[{"command":"add_css","data":[{"rel":"stylesheet","media":"all","href":"\/sites\/default\/files\/css\/css_veuEhhb1658wti0_ZAig66JOyixENU-N9zhjLQSLfOQ.css?delta=0\u0026language=en\u0026theme=heritage_theme\u0026include=eJwrTi1LzdNPzkksLq7Uy8tPSQUAPMsGtA"}]},{"command":"invoke","selector":null,"method":"openEssay","args":["10000039","\n\n\u003Carticle about=\u0022\/constitution\/articles\/1\/essays\/40\/naturalization\u0022 class=\u0022node node--type-constitution-essay node--promoted node--view-mode-embedded clearfix\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Ch1 class=\u0022title\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan\u003ENaturalization\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003C\/h1\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-location\u0022\u003E\n      Article I, Section 8, Clause 4\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-context\u0022\u003E\n      \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization....\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-body\u0022\u003E\n    \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EFew powers are more fundamental to sovereignty than the control over immigration and the vesting of citizenship in aliens (naturalization). According to the Declaration of Independence, \u201cobstructing the Laws for the Naturalization of Foreigners\u201d was one of the grievances that led the American colonists to break with Britain.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EUnder the Articles of Confederation, each state retained authority over the naturalization of aliens. This resulted in widely varying state practices, which James Madison in \u003Ci\u003EThe Federalist\u003C\/i\u003E No. 42 called a \u201cfault\u201d and \u201cdefect\u201d of the Confederation. At the Constitutional Convention, there was virtually no opposition to moving the naturalization power from the states to the new national government, and in the ratification debates only a handful of Anti-Federalists even raised the issue.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EMadison seemed to speak the sentiment of most when at the Convention he expressed his wish \u201cto invite foreigners of merit \u0026amp; republican principles among us. America was indebted to emigration for her settlement \u0026amp; prosperity.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ECongress passed the first \u201cuniform Rule of Naturalization\u201d under the new Constitution in March 1790. It allowed \u201cany alien, being a free white person\u201d and \u201cof good character\u201d who had resided in the United States for two years to become a \u201ccitizen of the United States\u201d by taking an oath in court \u201cto support the constitution of the United States.\u201d Although Alexander Hamilton had argued in \u003Ci\u003EThe Federalist\u003C\/i\u003E No. 32 that the power to establish \u201c\u2018an uniform rule of naturalization.\u2019\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009must necessarily be exclusive; because if each State had power to prescribe a distinct rule, there could not be a uniform rule,\u201d some states continued to naturalize foreigners even after Congress had acted. In 1795, Congress claimed exclusive authority over naturalization by establishing new conditions\u2014\u201cand not otherwise\u201d\u2014for aliens \u201cto become a citizen of the United States, or any of them.\u201d In \u003Ci\u003EChirac v. Lessee\u003C\/i\u003E \u003Ci\u003Eof Chirac \u003C\/i\u003E(1817), the Supreme Court affirmed\u003Ci\u003E \u003C\/i\u003Ethat \u201cthe power of naturalization is exclusively in congress,\u201d notwithstanding any state laws to the contrary.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EIndividual naturalizations following Congress\u2019s \u201cuniform Rule\u201d were not the only avenues to citizenship for those who were not American citizens by birth. The incorporation of the Louisiana Territory and Florida into the Union in the first decades of the nineteenth century raised the issue of whether the national government through treaty or law could vest citizenship collectively. A federal circuit court in 1813 and then the Supreme Court in \u003Ci\u003EAmerican Insurance Co. v.\u003C\/i\u003E \u003Ci\u003E356 Bales of Cotton, Canter \u003C\/i\u003E(1828) upheld collective naturalization. Moreover, in 1848 the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War, offered the Mexican inhabitants of the territories ceded to the United States the option of maintaining their Mexican citizenship or, if they made no such request, becoming American citizens.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EFrom the beginning, American naturalization law and practice assumed that a free citizen of one country had the right to transfer his allegiance to another if the latter allowed: hence, the provision of the 1795 law that required the new citizen to \u201cabsolutely and entirely renounce\u201d any previous allegiance. However, this essential element of social-contract theory\u2014that political communities are the free association of individuals to promote their mutual security and happiness\u2014violated settled European norms. Sir William Blackstone had written in \u003Ci\u003ECommentaries on the Laws of England \u003C\/i\u003Ethat the \u201cnatural\u003Ci\u003E \u003C\/i\u003Eallegiance\u201d owed by all those born within the sovereign\u2019s domain could not be \u201cforfeited, cancelled, or altered\u201d by any act of the subject himself, including moving to another country and \u201cswearing allegiance to another.