« PreviousContinue »
It may be open to question whether the act of Congress of February 10, 1855, declaring to be a citizen any woman who might be lawfully naturalized and who has married a citizen of the United States, can be deemed to have operated upon a woman who has never been within the jurisdiction of this Government. This doubt renders it inexpedient to issue a passport to the lady in question, as the law requires that passports be issued only to citizens of the United States. The facts of the case will, however, be communicated to our consul at Naples with instructions to use his good offices to procure the withdrawal by the state authorities of all obstacles to the emigration of Mrs. Valon and her children."
Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Tinelli, April 1, 1868, 78 MS. Dom. Let.
“ While the general rule is that the wife and minor children share the fortunes of the husband and father, it is necessary that they should in fact partake of his change of domicil and allegiance, and it has been held that the naturalization of an alien in the United States does not require this Government to regard as American citizens those members of his household who have never been within the jurisdiction of the United States, but have remained in the land of their original allegiance.”
Mr. Rives, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Smith, December 13, 1888, 171 MS.
Dom. Let. 82.
Although Attorney-General Williams, in his opinion of June 4, 1874, 14 Op. 402, referring to Kelly 1. Owen, 7 Wall. 496, and to certain other cases, stated that the authorities “ go to the extent of holding that, irrespective of the time or place of marriage or the residence of the parties, any free white woman, not an alien enemy, married to a citizen of this country, is to be taken and deemed a citizen of the United States," " yet in view of the obstacles to claiming for the laws, judicial decisions, and executive opinions of the United States effective validity beyond the jurisdiction of the United States, this Department prudently refrains from asserting its application to the case of an alien wife continuing within her original allegiance at the time of her husband's naturalization in the United States, inasmuch as the citizenship of the wife might not be effectively asserted as against any converse claim of the sovereignty within which she has remained. The result would naturally be a conflict of private international law, wherein the state within whose actual jurisdiction the wife remains might be found to have the practical advantage of the argument."
Mr. Foster, Ser. of State, to Mr. Thompson, min. to Turkey, Feb. 9, 1893,
For. Rel. 1893, 598.
Naturalization in the United States has no international effect on the allegiance of the wife and children of the naturalized person while they continue to reside in the country of origin.
Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Watrous, Jan. 23, 1895, 200 MS. Dom.
Let. 346; Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Adadourian, Jan. 7, 1896,
Jelalian, Nov. 29, 1897, 223 id. 35.
sister. (Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Torrey, June 17, 1896, 210
As has just been seen (supra, $ 413), the laws of the United States expressly provide that the naturalization of the parent shall operate to change the nationality of minor children only in case the latter have dwelt in the United States, in the sense heretofore explained.
A native of the canton of Vaud, who had been naturalized in the United States, invoked the intervention of the United States in order to secure the removal of his children to the United States. It appeared that by proceedings in his native country, which took place prior to his change of allegiance, he was divorced from his wife, and the custody of his children was assigned to her. He had demanded their custody from the authorities of the canton of Vaud, but without effect. The Department of State said: “ The fact of your having become a citizen of the United States has the effect of entitling you to the same protection from this Government that a native citizen would receive; but it cannot operate to destroy or to weaken in any way the authority of the canton of Vaud over its native-born citizens who have never been out of its jurisdiction, nor the exclusive rights of the tribunals, to whom the administration of its laws is committed, to decide all questions which may arise between such citizens."
Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Rosset, Nov. 25, 1815, 35 MS. Dom.
“As the question as to the right of your daughter, who is a minor, to leave her native country for the purpose of joining you in the United States, appears to be one over which the authorities of the former have exclusive jurisdiction, and as these have decided against
that right, it is conceived that there is no occasion for the interference of this Department in the matter."
Mr. Trescot, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. (apelle, June 18, 1860, 52 MS.
Dom. Let. 358.
3. Good OFFICES FOR EMIGRATION.
“ Your letter of the 6th of April, and the prior correspondence, touching your request for the intervention of this Government to secure the emigration from the Turkish dominion of persons connected with you by ties of family or relationship, and whom you left in Turkey when you came to the United States, has been maturely considered and has been made the subject of consultation with the Treasury Department, under whose supervision the laws to regulate immigration are executed.
" Your request is one of a rapidly increasing number of a similar character of which this Department has lately been the recipient. In one or two instances the Department has granted the request to the extent of permitting an unofficial mention of the case by the minister, but further reflection, excited by the increasing number of applications, has led to the conclusion that intervention in such cases is not compatible with our legislation or with the method provided for its en forcement.
In the first place, in order to assure itself that it was not soliciting something directly contrary to the letter or the spirit of our laws, the Department would have to make an investigation of the character of the applicant for intervention and of his ability to take care of those whose immigration he seeks. In the second place, it would be essential to institute inquiries abroad concerning those whose coming hither was desired, in order that it might not turn out that those whom this Department had assisted to emigrate could not be permitted to land.
