« PreviousContinue »
hence when on their return to Switzerland they are required to perform the duties of citizenship they are not entitled to much sympathy, however desirous the Government of the United States may be to shield them.
“ They have voluntarily placed themselves in the attitude of owing allegiance to two different sovereignties, and the burdens and inconveniences resulting therefrom would seem to be as essentially a part of this dual allegiance as the advantages which they hope to derive from it. As naturalized citizens of the United States they owe allegiance to our Government and are entitled to its protection; as native citizens of Switzerland they hold and claim the right to return to their commune and demand its aid and assistance in case of poverty or helpless
As long as they remain in their Swiss jurisdiction Switzerland claims the right to exact of them military service and other duties of citizenship as an equivalent for the possible benefit they may receive from their commune in the event of decrepitude and helplessness.
“ For harmonizing views so widely and radically different and so conflicting as those entertained by the two Governments upon this important subject, a naturalization convention would seem to be the wisest and best remedy, but I regret to say that I see nothing in the present attitude of the Swiss Federal Council or in the sentiment of the people to justify the hope of such consummation in the near future."
Mr. Peak, min. to Switzerland, to Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, Feb. 3, 1897,
For. Rel. 1897, 557.
Translation of an ertract from the Handbuch des schweizerischen Bundes
staatrechts, by Dr. J. J. Blumer, vol. 1, page 330.
“ The possession of the right of Swiss citizenship is derived from the right was urged that if one continued to consider forever and in all circumstances the emigrants as citizens, the cantons and communes would have in time a population outside of its boundaries, without direct connection with their country, and who would not avail themselves of the right of citizenship except upon such occasions as it should be to their advantage. It was objected to the proposition of Zurich that the right of Swiss citizenship should be held so sacred that any proscription of it was absolutely inadmissible; that this notion of the value and importance of the right of Swiss citizenship was bound up and linked with the sentiments of the Swiss people; that a citizen of the confederation should not be allowed to lose his right of citizenship except upon his voluntary renunciation and proof that he had acquired another domicil. Following this discussion the proposition of
of citizenship cantonal, as this in turn is subordinated to the posses
sion of the right of citizenship communal, or of a commune. " It is therefore to the cantons that belongs the privilege of promulgat
ing the regulations upon the loss or acquisition of citizenship, but inasmuch as contests between the cantons and even international conflicts may arise from this state of things, the constituted authorities believed, as early as in 1818, that it was necessary to insert in the constitution this principle: That no canton can deprive any of its citizens of the right of origin or of citizenship.' It was sought to avoid thus a return to the system of ‘heimat losat,' or • homeless people, resulting formerly from the fact that certain cantons had withdrawn the right of citizenship or commune from their citizens who embraced another religion or contracted marriage with the professor of another faith, whereas other cantons had sought to prevent
this by a vote of the assembly of cantons. “At the diet in 1848 the deputation from Zurich proposed to make an
exception to the principle above stated in the case where a Swiss should possess uncontested citizenship rights in a foreign country. It
Zurich was rejected by only two votes majority. “During the discussion upon the revision of the constitution in 1871 and
1873, it was sought to add to article 42 of the ancient constitution a prohibition against the banishment of citizens of other Cantons from the territory of the Canton where they were. At the same time the National Commission proposed the following amendment: 'He who acquires or accepts the citizenship of a foreign country loses his citizenship, Swiss and cantonal.' This amendment was supported by arguments analogous to those which were urged in 1848 in favor of the proposition of Zurich. It was stated that the Swiss who were naturalized in America refused upon their return to Switzerland to fulfill their duties of Swiss citizenship when such was inconvenient to them, invoking their newly acquired citizenship; and, on the other hand, when they found themselves in need of it they reclaimed the aid and assistance of the Cantons and communes, pretending that, notwithstanding their American citizenship, they had not lost their rights of Swiss citizenship and still possessed all the privileges belonging to a citizen, both cantonal and communal. It