San Andreas independent., 1859-08-20
Rights of Naturalized Citizens.

dated 9Th July, 1859. As this document con-
tains an explicit declaration of the views of
the U. S. Government on the naturalization
question. it is of great Importance, and will
be read with deep interest by all native and
foreign-born citizens
1.-THE right of expatriation cannot at this
day be doubted or denied in the United States
The idea 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 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 expatri-
alton. This can only be contested by those
who in the nineteenth century are still devoted
to the feudal law with all its oppression. The
doctrine of perpetual allegiance is relic of
barbarism which has been gradually disap-
pearing from Christendom during the last CEN
tury
The Constitution of the United States recog-
nizes the natural right Of expatriation, by con-
ferring upon Congress the power to estab-
lish uniform rule of naturalization" In
deed, this was one of the grievances alleged
against the British King in the Declaration of
independence, that he had "endeav ored to pre-
vent the population of these States-for that
purpose obstructing the laws of naturaliza-
ton of foreigners, refusing to pass others to
encourage their migration hither," etc. The
Constitution thus clearly recognizes the doc
trne of expatriation in the strongest manner
1t would have been inconsistent in itself and
unworthy the character of the authors of that
instrument, to hold out inducements to for
eigners to abandon their native land, to re-
hpir oil 10 hn,r
ernment and to become citizens of the United
States, if they had not become convinced of
the absolute and unconditional expat-iation.
Congress have uniformly acted upon the prn-
ciple ever since the commencement of the Fed
eral Government. They established a "uni-
form 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 under
gone successive changes. The alien in order
to become citizen, must declare on oath or
affirmation that he will support the Consttu-
ton of the United States and, at the same
time he is required to absolutely and entirely
renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity
to every foreign prince, potentate, State or
Sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by
name, the prince, potentate, State or Sove-
reignty whereof he was before citizen.
The exercise of the right of naturaliza-
ton, and the consequent recognition of the
principles of expatration is not confined to
the Government of the United States. There
is not a country in Europe, | believe, at the
present moment, where the law does not au-
! thorize the naturalization of foreigners in one
form or other. Indeed, in some of the coun-
tries, this law is more liberal than our own to-
wards foreigners.
The question then arises what rights do
our laws confer upon a foreigner by granting
him NATURALIZATION answer, all the rights,
privileges and immunties which belong to a
native-born citizen, in their full extent, with
the single qualification that under the Consti-
tuition, no person except a natural born cit
izen is eligible TO the office of President
With this exception, the naturaized 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 better nor worse condition.
If native citizen chooses to take up his resi-
idence in foreign country for the purpose of
| advancing his fortune or promoting his hap
piness, 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 con-
sequences. If they are administered in an
equal spirit towards himself and towards ma
tive subjects, this Government have no right
to interfere authoritatively in his behalf To
do this would be to violate the right of an in
dependent nation to legislate within its own
territories. If this Government were to un-
dertake such task, we might soon be invol-
we'd in trouble with nearly the whole world.
To protect our citizens against the appli-
cof Of o,,1ia
in its full extent, we have treaties with
several nations securing exemption to Amer
ican citizens when residing abroad from
some of the onerous duties required from
their own subjects. Where no such treaty ex-
lists and an American citizen has committed a
crime or incurred penalty for violating 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
be had resided in it from the day of his birth.
If this has not been done before his departure.
and he should voluntarily return under the
same jurisdiction, he may be tried and punish
ed for the offence upon principles of univer-
sal law. Under such circumstances. no ner-
son would think of contending that an inter
mediate residence in his own country for wears
would deprive the Government whose laws he
had violated of the power to enforce their ex-
ecutlon The very same principle and no 9th
er, is applicable to the case of naturalized
citizen, should he choose to return to his ma
tive country. In that case, if he had commit
ted an offence against the law before his de-
parture he is responsible 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 Jan
uary, 1854, to Mr.. jackson, then our charge
d affairs to Vienna, when speaking of Tousig's
case, every nation, whenever its laws are Vi
olated by any one owing obedience to them,
whether he be a citizen or a stranger, has a
right to inflict the penalties incurred, on the
transgressor, if found within its Jurisdiction" !"
This principle is too well established to admit
of serious controversy. If one of our native
or naturalized citizens were to expose himself
to punishment by the commission of an Of
fence against any of our laws, State or nation
al, and afterwards become naturalized sub
ject OF foreign country, he would not have
the hardihood to contend, upon voluntarily re-
turning within our jurisdiction, that his nat
uralization 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
United States, or any of the States. This
Government would not for moment listen tn
such an appeal.
Whilst these principles cannot be contested
great care should be taken in their applica-