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThis conflict of views on the legitimacy of voluntary expatriation led to considerable conflict between the new nation and both Britain and France, especially when the latter two nations captured on the high seas and impressed into their naval service former nationals who had moved to the United States. This was one of the American grievances that led to the War of 1812. As late as the 1860s, the British government refused to recognize the American naturalization of former Irish subjects. In response, Congress passed the Expatriation Act of 1868, which declared that \u201cthe right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.\u201d\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EKey criteria for citizenship of the Naturalization Act of 1795 remain part of American law. These include: (1) five years of (lawful) residence within the United States; (2) a \u201cgood moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States\u201d; (3) the taking of a formal oath to support the Constitution and to renounce any foreign allegiance; and (4) the renunciation of any hereditary titles.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003ECurrent law, which is much more detailed than the first naturalization statutes, also requires competency in the English language and excludes those who advocate world communism or the violent overthrow of the government of the United States. Also, current law prohibits discrimination in naturalization on the basis of race, sex, or marital status. Federal agencies have expanded the elements of the oath to require a solemn commitment \u201cto support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009to bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law, or\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009to perform non-combatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law\u201d (with exceptions for conscientious objectors).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EFederal law and regulations establish procedures, administered by the U.S. Department of State, by which Americans can voluntarily renounce their citizenship. In addition, federal law lists a variety of acts that shall result in the loss of citizenship if \u201cvoluntarily perform[ed]\u2009.\u2009.\u2009.\u2009with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality.\u201d These include obtaining naturalization in a foreign state; declaring allegiance to a foreign state; serving in the armed forces of a foreign state as an officer or when the foreign state is engaged in hostilities against the United States; and, in some cases, serving in governmental office in a foreign state.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EPrior to several important Supreme Court decisions in the last half of the twentieth century, federal law had also required loss of citizenship for, among other acts, voting in a foreign election; deserting during wartime; leaving the country during wartime to evade military service; and, for those who acquired dual nationality at birth, voluntarily seeking or claiming the benefits of foreign nationality and residing in the foreign state for three years continuously after the age of twenty-two.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EAlthough the Supreme Court in \u003Ci\u003EMacKenzie\u003C\/i\u003E \u003Ci\u003Ev. Hare \u003C\/i\u003E(1915) upheld Congress\u2019s power to expatriate, in 1958 the Court began to cut back on Congress\u2019s power in a number of closely decided cases. Although it upheld expatriation (removal of citizenship) for voting in a foreign election, \u003Ci\u003EPerez v. Brownell \u003C\/i\u003E(1958), it explicitly overruled that decision less than a decade later, in \u003Ci\u003EAfroyim\u003C\/i\u003E \u003Ci\u003Ev. Rusk \u003C\/i\u003E(1967), ruling that a naturalized American citizen who relocated to Israel and voted in an election for the Israeli Knesset could not lose his citizenship as a result. It also overturned expatriations for desertion from the military during wartime, \u003Ci\u003ETrop v. Dulles\u003C\/i\u003E (1958), and for service by a dual national in the Japanese army during World War II, \u003Ci\u003ENishikawa v. Dulles\u003C\/i\u003E (1958). In 1963, in \u003Ci\u003EKennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez\u003C\/i\u003E, the Court ruled that a citizen could not be expatriated for fleeing the country during wartime to evade military service. The following year, it extended the limits on expatriation to naturalized citizens who returned to their native countries and resided there for at least three years, \u003Ci\u003ESchneider v. Rusk\u003C\/i\u003E (1964).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EIn \u003Ci\u003ERogers v. Bellei\u003C\/i\u003E (1971), however, the Court did uphold a statute that provided that a person who acquires United States citizenship by being born abroad to an American citizen shall lose that citizenship unless he resides in the United States continuously for five years between the ages of fourteen and twenty-eight. The Court did not backtrack on its earlier cases that held, in general, that Congress cannot take away citizenship granted by the Constitution under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that all persons who \u201care born or naturalized in the United States\u201d are U.S. Citizens. That clause, the Court has held, does not allow Congress to take away that which Section 1 has granted. Bellei gained U.S. citizenship outside of the United States, the Court held, and hence Section 1 did not protect him. In 1978, however, Congress removed from federal law the continuous-residency requirements that had been upheld in \u003Ci\u003ERogers v. Bellei\u003C\/i\u003E.