A naturalized citizen is one who has relinquished his citizenship of nativity, and has acquired a new allegiance in a state other than that of his birth.

The citizenship of a dependent person is that of his principal or superior. Hence the citizenship of a child is that of his father, if legitimate, of his mother, if illegitimate; of a ward that of his guardian; of a wife that of her husband. Children born on the high seas, or while passing through foreign countries, have the legal nationality of their parents. Citizenship in a state may be renounced by an individual with a view to undergoing the process of naturalization elsewhere. It may also be terminated by process of law, as by sentence of death or exile, which in most states has the effect of destroying civil rights. It may be forfeited by emigration, or by long-continued absence. Once forfeited, it may be resumed, with the consent of the native state, by a compliance with the formalities of its municipal law.

Naturalization. Naturalization is that process of municipal law by which an individual effects a change in his national character. Most states that recognize the sanctions of interna

United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (169 U. S. 649), decided by the Supreme Court in March, 1897, it was held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution." Native citizens of Mexico, whatever may be their status from the standpoint of the ethnologist, are eligible to American citizenship, and may be indi

vidually naturalized by complying with the provisions of the naturalization laws. In re Rodrigues, 81 Fed. Rep. 337. A person born abroad, on board of an American vessel, of parents who are citizens of the United States, and who are, at the time, in the foreign country, not with the design of removing thither, but only having touched there in the course of a voyage which the father has made, as captain of the vessel, is to be regarded as a citizen of the United States.— United States vs. Gordon, 5 Blatchford, 18.

Vattel, liv. i. ch. 19, §§ 212-233: Morse on Citizenship, §§ 29-60; Osborn vs. Bank of U. S. 9 Wheaton, 738; IX Opin. Att.-Gen. (U. S.), p. 359.

tional law claim and exercise the right of admitting foreigners to their allegiance, and of bestowing upon them the privileges and responsibilities of citizenship. Nearly all of them recognize the right, on the part of their subjects, of renouncing their native allegiance and of acquiring a new citizenship in a foreign state. The process of naturalization consists of two essential parts: 1st. A renunciation of the old allegiance. From the nature of the allegiance it is obvious that an individual can maintain that relation to but one state at a time. 2d. A formal assumption of the duties of citizenship in the new state. This is usually effected by an oath of allegiance. A period of residence is also required as a condition precedent to naturalization.'

Collective Naturalization. While the process of naturalization is usually applied to the cases of individuals, a collective naturalization of all the inhabitants is effected when a country or province becomes incorporated in another country; as by annexation, conquest, or by cession in accordance with treaty stipulations. In this manner the people brought within the jurisdiction of the Union by the acquisition of Louisiana, Florida, Texas, Alaska, and portions of Mexico became citizens of the United States. This method, however, must, from the nature of the case, be always exceptional.

1 For naturalization laws of the United States, see the act of June 20, 1906 (34 Stats. at L. 590); $82165-2174 Rev. Stats. for those of England, see 33 Vict. ch. xiv. May 12, 1870; for France, see Code Civil, liv. i. tit. i. ch. 11; for the naturalization laws of other states of continental Europe, see I Phillimore, pp. 382-386; I Halleck, pp. 351-354; II Dig. Int. Law, § 173.

I Phillimore, pp. 382, 383; Cooley, Constitutional Law, pp. 254, 255.

Cooley Const. Law, p. 254; American Ins. Co. vs. Canter, I Peters, 541; McKinney vs. Saviego, 18 Howard, 235; Jones vs. McMas

ters, 20 Howard, 8; United States vs. Repentingy, 5 Wallace, 211; Tobin vs. Walkershaw, McAll, 186; XIII Opin. Att.-Gen. 397; I Halleck, pp. 376-390; II Dig. Int. Law, $8 187, 188. All persons who were citizens of Texas at the date of annexation-viz., December 29, 1845-became citizens of the United States by virtue of the collective naturalization effected by the act of that date.-XIII Opin. Att.-Gen. p. 397; III Moore's Dig. Int. Law, §§379, 380. For statutes regulating the political rights of the inhabitants of Porto Rico, see §7 Act of April 12, 1900 (31 Stats. at L. 79); for similar enactments

The inhabitants of Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands, other than those who were subjects of Spain at the date of the treaty of peace of December 10, 1898, and who elected to retain their allegiance of nativity, obtained the international status of citizens of the United States in the operation of that instrument.' They did not become citizens of the United States, however, within the meaning of the Constitution, and, until their status in that regard has been established by Congress, they will continue to occupy the anomalous condition of citizens of Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands.

Consequences of Naturalization. The following consequences of naturalization are now generally sanctioned by the usage of nations:

(a.) The result of the process of naturalization is to effect an entire change in the national character of an individual. He is as fully invested with the rights of citizenship in the new state as if he were there a native-born citizen, and is entitled to the same extra-territorial protection."