"To these very grave and weighty reasons must be added the consideration that it is not the part of this Government to solve questions of allegiance or claims of duty for persons who are subject to and reside in a foreign country, and who are left in such country by one who, knowing the laws of the land of his origin, comes to this country alone.
" While the Government of the United States welcomes the honest and thrifty immigrant, it does not go so far as to employ the methods of diplomacy in an endeavor to secure the suspension of measures which other Governments may adopt to prevent the emigration of their subjects. On the contrary, this Government has in several of its treaties expressly recognized the competency of Governments to employ such measures."
Mr. Wharton, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Terzian, May 14, 1891, 182 MS.
Dom. Let. 9.
24, 1891, 181 MS. Dom. Let. 310.
The Department of State, December 15, 1892, instructed the American legation at Constantinople to use its good oflices to secure permission for the family of Mr. Michaelian, a naturalized citizen of the United States, to leave Turkey. The legation, having satisfied itself that Mrs. Michaelian intended to come with her children to the United States, issued to her a passport. The Department stated that the legation in so doing appeared to have exceeded its instructions, which contemplated intercession, so far as it might be practicable and proper, with the Ottoman authorities, whose inaction or prohibition was detaining Mrs. Michaelian and her children at Constantinople at much expense and inconvenience to them. As to the minor children of Mrs. Michaelian, the case, said the Department, was clear, since they had never at any time dwelt in the United States, and, therefore, were not citizens under sec. 2172 of the Revised Statutes. The legation was not to withdraw the passport which it had issued, but, in case the Turkish Government contested the evidence of the passport, was to use its good offices as was originally contemplated.
Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Thompson, min. to Turkey, Feb. 9, 1893,
For, Rel. 1893, 598.
Sec. of State, to Mr. Terrell, min. to Turkey, Aug. 9, 1893, For. Rel.
“ The second branch of the Senate inquiry covers two distinct matters. It is asked, in the first place, whether the families of such naturalized citizens residing in Turkey are permitted to leave that country and come to the United States. By “the families of such naturalized citizens' the resolution is presumed to mean the wives and minor children, who alone might, when within the jurisdiction of the United States, be held to acquire citizenship through the naturalization of the husband or father.
“ The naturalization laws of the United States being obviously framed to permit the bestowal of the franchise of citizenship upon certain persons of alien birth who are within its jurisdiction, and the application of these statutes being intrusted to the judicial branch, it is clear that they can not operate to naturalize by indirection or by executive interpretation a person who is an alien by birth and origin, who has never been within the jurisdiction of the United States, and who at the time may be dwelling within a foreign jurisdiction.
“ The Turkish Government has on several occasions permitted the emigration of the wives and children of Turkish subjects who had come to the United States and here acquired citizenship, leaving their families behind them. It has even permitted the emigration of other kinsmen of a degree not within the purview of the naturalization laws of the United States. It has also, asserting a discretionary power in the premises, refused to permit the emigration of the families of naturalized Armenians, even within the marital or filial degree. The good offices of the United States minister are uniformly exerted on all proper occasions to assist the emigration of such persons, upon permission properly secured from the Turkish authorities, and, when funds have been assured to pay the journey, he has assisted their departure. Ile has likewise assisted the coming to the United States of the wives of citizens of Armenian origin, who, being in this country at or subsequent to the naturalization of their husbands, have returned to Turkey; and of the children of such citizens, born abroad subsequent to the naturalization of the father or who may have acquired American citizenship by actual presence in the United States subsequent to the father's naturalization, and in such instances permission for the families to emigrate has been demanded as of right. These latter instances, however, are relatively few in number compared with the cases in which good offices have been exerted, with varying success, to procure the emigration from the Turkish dominions of the kindred of a naturalized Armenian, including the parents, brothers, and sisters, and even relatives of remoter degree, who could not become citizens of the United States except by individual naturalization."
Report of Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to the President, Jan, 22, 1896, in
response to an inquiry of the Senate " first, whether naturalized citizens of the United States of Armenian birth are allowed to visit Turkey on business or to visit their families, and whether United States passports held by them are recognized by the Turkish Government; secondly, whether the families of such naturalized citizens residing in Turkey are permitted to leave that country and come to the United States." (S. Doc. 83, 54 Cong. 1 sess.; For. Rel. 1895,
II. 1471-1473.) The Department of State declined to solicit permission for the emigration
from Turkey of a minor brother. (Mr. Moore, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Greene, May 14, and May 24, 1898, 228 MS. Dom. Let. 486,
2:27 id. 589.) Personal good offices were used in the case of an intended wife. (Mr.
Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Straus, min. to Turkey, Feb. 20, 1899, MS.