Page images

his case within the rule laid down by Mr. Fish (Consular Regulations, 1874, section 110): For a naturalized citizen may by concealing .. the fact of his naturalization and passing himself as a citizen or subject of his native country until occasion may make it his interest to ask the intervention of the country of his adoption

so far resume his original allegiance as to absolve the Government of his adopted country from the obligation to protect him as a citizen while he remains in his native land."

" The Department has on several occasions held that a person naturalized here, who returns to the country of origin and passes himself as a citizen or subject of that country, has by his own act testified his renunciation of his acquired status, as he has a perfect right to do.”

Mr. Adee, Second Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Dickinson, No. 29, Sept. 3,

1898, 163 MS. Inst. ('onsuls, 508.

The United States legation at Constantinople having reported that many naturalized citizens of Turkish origin returned to Turkey with Ottoman passports, and having inquired whether such persons should be regarded as having abandoned their American citizenship and as no longer entitled to American passports, the Department of State replied “that a person receiving a Turkish passport is not entitled to receive a passport from the United States;" and that the legation should refuse passports to all persons of Turkish origin who do not present an American passport or authenticated naturalization papers,” and “ should regard the possession of a Turkish passport as sufficient evidence that the holder should not receive one from the United States."

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Griscom, chargé at Constantinople, Jan. 11,

1900, For. Rel. 1900, 937.

A passport will be refused to a person applying therefor while abroad when the circumstances show a purpose to reside indefinitely in a foreign country or fail to show a reasonable intention to return to the United States. It may happen that a person, to whom a passport is so refused, may, upon return to the United States, establish his right thereto in the absence of any judicial impugnment of his status.

Mr. Rockhill, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Terrell, min. to Turkey, April

27, 1897, For. Rel. 1897, 584.


$ 514.

* In all cases where indubitable evidence of citizenship, either native or naturalized, is presented to the legation by persons temporarily domiciled in the countries to which you are accredited, or in

transit through them, either a certificate of citizenship or a passport, as the circumstances may require, may be furnished to them by the legation.

“Instances have occurred, and it is not improbable that they may again be presented, in which citizens of the United States who had resided abroad for so long a time, and had formed connections, either of a commercial or family nature, so intimate and binding as to render them, as far as they could be without a formal renunciation of their allegiance to the United States, citizens or subjects of the country in which they have been domiciled, have sought the protection of this Government, and claimed the privileges of its citizens when danger has threatened or when violence has attacked their persons or their interests. Such claims would, of course, be entitled to consideration, but the Government would require to be fully satisfied that citizenship had not at any time been disclaimed or abandoned for selfish purposes before it would feel bound to demand redress for such claimants. Interposition in such cases would be extended as a matter of grace, and not of right.”

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Peden, min. to Arg. Rep., April 10, 1856,

MS. Inst. Arg. Rep. XV. 91.

A passport will not be granted to a naturalized citizen who


be inferred, from long residence abroad and other circumstances, to have abandoned his nationality.

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Messrs. Lockwood & Post, Oct. 27, 1874, 105

MS. Dom. Let. 3.

H. G., a naturalized citizen of the United States, had resided, at least since 1870, in Nicaragua, where he had married, had reared a family, and apparently intended to remain. In 1881 he solicited a passport for himself and his family from the American legation, as well as its interposition in a matter between him and the Nicaraguan Government concerning the duties on some imported goods. It was held that, without regard to the question of his “ actual citizenship," concerning which no opinion was expressed, his requests should not be complied with.

Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Logan, No. 132, March 9, 1881, MS. Inst.

Cent. Am. XVIII. 159.

Karl Klingenmeyer applied to the United States legation in Berlin in 1884 for a passport. He was born in Würtemberg in 1862. His father, who was also a native of that country, had been naturalized in the United States, but it was doubtful whether he had not at the time of Karl's birth renounced his American nationality. It appeared, however, that Karl Klingenmeyer had not, until the filing of his application for a passport, claimed American citizenship; that he had no intention of making his home in the United States, and that he desired a passport in aid of his marriage in Germany. On these facts it was decided that his application should be denied.

Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Kasson, min. to Germany, Jan.

15, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, 396.

“ The burden of proof is always on the applicant for the passport, and here there is no evidence to prove either his father's non-abandonment of his United States citizenship or his own election of such citizenship, save the applications of father and son for passports."

Mr. Porter, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Winchester, min. to Switz., Sept. 14,

1885, For. Rel. 1885, 811.

[ocr errors]

“Your dispatch, No. 63, of the 24th ultimo, has been received. You formulate six points, upon which you ask the views of the Department:

“(1) For how many years may a citizen of the United States reside abroad without losing his American domicil?

“(2) Would any limit of time in this regard apply to native as well as naturalized citizens, or only to the latter?

“(3) Applicants for passports being required to state under th the time within which they intend returning to the United States, what is the longest period of time they may fix?

“(4) If an applicant refuses to swear that he will return to the United States within a fixed time, should a passport be refused him?