(b.) A state, by exercising its right of naturalization in favor of an individual, cannot absolve him from any legal obligations due to his former sovereignty at the time of his emigration; and he is liable to be held to the performance of such obligations should he return, at any time, to the jurisdiction of his native state. To the finality and completeness of the process, therefore, and with a view to the establishment of a status which shall be recognized by both states-that in which citizenship is acquired by naturalization, as well as that in which it has been renounced-treaty stipulations are necessary.3

(c.) An individual, after having been naturalized in a state other than that of his nativity, may renounce such

in respect to the Philippine Islands, see § 4 Act of July 1, 1902 (32 Ibid. 692); for act of registration annexing the Hawaiian Islands, see Joint Resolution No. 55, July 7, 1898 (30 Stats. at L., 750).

Treaty of Peace with Spain of December 10, 1898 (30 Stats. at L.)

'I Phillimore, pp. 380, 381; I Halleck, pp., 349, 350; Woolsey, 70.

I Halleck, p. 356; II Dig. Int. Law, § 181; Woolsey, § 70.

citizenship, and may renew his native allegiance, or may form a new tie of citizenship elsewhere.1

(d.) The municipal laws of every state enumerate and define the rights and privileges which may be acquired by its naturalized citizens. In no case do such persons acquire all the privileges of native-born citizens. The most usual restrictions apply to the holding of political and military office, the higher grades of which, in most states, can only be filled by native-born citizens. In the United States, whose policy of naturalization is extremely liberal, the offices of President and Vice-President can only be held by native-born citizens.

(e.) A naturalized citizen who returns to his native country and takes up his residence there with the intention of remaining is presumed to have renounced his acquired citizenship. His adopted country, in such an event, is justified in declining to extend its protection to a person who has ceased to perform the duties of citizenship and who declines to be bound by its obligations."

Naturalization Treaties. As a conflict of jurisdiction might, and probably would, arise were a naturalized citizen to return to the state of his nativity after having undergone the process of naturalization elsewhere, and with a view to confer upon naturalized citizens such a status of citizenship as will be calculated to prevent such a conflict from arising, the subjects of naturalization and expatriation have, in recent times, been made the subject of frequent treaty stipulation.3

1I Halleck, pp. 356, 357; II Dig. Int. Law, § 176; I Ferguson, $42.

III Moore's Dig. of Int. Law, $8 379-389; I Ferguson, § 42; Foreign Relations of the United States, 1884, PP. 450, 451.

This matter becomes important from the point of view of the duty of a state to protect its subjects abroad, when, as in the case of the United States, foreigners have come within its territory and become naturalized, often with a

view to return to the country of their nativity with the intention of establishing a permanent domicile there and of enjoying, during such residence, the privileges and immunities of American citizenship. This practice has been prevented, to some extent, by the insertion of a clause in naturalization treaties to the effect that such a return to the state of nativity, accompanied by a continuous residence there for a period of two years, shall operate

2

Naturalization Treaties of the United States. The United States has thus far negotiated fourteen naturalization treaties, the first of them with the North German Confederation, in 1868.1 All of them, except that with Great Britain, stipulate for a five years' period of residence as a condition essential to naturalization. Others provide that a naturalized citizen returning to his native country shall be triable for all offences committed prior to his emigration. Nine of them provide that an individual returning to his native country shall, after a residence of two years, be presumed to have renounced his acquired citizenship. The naturalization treaties of the United States have thus far successfully endured the test of practical application. They have been administered in a liberal spirit, and but few cases have arisen under them for which they have not afforded an adequate remedy.3

Expatriation. The term expatriation is applied to the process by which the allegiance of an individual to a particular state is terminated. It may be voluntary, the act originating

to forfeit citizenship. In the case of the states situated, or having possessions, in the West Indies, however, it is a practice of nativeborn citizens to visit the United States and undergo the naturalization process with a view to obtain protection as American citizens after their return to the state of their nativity with an intention of establishing a permanent residence there. In such cases the practice of the United States Government is that, where a citizen removes with his family and property and settles permanently in a foreign country, neither expressing nor manifesting by his acts any intention of returning permanently to the United States, and subsequently demands the protection of the government of the United States against the laws of the country in which he has taken up a residence, it will become the subject of inquiry whether he has voluntarily

abandoned his right to such protection.-II Dig. Int. Law, § 171; VIII Opin. Att.-Gen., p. 139; XI Ibid. p. 63; Frelinghuysen to De Pierre, II Dig. Int. Law, § 271, P. 314.

1

Austria, September 20, 1870, Treaties and Conventions of the United States, 1904, p. 48; Baden, July 19, 1868, Ibid. p. 54; Bavaria, May 26, 1888, Ibid. p. 61; Belgium, November 16, 1868, Ibid. p. 68; Denmark, July 20, 1872, Ibid. p. 238; Ecuador, May 6, 1872, Ibid. P. 247; Great Britain, May 13, 1870, and February 23, 1871, Ibid. pp. 336, 342; Hesse, August 1, 1868, Ibid. p. 437; Mexico, Ibid. p. 532; North German Union, February 22, 1868, Ibid. p. 592; Sweden and Norway, May 26, 1869, Ibid. P. 761; Würtemberg, July 17, 1868, Ibid. p. 808.

2 Great Britain and Denmark. 3 III Moore's Dig. Int. Law, §§ 390-400.