Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/366/308/case.php
Timestamp: 2020-02-24 08:20:57
Document Index: 477977259

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

278 F.2d 68 affirmed. chanrobles.com-red
In 1874, Congress reenacted two statutes which seem to defy complete reconciliation. R.S. § 2172, a reenactment chanrobles.com-red
In this circumstance, petitioner, claiming that "persons" in R.S. § 2172 included, in the disjunctive, both citizen fathers and mothers, contends that we are faced with deciding either that R.S. § 1993 simply repeats, with modifications, that part of R.S. § 2172 relating to "fathers," (leaving its provisions relating to "mothers" intact), or that it repeals that part of R.S. § 2172 relating to "mothers." He suggests that we make the former choice to avoid the admitted severity of deporting a fifty-five-year-old man who has resided in this country since he was an infant. The Government, on the other hand, chanrobles.com-red
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] chanrobles.com-red
Petitioner's second ground for claiming citizenship is founded upon § 5 of an Act of March 2, 1907 (34 Stat. chanrobles.com-red
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 chanrobles.com-red
Petitioner makes a further contention. It is urged that the Government should not be heard to say that petitioner was born outside the United States because of its own misconduct. Petitioner's mother testified that she had been prevented from leaving Italy prior to petitioner's birth by the refusal of an American Consular Officer to issue her a passport because of her pregnant condition. However, it is uncontested that the United States did not require a passport for a citizen to return to the country in 1906. Moreover, petitioner has presented no evidence of any Italian requirement of an American passport to leave Italy at that time. In this light, the testimony by petitioner's mother as to what may have been only the consular official's well meant advice -- "I am sorry, Mrs., you cannot [return to the United States] in that condition" -- falls far short of misconduct such chanrobles.com-red
See, e.g., Comitis v. Parkerson, 56 F.5d 6, 559-560 (C.C.E.D.La.), writ of error dismissed sub nom. Comitiz v. Parkerson, 163 U.S. 681; Ruckgaber v. Moore, 104 F.9d 7, 948-949 (C.C.E.D.N.Y.), affirmed, 114 F.1d 20; Wallenburg v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 159 F.2d 7, 219 (C.C.D.Neb.); In re Fitzroy, 4 F.2d 541, 542 (D.C.D.Mass.); In re Lynch, 31 F.2d 762 (D.C.S.D.Cal.); Petition of Zogbaum, 32 F.2d 911, 912-913(D.C.D.S.D.); In re Wright, 19 F.Supp. 224, 225 (D.C.E.D.Pa.); Watkins v. Morgenthau, 56 F.Supp. 529, 530-531 (D.C.E.D.Pa.).