The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1859-08-03
Rights Of repatriation.


De 00uDteQ or 0enle0 IN the ODlOeu CtAtess
The idea has been repudiated ever since the
origin Of our Government, that man isl bound
to remain forever in the country OF his birth,
and that he has no right to exercise his free
will and consult his own happiness BY select
ing new home. The most eminent writers
on public law recognise the right Of expatra-
ton. This can only be contested BY those
who, in the nineteenth century, are still de-
voted to the ancient feudal law, with all It's
oppression. The doctrine Of perpetual ale
glance is relic Of bartarism which has been
gradually disappearing from Christendom du-
ring the last century.
The Constitution Of the United States re
cognises the natural right Of expatriation BY
comforting upon Congress the power ITO estab-
lish uniform rule Of naturalization" In
deed, ikwas one ofthe grievances alleged against
the British King in the Declaration oflndepen-
dence, that he had "endeavored to prevent the
population of these States--for that purpose
obstructing the laws Of naturalization oil ior-
eigners, refusing to pass others to encourage
their migration hither, "&c., &c. The Consu-
tuition thus clearly recognises the principe o.
expatration in the strongest manner. IL Wouiu
have been inconsistent IN itself and unworthy
of the character of the authors Of that instru-
ment, TO hold out inducements TO foreigners 70
abandon their native land, to renounce Their
allegiance to their native Government, and TO
become citizens Of the United States. II they
had not been convinced Of the absolute and un-
conditional right Of expatriation. Congress
have uniformly acted upon this principle ever
since the commencement OF the Federal Goy-
ernment They established "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 be
come citizen, must declare on oath or aftir-
nation that he will support the Constitution
Of the United States; and, at the same time
he is required TO absolutely and entirely re-
nounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity
to every foreign prince, potentate, State, OF
sovereignty, whatever, and particularly, by
name, the prince, potentate, State, or soVer-
eighty, whereof he was before a citizen.
The exercise of the right of naturalization.
and the consequent recognition Of the princi-
pie Of expatriation, are not confined to the
Government Of the United States. There Is
not a country in Europe, belieye,at the pres
ent moment, where the law does not author
ize the naturalization Of foreigners, in one form
or other. Indeed, in some Of these countries,
this law is more liberal than our own towards
foreigners.
The question, then, arises, what rights do
our laws confer unnn foreigner by granting
him naturalization ? answer, all the rights
privileges, and imunities, which belong TO a
native-born citizen, in their full extent, with
the single qualification, that, under the Cons
titution, "no person except a natnral-born
citizen is eligible to the Office Of President"
With this exception, the naturalized citizen
from and after the date If his naturalization,
both at hone and abroad, is placed upon the
very same footing with the native citi-
ZEN He is neither in better nor worse con-
dition. If native citizen chooses TO take up
his residence in FOREIGN country for the pur-
pose 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 He goes abroad
with his eyes open and IL these laws be ar
bitrary and unjust, he has chosen to abide by
the consequences. If they are administered
| in an equal spirit towardshimself and towards
native subjects, this Government have no
right to interfere authoratively in his behalf.
| To do this, would be to violate the right Of an
independent nation to legislate within its own
territories If this Government were TO un-
dertake suck task, we might soon be in
volve in trouble with nearly the whole world.
To protect our citizens against the application
of this principle of universal law, in its full
extent, we have treaties with several nations
securing exemption to American citizens when
residing abroad from some Of the onerous du-
ties required from their own subjects. Where
no such treaty exists, and an American citizen
has committed q crime, or incurred crime, or
incurred penalty for violating any municipal
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 re-
sided in it from the day of his birth. IL this
has not been done before his departure, and he
should voluntarily returnu1der the same jn-
risdiction, he may be tried md punished for
the ofenrs1Hpons princiflss If univ alsaaw
sIliaCT srSkL esz6SisisESziS5sS 40 Ilefs0n would
think of contending that an intermediate resi-
dence in his own country for years would de-
priye the Government whose laws he had vio-
lated of the power to enforce their execution
The very same principle, and no other,is APP
plicable to the case of a naturalized citizen.
should he choose to return to his nstive coun-
try. In that case if he had committed an Of
fence against the law before his departure, he
is responsible for it in the same manner as the
native-American citizen to whom have re-
ferred. In the language of the lste Mr. Mar
cy, in his letter Of the 10th January, 1854, to
Mr.. jackson, then our charge d. affaires to
Vienna, when speaking Of Todsig's case, ''ev-
cry nation, whenever its laws are violated BY
any one owing obedience to them, whether he
be citizen or stranger has a right to inflict
the penalties incurred upon the transgressor,
if found within its jurisdiction This prin-
ciple is too well established to admit Of serious
controversy. II one Of our native or natural
lied citizens were to expose himself to pun
ishment by the commission Of an offence
against any Of our laws, State or National, and
afterwards become natuTalized subject Of a
foreign country, he would not have the hardi-
hood to contend, upon voluntarily returning
within our jurisdiction, that his natnralizatienT
relieved him from the punishment due TO his
crime much less could he appeal TO the Gov
eminent OF his adopted country to protect him
against his responsibility TO the United States.
or any of the States. This Government
would not for moment listen to such an an
peal.
Whilst these principles cannot be contested
great care should be taken, in their application
especially to our natunlized citizens. The
moment foreigner becomes naturalized, his
allegiance to his native country is severed
A broad and impossible line separates him
from his native country. He is no more res
ponsible for anything he may say or do. or
omit to say or do, after assuming his new char
acter, than if he had been born in the United
States. Should he return to his native cotln-
try, he returns as an American citizen, and in
no other character. In order to entitle his or
iginal Government to punish him for an Of
fence, this must have been committed whilst
he was a subject and owed allegiance 10 that
Government. The offence must have been
complete before his expiration. 1t must have
been of such character that he might have
been tried and punished for it at the moment
Of his departure. A future liability TO serve
in the army will not be sufficient; because
before the time can arrive for such service no
mas changed his allegiance, and has become .
citizen of the United States. 1t would he
quite absurd to contend that boy, brought
o this country from foreign country with his
ather's family when but twelve years old
md naturalized here, who should Afterwards
-isit the country of his birth Whenha lad H.
'one man, might then be seized and com
'elled to perform military service, because, II
lie had remained there throughout the inter
ening years, and his life had been spared, he
vould have been bound to perform military
eItlCc. ~ SuuunS lOouCnA p11llclple Would
% to make an odious distinction between onr
and native citizens For this rea-
on in my despatch to you of May ~, 1859
nd again in my letter to Mr. Hofer the l4th
ltimo, / confne the foreign jurisdiction In
egard to our natunlized citizens to such Of
lem as 'were in the army or actually calle5
Ito it, at the time they left Prussia Thai
!, to the case Of actual desertion Of refusal
enter the army after having been regularly
rated and called into it by the Governnen,
, which at the time they owed allegiance. n
presumed that neither these eases presents
ny difficulty in point Of principle. If asOl.
Ter or a sailor were to desert from our army
navy, for which offence he is liable to ase.
ere punishment and, after having become
subject Of another country. shonld
,tun to the United States, it would Be-
ngular defence for him to make, that he ms
osolved from his crime because, after its com-
ission, he had become subject Of another
1t would be still more Str.npe
ere that Government to interpose in his be
alf for any such reason. Again, during the
st war with Great Britain, in several Of he
tates-I might mention Pennsylvania inpars
cular--the militiaman who was drafted ana