"(5) Does the limit of time referred to in questions 3 and 4 apply equally to native-born and naturalized citizens?

"(6) If application is made to you for the renewal of a passport, and it appears on examination that the time has expired within which the bearer of the old passport stated his purpose of returning to the United States, and that, nevertheless, he has not been to America to resume the duties of citizenship, should a renewal of his passport be declined?

“In reply to your first question, I have to say that there is no fixed term of foreign residence by which the loss of American domicil is decided. The domicil of a person depends upon his intention, which is to be determined upon all the facts in the case. In the determination of this question no distinction is made between native and naturalized citizens, but the comparative periods of residence in this and in foreign countries are to be considered in arriving at the real intention of the individual.

“ This observation answers your second question.

"From what has been said, it results that the Department is unable to fix a certain and constant period within which a person must return

to the United States. This answers your third and fourth questions, and the reply made to your second question applies also to your fifth.

“ In answer to your sixth question, I have to say that where, in his application for a passport, a person makes oath that he intends to return to the United States within a certain time, and afterwards, when he applies for a renewal of his passport, it appears that he has not fulfilled that intention, this circumstance raises a doubt as to his real purposes and motives, which he may be called upon to dispel. The unfavorable presumption which he has by his own act created is not conclusive against him, but he should be asked for explanation.

“As has been stated, no distinction is made between native and naturalized citizens. But certain elements of fact may exist in the case of the latter which do not arise in the case of native citizens. For example, we will take the case of a native-born subject of a foreign power, who, having grown up under its protection and owing it allegiance, comes to the United States and immediately after acquiring naturalization returns to his country of origin to reside, claiming exemption from the burdens of its citizenship, but performing none of the duties of citizenship in the United States. To permit such a thing to be done for the purpose of evading the obligations of allegiance would be to promote a fraud under the guise of expatriation. To meet such a case we find that it has generally been provided in our treaties of naturalizaiton that, where a citizen of one of the contracting parties, naturalized under the laws of the other, returns to his original country and resides there for two years, he may be held to have renounced his naturalization. The adverse presumption thus created may be rebutted. In deciding whether it has been, all the facts in the case must be considered together, but these facts must not be inconsistent with his resolve and his practical ability to return hither and fulfill the obligations of citizenship.”

Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Grant, min. to Austria-Hungary, March

25, 1890, For. Rel. 1890, 11. That intention of permanent residence abroad deprives one of the right to

a passport, see the case of Theodore Rosenberg, For. Rel. 1892, 230, 233.

S., who was “ domiciled in Mexico City," where he had resided for fourteen years and followed the occupation of a jeweler, applied to the United States legation for a passport, for himself and his wife, for the purpose of a visit to Hamburg, Germany. He had obtained a passport from the legation in 1886, and in 1888 secured a Mexican certificate of American nationality. He was born in Hamburg in 1858, and claimed United States citizenship through his father, who was alleged to have been a native citizen, but who, “ when a young man," left the United States and settled in Germany, of which his father, who was " thought to have been a naturalized citizen of the

H. Doc. 551—vol 3-_-59

United States," was a native. No evidence, however, was produced of the grandfather's naturalization or of the father's place of birth or the age when he went to Germany to live. S. himself had never resided in the United States, having been in the country only two or three times, on brief visits; and he stated that he intended to reside in Mexico City permanently for the future.” Held, that in view of the “total absence of American residence, covering the whole past and future life of the applicant and the whole life of his father from early manhood,” of the fact that for “two generations neither father nor son has evinced a purpose to fulfill the duties of good citizenship," and of the failure to exhibit any“ purpose of residence in the United States ” in his sworn application, S. was not entitled to a passport.

Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Gray, min. to Mexico, May 13, 1993,

For. Rel. 1893, 423.

Exceptions to the rule that the applicant for a passport must produce evidence of intention to return to and reside in the United States have occasionally been made on grounds of public policy. Thus the issuance of passports has been authorized in the case of missionaries in foreign lands whose residence there was continuous and practically permanent and who could not allege any definite intention of returning to and residing in the United States. An exception has also been made in the case of agents of American business houses who are engaged in foreign lands in promoting trade with the United States.

Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Runyon, ambassador to Germany,

Nov. 1, 1894, For. Rel. 1894, 245, citing Wharton's Int. Law Digest,
II, 369, 370.

The language of the Porto Rican law is to be construed in its general legal sense, in which continual personal presence is not necessary to constitute continuous residence. The native of Porto Rico who makes it the place of his permanent domicil does not, therefore, lose the benefits of the act because he was temporarily abiding elsewhere when it went into effect."

Mr. Hill, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Lenderink, chargé in Chile, April 20),

1901, For. Rel. 1901, 32.

“ Reasons of health that render travel and return [to the United States) impossible or inexpedient are given in the circular instruction of March 27, 1899,

as one of the facts that may influence a favorable conclusion ” on a passport application, made to a legation, by an American citizen residing abroad.

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hardy, min. to Switzerland, No. 11, June 7,

1901, MS. Inst. Switz. III. 263.

« PreviousContinue »