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EFinally, in \u003Ci\u003EVance v. Terrazas\u003C\/i\u003E (1980), the Court clarified its decision in \u003Ci\u003EAfroyim\u003C\/i\u003E by holding that it was not enough to show that an individual voluntarily committed an act that Congress determined was inconsistent with American citizenship. It was necessary also to show independently that the individual \u201cintended to relinquish his citizenship.\u201d Given the broad language of the more recent cases, it seems that no involuntary expatriations are lawful. The one exception, which applies only to naturalized Americans, is the denaturalization (and deportation) of those who became citizens through fraud or illegality. It has been applied most notably in recent decades to former Nazis who engaged in war crimes during World War II and later lied about their wartime activities either when they entered the United States as \u201cdisplaced persons\u201d or when they applied for citizenship.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EUntil recent decades, American public policy consistently prohibited dual citizenship. Most notably, since 1795, Congress has required that all candidates for naturalization formally renounce allegiance to their native land and any other foreign power. That requirement remains a part of national law and is an integral element of the citizenship oath. Also, as noted above, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo required the residents in the ceded lands to choose between Mexican and American citizenship. The rationale for such policies is that citizenship demands undivided loyalty to one country.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EYet today there are millions of American citizens who are also citizens of other countries. Many are naturalized American citizens whose native countries do not recognize the renunciation of loyalty that their native citizens make in the American citizenship oath. Others are the offspring of one American parent and one foreign parent, deriving citizenship from both sides, or foreign-born children adopted by American parents. Others are those who are natural born U.S. citizens who later become citizens of a foreign country. Because the courts now prohibit the government from expatriating those who maintain an active citizenship in a foreign nation (some American citizens have even held political office in other countries), dual citizenship has become a fact of American life.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--media\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--photo\u0022 style=\u0022background-image: url(\/sites\/default\/files\/Joseph_Bessette.jpg)\u0022\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--info\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Ch4 class=\u0022con-essay-author--name\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/www.claremontmckenna.edu\/academic\/faculty\/profile.asp?Fac=4\u0022\u003EJoseph Bessette\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/h4\u003E\n                  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--job\u0022\u003E\n         Alice Tweed Tuohy Professor of Government and Ethics, Claremont McKenna College\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-tabs\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cul data-tabs class=\u0022tabs\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000039-taba\u0022\u003EFurther Reading\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000039-tabb\u0022\u003ECase Law\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000039-tabc\u0022\u003ERelated Essays\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n      \u003C\/ul\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv data-tabs-content\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000039-taba\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ELeonard Dinnerstein \u0026amp; David M. Reimers, Ethnic Americans: A History of Immigration (4th ed. 1999)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EJames H. Kettner, The Development of American Citizenship, 1608\u20131870 (1978)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EArthur Mann, The One and the Many: Reflections on the American Identity (1979)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000039-tabb\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EChirac v. Lessee of Chirac, 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 259 (1817)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EAmerican Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 511 (1828)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EBoyd v. State of Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EMacKenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299 (1915)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ENishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129 (1958)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EPerez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ETrop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EKennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ESchneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EAfroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003ERogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EVance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000039-tabc\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000121\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003EPrivileges and Immunities Clause\u003C\/a\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000166\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003ECitizenship\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n\u003C\/article\u003E\n"]}]