Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/100092/montana-vs-kennedy
Timestamp: 2018-05-25 09:22:25
Document Index: 85109559

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2172', '§ 2172', '§ 1993', '§ 2172', '§ 1993', '§ 222', '§ 5', '§ 5']

Montana Vs Kennedy - Citation 100092 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Montana Vs. Kennedy - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/100092
Case Number 366 U.S. 308
Respondent Kennedy
.....of appeals for the seventh circuit syllabus petitioner's mother is a native-born citizen of the united states, and his father is an italian citizen who has never been naturalized. they were married in the united states, and their marital relationship has never been terminated. petitioner was born in italy in 1906, while his parents were residing there temporarily, and his mother brought him to the united states later in the same year. he has since resided continuously in the united states, and has never been naturalized. held: petitioner is not a citizen of the united states. pp. 366 u. s. 309 -315. (a) r.s. § 2172, granting inherited citizenship to children born abroad of parents who "now are, or have been," citizens, applies only to children.....
Montana v. Kennedy - 366 U.S. 308 (1961)
U.S. Supreme Court Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961)
Held: Petitioner is not a citizen of the United States. Pp. 366 U. S. 309 -315.
(a) R.S. § 2172, granting inherited citizenship to children born abroad of parents who "now are, or have been," citizens, applies only to children whose parents were citizens on or before April 14, 1802, when its predecessor became effective. When petitioner was born in 1906, R.S. § 1993 provided the sole source of inherited citizenship for foreign-born children, and it applied only to children whose fathers were citizens. Pp. 366 U. S. 309 -312.
is not applicable to petitioner, since mere marriage to an alien, without change of domicile, did not terminate the citizenship of an American woman either at the time of petitioner's birth or at the time of his mother's return to the United States, both of which occurred in 1906. Pp. 366 U. S. 312 -314.
(c) A different conclusion is not required by the testimony of petitioner's mother that she had been prevented from returning to the United States prior to petitioner's birth by the wrongful refusal of an American Consular Officer to issue her a passport because of her pregnant condition. Pp. 366 U. S. 314 -315.
Petitioner, whose mother is a native-born United States citizen and whose father is a citizen of Italy (their marriage having been in the United States), was born in Italy in 1906 while his parents were temporarily residing there, and entered the United States with his mother later the same year. He has continuously resided in the United States since that time, and has never been naturalized. His claim of United States citizenship is based primarily upon two statutes: (1) Section 2172 of the Revised Statutes (1878 ed.), [ Footnote 1 ] and (2) Section 5 of an Act of 1907. [ Footnote 2 ] The Court of Appeals found that neither statute obtained as to one in the circumstances of this petitioner, 278 F.2d 68. We granted certiorari to review that conclusion, 364 U.S. 861, in view of the apparent harshness of the result entailed. For reasons given hereafter, we agree with the Court of Appeals.
In 1854, Horace Binney, one of the country's leading lawyers and a recognized authority on the immigration laws, published an article entitled "The Alienigenae of the United States" [ Footnote 3 ] in which he argued that the words "who now are, or have been" in the 1802 predecessor of R.S. § 2172 had the effect of granting citizenship to the foreign-born children only of persons who were citizens of the United States on or before the effective date of the 1802 statute (April 14, 1802), in other words, that the statute had no prospective application. Foreign-born children of persons who became American citizens between April 14, 1802 and 1854, were aliens, Mr. Binney argued. In 1855, Congress responded to the situation by enacting the predecessor (10 Stat. 604) of R.S. § 1993. [ Footnote 4 ] The provision had retroactive, as well as prospective, effect, but was clearly intended to apply only to children of citizen fathers. [ Footnote 5 ]
The view of Mr. Blinney and the 1855 Congress that the Act of 1802 had no application to the children of persons who were not citizens in 1802 has found acceptance in the decisions of this Court. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 , 169 U. S. 673 -674; Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U. S. 657 , 274 U. S. 663 -664; see also Mock Gum Ying v. Cahill, 81 F.2d 940. The commentators have agreed. See 2 Kent, Commentaries at 53; 3 Hackworth, Digest of International Law, § 222; cf. Matter of Owen, 36 Op.Atty.Gen. 197, 200. Finally Congress has repeatedly stated and acted upon that premise. See, e.g., H.R.Rep. No. 1110, 67th Cong., 2d Sess. at p. 3. Indeed when, in 1934, Congress finally granted citizenship rights to the foreign-born children of citizen mothers, 48 Stat. 797, it not only specifically made the provision prospective, but further made clear its view that this was a reversal of prior law. See H.R.Rep. No. 131, 73d Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2, and S.Rep. No. 865, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 1.
"[T]hat a child born without the United States of alien parents shall be deemed a citizen of the United States by virtue of . . . resumption of American citizenship by the parent. . . . [ Footnote 6 ]"
It is sufficient to dispose of the contention that we find that mere marriage to an alien, without change of domicile, did not terminate the citizenship of an American woman either at the time of petitioner's birth or his mother's return to the United States, both of which occurred in 1906. [ Footnote 7 ] This view, which is supported by the weight of authority, [ Footnote 8 ] is indeed not contested by petitioner, who instead asks this Court to construe § 5 of the 1907 Act so as to avoid the obvious paradox of giving preferred treatment to the children of a woman who has lost her citizenship over that afforded to the children of a
woman who has never lost her citizenship. [ Footnote 9 ] Paradoxical though this may be, we have no power to "construe" away the unambiguous statutory requirement of § 5 that petitioner's mother must have lost her citizenship at the time of his birth. [ Footnote 10 ]
as might prevent the United States from relying on petitioner's foreign birth. In this situation, we need not stop to inquire whether, as some lower courts have held, there may be circumstances in which the United States is estopped to deny citizenship because of the conduct of its officials. [ Footnote 11 ]
See p. 366 U. S. 310 , infra.
See pp. 366 U. S. 312 -313, infra.
"In the reign of Victoria, in the year 1844, the English Parliament provided that the children of English mothers, though married to foreigners, should have the rights and privileges of English subjects, though born out of allegiance. I have not, in this bill, gone to that extent, as the House will have observed from the reading of it. "
" At the termination of the marital relation, she may resume her American citizenship. . . ."