Page images
PDF
EPUB

the protection of a passport and alleged citizenship of this Government, and he thus stands aloof, demanding the protection of allegiance while abandoning all its duties, and, from a foreign land, applies to this Government for a passport which, without his performing any of the duties of a citizen of the United States, would relieve him, so far as the interposition of the United States could do so, from the duties of a subject of Austria. This is not a case in which the United States can or ought to interpose. If Mr. Landau had ever any title to be considered a citizen of the United States; he has abandoned it. Citizenship of the United States, it is my duty to say, is a high privilege, and, when granted to an alien, confers great prerogatives, whose maintenance, when they are honestly procured and faithfully exercised, the United States will exert its fullest powers to vindicate. These prerogatives are granted to protect, not merely men of wealth, such as the present memorialist, but the humblest and most friendless immigrant who seeks shelter and a home on these shores.' But the enjoyment of the prerogatives is conditioned on the performance of the correlative duties of loyal service, of love to the country of adoption, of support of the country when she needs support, and of payment of the just taxes that country imposes upon all its citizens. When the performance of that duty ceases, then cease the prerogatives of the citizenship on which they are conditioned. As far as I can judge from what is before me in the present case, these duties of citizenship have been steadily evaded by nonresidence and have never been performed by the memorialist. Whatever may have once been his title to citizenship, it was long since abandoned by him. His application for a passport should, therefore, be refused.”

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lee, chargé at Vienna, July 24, 1886,

For. Rel. 1886, 11.

Hercules A. Proios was naturalized in the United States August 14, 1871. The date and place of his birth and the time of his coming to the United States were uncertain. In a passport application made in 1871 he stated that he was born in 1814. In an application made in 1887, he gave the date of his birth as 1810. In his application of 1871 he stated that he was a native of Greece, but there was other evidence that tended to show that he was born in Constantinople of Greek parents. The precise time of his departure from the United States was uncertain, but it appeared that it was soon after his naturalization. After his return to Turkey he remained there continuously till 1887, a period of from fourteen to sixteen years, when he settled himself as a ship-chandler in southern Russia. While in Turkey he was employed in an institution under the jurisdiction of the Government. He was not a member of any American community in that country, nor connected with any American interests there or elsewhere. He had manifested no intention to return to the United States, and the consul-general at Constantinople reported that he had told him that he did not intend to return to America. Upon these facts, it was held that he had abandoned his American naturalization, and the legation and consulate-general of the United States at Constantinople were instructed to decline to visé his passport or further to recognize his claim to American citizenship.

Mr. Rives, Assistant Sec. of State, to Mr. Proios, Oct. 25, 1888, For. Rel.

1888, II. 1620.

[ocr errors]

Dr. Dongian, a native of Turkey, who had been naturalized as a citizen of the United States, returned to Turkey, and, ostensibly with a view to facilitate his admission to practice medicine, permitted himself to be registered by the Bureau of Nationality as an Ottoman subject, at the same time surrendering to the bureau his American passport. He afterwards invoked the aid of the American legation to cause the delivery of his certified diploma to him as a citizen of the United States, and explained that he had regarded his previous action as an empty formality,“ merely dictated by expediency, his intention always being to resume his acquired American citizenship." The legation, however, required him to surrender his certificate of naturalization, and sent it to the Department of State. The Department approved the legation's action, and notified the court by which the naturalization was granted, with a view to prevent him from obtaining a duplicate certificate.

Mr. Wharton, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Hirsch, July 10, 1891, For. Rel.

1891, 752.
A report of the consul at Stuttgart that Hugo Brudi, a naturalized citi-

zen of German origin, had signified his intention of renouncing his
American citizenship, was sent to the naturalizing court. (Mr.
Cridler, Third Assist. Sec. of State, to Clerk of the Court of Common
Pleas at Philadelphia, Nov. 16, 1897, 222 MS. Dom. Let. 468.)

It appearing that a native of Nicaragua, who had been naturalized in the United States, had afterwards resumed his residence in his native country and held there for a brief term the office of alcalde, the Department of State said: “It is probable that in accepting office he was required to subscribe to an oath to support and defend the constitution of Nicaragua and uphold its laws. This seems certainly to imply citizenship, if indeed it is not tantamount to a renunciation of his acquired allegiance.” It was ascertained that such an oath was taken, the precise form being “to obey and cause to be obeyed the constitution and the laws.” It was decided that the “ nature of the oath ” was “ conclusive against the issuance of a passport."

Mr. Wharton, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Shannon, min. to Nicaragua,

March 1, 1893; Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Baker, min. to

Nicaragua, May 17, 1893, For. Rel. 1893, 183, 185. As the issuance of a passport was the only question before the Department, the broader question of renunciation of acquired allegiance was not definitely decided.

The Government of Colombia maintains that nationality acquired by naturalization in another country is lost by the individual subsequently becoming domiciled in his native country.

For. Rel. 1894, 196.

