose did not
exist, though their provisions have undergone sue
cesSive changes. The alien, in order to become
citizen must declare oath affirmation that he
will support the Constitution of the United States;
and at the same time, he is required to absolutely
and entirely renouncc and allure all allegiance and
fidelity to every foreign prince, potentatc State, or
sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name,
the prince. potentate State, sovereignty whereof
lie was before a citizen
The exercise of the right Of naturalization, and
the consequent recognition of the principle of expa
triation, not confined to the Government of the
United States. There is not country in Europe,
| believe at the present moment, where the law
does not authorize the naturalization of foreigners
in one form or other. Indeed in some of these
countries this law is more liberal than our own to-
wards foreigners
The question then arises what rights do our laws
confer upon foreigner by granting him naturaiza
ton? l answer all the rights privileges, and i'm
muniticS which belong to Il native-born citizen, in
their full extent, with the single qualification that,
under the Constitution. mo person EXCEPT a natu-
raborn citizen is eligible to the office of President"
With this exception the naturalizcd citizen from
and after the date of his naturalization, both at
home and abroad, is placed upon the very same
footing with the native citizen He is neither in a
better nor worse condition. If native citizen
chooses to take up his residence in foreign coun
try for the purpose of advancing his fortune pro-
noting his happiness he is. whilst there bound to
obey its municipal laws equally with those who
have lived in it all their lives. He goes abroad with
his eyes open; and if these laws be arbitrary and
unjust he has chosen to abide by the consequences
If they are administered in an equal spirit towards
himself and towards native subjects this Govern
ment has right to interfere authortativcy in his
behalf To do this would he to violate the right of
an Independent nation to legiSatc within its
territories. Ifthis Government were to undertake
such Il task might soon be involved in trouble
with nearly the whole world To protect our ct-
zens against the application of this principle of uni
vcrsal law, IN its full extent, have treaties with
several natnnS securing exemption to American cit-
when residing abroad from some of the onc.-
Gus duties required from their own subjects. Where
no such treaty exists, and an American citizen has
committed crime or incurred penalty for violat-
ing any municipal law whatever of the country of
his temporary residence he is Just as liable to be
tried and punished for his offence as though he had
resided in it from the dav of his birth II this has
not been done before his departure, and he should
voluntarily return under the jurisdiction, he
may he tried and punished for the offence upon
pr:ncip pies of universal law.
Under such circumstances no person would think
of contending that an intermediate residence in his
own country for years would deprive the Govern
mcnt whose laws he had violated of the power to
enforce their execution. The very same principle
md l,1o tl,o oc
zed citizen, should he choose to return to his native
Country. In that case, if he had committed an Of
fence against the law before his departure he is
SpOnslble for it in the same manner as the native
American citizen to whom | have referred. In the
language of the late Mr.. Marcy, in his letter of the
10th of January, 1854. to Mr. jackson. then our
Charge dAffares to Vienna, when speaking of
Tousigs case "evcry nation, whenever its laws are
violated by any one owing obedience to them, wheth
err he be citizen or stranger has right to nfict
the penalties incurred upon the ransgrcssor found
within its jurisdiction This prncipe is too well
established to admit of serious controversy If one
of our native naturalizcd citizens were to expose
himself to punishment by the commission of an Of
fence against any of our laws State National and
afterwards become naturalizcd subject of foreign
country, he would not have the har,lihood to con-
tend, upon voluntarily returning within our jurs-
dicton, that his naturalization relieved him from
the punishment due to his crime; much less could
he appeal to the Government of his adopted country
to protect him against his responsibility to the UNI
ted States or any of the States. This Government
would not for a moment listen to such an appeal
Whilst these principles cannot be contested great
care should be taken in their application, especially
to our naturalzed citizens. The moment foreign
er becomes naturalized bis allegiance to his native
country is severed forever. lie experiences new
political birth. broad and impossible line sepa-
rates him from his native country. He is no more
responsible for any thing he may say or do, or omit
to say or DO, after assuming his new character than
it he had been born in the United States Should
ne return to his native country he returns as an
American citizen, and in no other character In
order to entitle his original Government to punish
HIM Tor an offence this must have been committed
whilst he was subject and owed allegiance to that
! Government. The offence must have been complete
before his expariation. 1t must have been of such