The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1859-07-27
The Naturalization Question. !

N
Gently returned to. the kingdom Of Hanover bis
native country and was there impressed into the
army. Whenshe emigatea to America he was not
enrolled in the Hanoverian army aud had not been
drafted for that duty He having made complaint
to his government, the Secretary of State, Gen.
Cass, addressed on the sth inst, letter to our
Minister at Berlin in which the following passages
occur. 1t viii be seen that the views of Gen. Cass
as to the protective nature of NATURALIZATION are
given more fully thanin his former letters: ''N
The right of expatriation cannot at this day be
doubted or denied in the United States. 'Theidea
has been repudiated ever since, the origin OF our
| government, that 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 hap
pincss BY selecting new home. The most eminent
writer's On public law recognize the right ofexpat-
ration. This can only be contested by those who
in the nineteentb century are still devoted to the
ancient feudal law with all its oppression The
doctrine of perpetual allegiance is relic of bar
barism which has been gradually disappearing from
Christendom during the last century. & e4i z
The Constitution of the United States recognizes
the natural right Of expatration, by comforting up
on Congress the power to establish uniform rule
of naturalization" Indeed it was one of the grev
ances alleged against the British King in the
Declaration Of independence, that he had ten
deavored prevent the population Of these States
for that purpose obstructng the laws Unnatural
ization Of foreigners, refusing to pass others to
encourage their migration hither." &c.. dc. The
Constitution thus clearly recognizes the principle Of
|expatriation in the strongest manner. It would
have been inconsistent in itself and unworthy ofthe
character of the authors Of that instrument to hold
out inducements to foreigners to abandon their ma
tive land, to renounce their allegiance to their ma
tive government and to become citizens of the
United States, if they had not been convinced Of
the absolute and unconditional right of eypatra-
ton. Congress have uniformly acted upon this
eral government. They established ga uniform
rule Of naturalization" nesaly seventy yearsago.
There has since been no periodin our history when
laws for this purpose did not exist though their
provisions have undergone successive changes.
The alien, in order to bceOnea citizen, must. de-
clare ON oath or affirmation that he viii support
the Constitution of the United States; and, at the
same time, he is required to absolutely entirely
renounce and abjure. all allegiance and fidelity to
eyer foreign prince, potentate, State, orsorereigp
ty whatever, and particularly, by name the prince
potentate, State or sovereignty whereof he was be-
fore citizen"
The exercise of the right of naturalization, and
the consequent recognition Of the principle Of ex-
patraton, are not confined to the government of
the United States. There is not a country In
Europe, believe, at the present moment, Yheie
thesIaw docs not authorize the naturalization of
foreigners in one form Or other. Indeed, in some
of these countries this law is more liberal than
own towards foreigners. ,sfy.s
The question, then, arises, what rights do our
laws confer upon foreigner by granting him nat
answer, all the rights, privileges,
and imnunites which belong to a natre-born
citizen, in their full extent with the single qualif-
cation that, under the Constitution, person ex-
cept natural born citizen is eligible to the office
of President" With this exception, the natural
Il.
ization, both at home and abroad, is placed upon
the very same footing with the native citizens. Hell
is neither in a better nora worse condition. & Ia
native citizen chooses to take up his residence in
foreign country for the purpose Of advancing his |
fortune or promoting his happiness, he is, whilst
there, bound to obey its municipal laws equally
with those WHO have lived in it all their lives. Hell
goes abroad with his eyes open; and if these laws
be arbitrary and unjust, lie has chosen to abide by
the consequences. 1fthey are administered in an
equal spirit towards himself and towards native
subjects, this noright to interfery
in his behalf. To do ths-would b9fof
violate the right of an independent nation to egis
ate within It's own tefTitoffeS.Sst 1873 LaSl- a$s +
Ifthis government were to undertake such task
We might DON be involved in trouble wittrnearly
he whole world. To protect our citizens against
he application of this principle of universal law,
n its full extent, we have treaties with several
cations securing exemption to American citizens
when residing abroad from some Of the onerous
luties required from their own subjects Where
10 such treaty exists and an American citizen has
committed crime or incurred penalty foryioat-
ng any municipal law whatever Of the country OF his
residence, he is justas liableto be tried
md punished for his offence, as though he had re-
ided in it from the day Of his birth. If this has
lot been done before his departure and he should |
return under the same jurisdiction, he
nay be tried aud punished for the offence under
principles Of universal law. Under such cireun,
tances, NO person would think Of contending. that
n intermediate residence in his own country for
ears would deprive the government whose laws
lie had violated Of the power to enforce their exc
ution. The very same principle, and no other is
ppicabe to the case Of naturazed citizen, should
e choose to return to his native country.
n that case, il he had committed an offence
~ =, <, h;s dena rt,,rp ha il raepnY,.