Adam Aivazian, a native of Turkey, was naturalized at Fresno, California, April 20, 1890, after having resided in the United States about eight years. Immediately after his naturalization he obtained a passport, and, returning to Turkey, settled near Yozgad, where he married, purchased a dwelling, and engaged in trade. In 1894, during the Armenian troubles, he was arrested, tried by court-martial, and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, with transportation, on a charge of having forcibly aided a condemned Armenian brigand to escape. The grand vizier was unwilling to allow any foreigner to go to Yozgad, owing to the disturbed condition of the town, but had him brought to Constantinople, where the secretary of the American legation saw and conversed with him. On his own statements, and what could be learned from other sources, the existence of an intention to return to the United States was uncertain. The legation was instructed “to investigate this case, and, should Aivazian's conservation of the rights of American citizenship not be established, to inform the Turkish minister for foreign affairs that this Government would not accord to him the privileges and protection it cheerfully accords to both its native and naturalized citizens."

Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Terrell, min. to Turkey, Aug. 27, 1894,

For. Rel. 1894, 779.
Aivazian was afterwards pardoned and discharged. (For. Rel. 1894,

780.)

If the circumstances of return of a naturalized citizen of the United States to the country of his origin are such as to indicate “ a definitive abandonment of residence and domiciliary or representative business interest in the United States" and a resumption of domicil in the country of origin, the “ effective renewal of the original status may take place immediately upon the return to that country.” The same thing occurs where a naturalized citizen goes to a country other than that of his origin with the intention to reside there permanently, but the presumption of such an intention is not so strong as in the case of a person returning to the country of his origin.

Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Little, consul at Tegucigalpa, July 13,

1895, For. Rel. 1895, II. 935-937.

In the case of a native of Turkey, who reentered his native land as a Turk and accepted a local passport as a Turkish subject, his course was declared to amount to “ an act of voluntary repatriation by which he released himself from any further claim of the United States upon his allegiance, and renounced all claim to the protection of his Government."

Mr. Adee, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Dickinson, No. 29, Sept. 3, 1898,

163 MS. Inst. Consuls, 508. The precise point of the instruction was the approval of the action of

the consul-general at Constantinople in refusing to visa the individual's American passport.

Ablahat Odishu Samuel resided in the United States from 1893 to 1896. From 1896 to 1899 he lived abroad. From 1899 to 1901 he again resided in the United States, and obtained a certificate of naturalization. He then returned to Persia, and was still residing there when, in January, 1904, he applied for an American passport, to include two children, who were born in Persia. The action of the American minister at Teheran in refusing to issue the passport was approved, on the strength of the provisions of the circular of March 27, 1899, with regard to loss of the right to protection through permanent residence abroad. The provisions of the same circular were also cited, to the effect that the natives of semibarbarous countries, or of countries in which the United States exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction, who have been naturalized in the United States, are subject to all the restrictions of the circular with regard to permanent foreign residence on returning to their country of origin.

For. Rel. 1904, 650. For the circular of March 27, 1899, see infra, $

517, 519, 522.

2. GERMAN TREATIES.

S 471.

“ 3. If a German naturalized in America renews his residence in North Germany without intent to return to America, he shall be held to have renounced his naturalization in the United States. The intent not to return may be held to exist when the person naturalized in the one country resides more than two years in the other country. The same provision applies to Würtemberg as to a · Würtemberger, to Hesse Darmstadt as to a Hessian naturalized in America but originally a citizen of the part of the Grand Duchy not included in the North German Confederation :' to Bavaria as to a Bavarian.' but as to the latter power it is declared that the article ó shall only have this meaning, that the adopted country of the emigrant can not prevent him from acquiring once more his former citizenship;

but not that the state to which the emigrant originaliy belonged is bound to restore him at once to his original relation. As to Baden, it is only provided that the emigrant from the one state who is to be held as a citizen of the other state, shall not on his return to his original country be constrained to resume his former citizenship; yet, if he shall, of his own accord, reacquire it and renounce the citizenship obtained by naturalization, such a renunciation is allowed, and no fixed period of residence shall be required for the recognition of his recovery of citizenship in his original country.

“Here, again, we find great defects, which it is very desirable to have remedied.

(a) The provisions respecting residence in the old country and the reacquisition of citizenship are unequal, and in the case of Bavaria uncertain.

(1) Residence in other parts of Germany than that covered by the provisions of the particular treaty is inoperative to work a loss of the acquired citizenship, which is against the interests and the real intention of the United States and of Germany."

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bancroft, min. to Germany, April 14, 1873,

For. Rel. 1873, I. 280.

“As it regards recovering German citizenship by a German who has become naturalized in America, all the powers have thus far acted upon the same rules. It is agreed that a German who has once passed out of his connection with a German State cannot become again a German citizen without some express choice of his own, and without the consent of the government.

“A. With regard to the reacquisition of citizenship the German States exercise only the same power which we exercise. We naturalize Germans after a short residence, if they serve in the Army or Navy, but that binds us only, and so it is with the German States.

B. So long as Bavaria, Würtemberg, and the rest were independent powers, the residence of a naturalized American there had just the same effect as if he had resided in Belgium or Ilolland. Now that they form part of the German Empire, no case has come, or is likely to come up, that involves the question whether the union brings with it a change in this respect. In practice it would be as easy to pass, for example, from Baden to Switzerland, as from Baden to Würtemberg; and so of the other powers, if the evasion of the treaty which is suggested is desired. So this point will never be of practical importance. I cannot see how American interests are thereby exposed to injury; because America, like Germany, always retains the power for itself to decide what length of absence, if any, shall forfeit American citizenship."

Mr. Bancroft, min. to Germany, to Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, May 8, 1873,

For. Rel. 1873, I. 281, 289.

« PreviousContinue »