was added that a position so equivocal and which could be easily modified provoked conflicts, and that it was, moreover, contrary to the spirit of the ancient country. But the National Council itself rejected this amendment, which had been opposed by such arguments as these: That in 1850 they had tried to remedy the inconveniences springing from the ‘heimat losat,' and that now this proposition would open the door anew to the same disorder; that it was in contradiction of Swiss history and the development of its public rights; that it was opposed to the sentiments of the people, who held firm to the praiseworthy theory that one could never, except by his expressed will, lose his right of citizenship in Switzerland ; that often it did not depend upon the free will of the citizen that he had acquired citizenship in a foreign country, but that in many countries he was directly compelled by circumstances to naturalize himself; that thus in a number of countries, and, indeed, in America, it was necessary to be naturalized before one could acquire the power to own land, and that in certain of the German States, where exists the system of concessions, citizenship was an indispensable condition to the exercise of certain professions. It was recognized that this double right of citizenship could give rise to conflicts, particularly where the jurisdiction of tribunals was concerned; but these inconveniences, it was urged, were not so great that it should be necessary to discredit a theory widely upheld and deeply imbedded in the bearts of the Swiss people, and especially was this true when the acquisition of foreign citizenship had never as yet occasioned to Switzerland any grave difficulties with
other countries. The principle that a Swiss can not lose his Swiss citizenship except
he himself renounce it, has been thus maintained since the last revision. But as the legislation of the Cantons presented great divergencies as to this renunciation, and as the right of renunciation, even, was placed in doubt by certain Cantons, it was declared in the project of the constitution of 1872 that this matter was to be submitted to Federal legislation. And this amendment was passed without change in the present constitution, of which article 4, or that part of it which concerns the present question, reads thus: No (anton can
deprive one of its citizens of the right of citizenship.' 'Federal legislation will determine the conditions under which a Swiss can renounce his nationality to obtain naturali.
zation in a foreign country.' * The Federal (Council has fully explained the signification of the above
in many notes addressed to foreign governments. It can be summed up as follows: The right of Swiss citizenship can not be proscribed; every Swiss conserves his citizenship as long as he does not renounce it himself and as long as he can prore his descent; the fact of his having acquired a foreign citizenship is not sufficient to make him lose his Swiss citizenship; he preserves it even during a prolonged sojourn in a foreign country, and even when he has not paid his military and civic taxes in Switzerland; this is also true if he has accepted military service or entered into the administration of the foreign country; to lose his Swiss citizenship a formal and express renunciation is necessary, which also extends in its effect to liis minor children; but in order to make such a renunciation valuable or valid, it is necessary to prove that he has acquired domicil in
another country or (anton. “From all that precedes it follows that the Swiss laws admit the prin
ciple of double citizenship, which is prohibited in many countries. Thus, in 1851, when the government of Outer Appenzell Rhodes claimed the authority to withdraw the right of citizenship from one of its citizens who wished to acquire citizenship in another Canton, the Federal ('ouncil instructed it that this point of view was contrary to the constitution, and that it would be obliged to admit as established the right of recourse of a citizen of Appenzell who complained against such a withdrawal of his citizenship. The Federal ('ouncil has also refused to ratify an article of the constitution of U'ri, in 1850, whereby it was sought to exclude citizens who, after having acquired citizenship in a foreign country, had not renewed his Swiss citizenship wthin a certain time. The same devi. sion was made in an analogous case concerning the constitution of St. Gall, in this sense, that the Federal Assembly reserved the
right of interpreting article 13 (present article 44). “In conclusion, it should be mentioned that the Federal ('ouncil has
declared inadmissible an ordinance of the Canton of Nidwalden prescribing that the widows of its citizens, originally of the Canton of Obwalden, should be returned to the charge of their original commune. In a word, the acquisition of the right to aid or assistance is a consequence of the right of citizenship, which, under the terms of article 14, can not be lost." (For. Rel. 1897, 560.)
(a) LAW OF 1869.
“ Ilis excellency [the Turkish minister of foreign affairs] states that the majority of cases where the naturalization of Turkish subjects is questioned are found to be people who have left the Empire to escape payment of debts, evade criminal process, or without obtaining leave of the Government, and by remaining absent for al length of time and returning under the protection of an American passport expect immunity from everything remaining of record against them. Furthermore, he says that the Ottoman Government can have but one standard for the consideration of the naturalization of persons formerly Ottoman subjects, and which is fully stated in the law promulgated January 19, 1869.
“By examination of the Législation Ottomane, vol. 1, page 8, art. 5, I translate as follows:
“ART. 5. The Ottoman subject who has acquired a foreign nationality with the authorization of the Imperial Government is considered and treated as il foreign subject. If, on the contrary, he has naturalized himself as it foreigner without the preliminary authorization of the Imperial Government, his naturalization will be considered as null and void, and he will continue to be considered and treated in all respects as an Ottoman subject. No Ottoman subject can in any case acquire foreign naturalization until after obtaining an act of authorization delivered by virtue of an Imperial iradé.
“ His excellency stated that but one thing remained to be done by those who have violated the above law, and that was to file a petition stating all the points of their several cases, and particularly a cause for changing their nationality, with the Turkish minister in America, who in turn will forward the same to the locality whence the petition originally came, and if found to have left a clean record after him, there will be no difficulty in obtaining the Imperial iradé, considered so indispensable in the above law.
“Without this last precaution all naturalized Turks are debarred from inheriting from Ottoman subjects, notwithstanding that the property may have been acquired through the thrift and industry of the foreigner. And in case the latter purchases property he cannot bequeath the same to other than an Ottoman.
“ In reference to filing these petitions with the Turkish minister in America, I made particular inquiry whether it would not be preferable to have the same come through the channel of the State Department and this legation, to which his excellency replied that by the personal application to the minister he would be enabled to pronounce at once whether the applicant could obtain relief, and thereby save much time and labor."
Mr. Emmet, chargé at Constantinople, to Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, July
21, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, 851-852. For the text of the Ottoman Law of Nationality of Jan. 19, 1869, and a
circular of the Turkish Government of March 26, 1869, in relation
thereto, see For. Rel. 1893, 714-715. Turkey refuses to legalize the passports of any naturalized person of Armenian birth. There is no way by which this Department can procure a visé in such cases. The Turkish minister uniformly refers all applications for vises to the Ottoman consuls," who are prohibited by their Government from viséing the passports in question.
Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Agnew, May 3, 1895, 202 MS. Dom.
(b) BUREAU OF NATIONALITY.
The Turkish bureau of nationality was established under a law of July 17, 1869. (Legislation Ottomane, I. 12.) It was ordained for the purpose of examining documents presented in support of the claims of persons residing in Turkey to foreign nationality, and, if such claims are found to be satisfactory, a certificate to that effect is issued by the bureau and the person's name is registered. Such registration avoids further discussion of the claimant's nationality. If the evidence of foreign nationality is not satisfactory, the certificate and registration are refused, and the bureau reports the case to the minister of foreign affairs, with whom rests the final decision. The burean deems as American citizens Ottoman subjects who were naturalized in the United States before 1869. Registration has not been regarded as obligatory upon aliens, but it is required whenever the alien presents himself before an Ottoman tribunal either as claimant or defendant, or wishes to validate any official or legal document, or is a party to a transaction in which the seal of an Ottoman office is necessary.
Mr. Cox, min. to Turkey, to Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, Jan. 5, 1886, en
closing a translation of the regulation of July 17, 1869, For. Rel.
1886, 862. See Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cox, min. to Turkey, No. 79, Jan. 23,
1886, 4 MS. Inst. Turkey, 375.
(C) DIPLOMATIC CONTROVERSIES.
“ This Department has received a dispatch of the 20th ultimo, from the United States consul at Beirut, stating that the Turkish bureau of nationality at Constantinople had recently declined to certify to the American citizenship of Messrs. Kevork Guligyan and Bedros Iski