The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation
Chapter 59 : [1037] _See_ Perrin _v._ United States, 232 U.S. 478 (1914); Johnson _v._ Gearlds, 234

[1037] _See_ Perrin _v._ United States, 232 U.S. 478 (1914); Johnson _v._ Gearlds, 234 U.S. 422 (1914); d.i.c.k _v._ United States, 208 U.S. 340 (1908).

[1038] United States _v._ Nice, 241 U.S. 591 (1916), overruling Re Heff, 197 U.S. 488, 509 (1905).

[1039] United States _v._ Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1914).

[1040] United States _v._ Holliday, 3 Wall. 407, 419 (1866).

[1041] Ex parte Webb, 225 U.S. 663 (1912).

[1042] Boyd _v._ Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135, 162 (1892).

[1043] 10 How. 393 (1857).

[1044] Ibid. 417, 419.

[1045] Mackenzie _v._ Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 311 (1915).

[1046] 66 Stat. 163; Public Law 414, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. (1952).

[1047] Ibid. t.i.t. III, -- 301. The first category comprises, it should be noted, those who are citizens by the opening clause of Amendment XIV, which embodies Chief Justice Marshall's holding in Ga.s.sies _v._ Ballon, that a citizen of the United States, residing in any State of the Union, is a citizen of that State. 6 Pet. 761, 762 (1832).

[1048] 66 Stat. 163; t.i.t. III, ---- 302-307. These categories ill.u.s.trate collective naturalization. "Instances of collective naturalization by treaty or by statute are numerous." Boyd _v._ Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135, 162 (1892). _See also_ Elk _v._ Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884).

[1049] 57 Stat. 600.

[1050] 66 Stat. 163, t.i.t. III, -- 311.

[1051] Ibid. -- 313 (a) (4-6).

[1052] Ibid. -- 313 (c).

[1053] 66 Stat. 163, -- 337 (a). In United States _v._ Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929); and United States _v._ Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605 (1931) it was held, by a divided Court, that clauses (3) and (4) of the oath, as previously prescribed, required the candidate for naturalization to be ready and willing to bear arms for the United States, but these holdings were overruled in Girouard _v._ United States, 328 U.S. 61 (1946).

[1054] 66 Stat. 163, -- 340 (a); _see also_ Johannessen _v._ United States, 225 U.S. 227 (1912).

[1055] Ibid. -- 340 (c). For cancellation proceedings under the Nationality Act of 1910 (54 Stat. 1158, -- 338); _see_ Schneiderman _v._ United States, 320 U.S. 118 (1943); Baumgartner _v._ United States 322 U.S. 665 (1944), where district court decisions ordering cancellation were reversed on the ground that the Government had not discharged the burden of proof resting upon it. Knauer _v._ United States, 328 U.S. 654 (1946) represents a less rigid view.

[1056] Osborn _v._ Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827 (1824).

[1057] 328 U.S. 654 (1946).

[1058] Ibid. 658.

[1059] Johannessen _v._ United States, 225 U.S. 227 (1912) and Knauer _v._ United States, 328 U.S. 654, 673 (1946).

[1060] 66 Stat. 163, t.i.t. III, -- 352 (a).

[1061] Perkins _v._ Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 329, 334 (1939). Naturalization has a retroactive effect and removes all liability to forfeiture of land held while an alien (Osterman _v._ Baldwin, 6 Wall. 116, 122 (1867)); the subsequent naturalization of an alien who takes land by grant or by location on public land relates back and obviates every consequence of his alien disability (Manuel _v._ Wulff, 152 U.S. 505, 511 (1894); Doe ex dem. Governeur's Heirs _v._ Robertson, 11 Wheat. 332, 350 (1826)). A certificate of naturalization, while conclusive as a judgment of citizens.h.i.+p, cannot be introduced in a distinct proceeding as evidence of residence, age or good character of the person naturalized (Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co. _v._ Tisdale, 91 U.S. 238 (1876)).

[1062] Chirac _v._ Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259, 269 (1817).

[1063] Holmgren _v._ United States, 217 U.S. 509 (1910), where it was also held that Congress may provide for the punishment of false swearing in such proceedings in State court. Ibid. 520.

[1064] Spragins _v._ Houghton, 3 Ill. 377 (1840); Stewart _v._ Foster, 2 Binney's (Pa.) 110 (1809).

[1065] Shanks _v._ Dupont, 3 Pet. 242, 240 (1830).

[1066] 15 Stat. 223; 8 U.S.C.A. -- 800.

[1067] MacKenzie _v._ Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 309, 311-312 (1915). In this case, a now obsolete statute (34 Stat. 1228), known as the Citizens.h.i.+p Act of 1907, which divested the citizens.h.i.+p of a woman marrying an alien, was upheld as const.i.tutional. Under the Act of June 27, 1952, these conditions comprise the following: (1) Obtaining naturalization in a foreign State; (2) Taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign State; (3) Serving in the armed forces of a foreign State without authorization and with consequent acquisition of foreign nationality; (4) a.s.suming public office under the government of a foreign State, for which only nationals of that State are eligible; (5) Voting in an election or partic.i.p.ating in a plebiscite in a foreign State; (6) Formal renunciation of citizens.h.i.+p before an American foreign service officer abroad; (7) Conviction and discharge from the armed services for desertion in time of war; (8) Conviction of treason or an attempt at forceful overthrow of the United States; (9) Formal renunciation of citizens.h.i.+p within the United States in time of war, subject to approval by the Attorney General; (10) Fleeing or remaining outside the United States in time of war or proclaimed emergency in order to evade military training; (11) Residence by a naturalized citizen, subject to certain exceptions, for two to three years in the country of his birth or in which he formerly was a national or for five years in any other foreign State, and (12) Minor children, of naturalized citizens losing citizens.h.i.+p by such foreign residence, also lose their United States citizens.h.i.+p if they acquire the nationality of a foreign State; but not until they attain the age of 25 without having acquired permanent residence in the United States. 66 Stat. 163; t.i.t. III ---- 349-357.

[1068] Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581, 603, 604 (1889); _See also_ Fong Yue Ting _v._ United States, 149 U.S. 698, 705 (1893); j.a.panese Immigrant Case, 189 U.S. 86 (1903); Turner _v._ Williams, 194 U.S. 279 (1904); Bugajewitz _v._ Adams, 228 U.S. 585 (1913); Hines _v._ Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941).

[1069] 66 Stat. 163; t.i.t. II, -- 212.

[1070] Ibid. -- 212 (a) (28) (F).

[1071] 54 Stat. 670.

[1072] Hines _v._ Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 69-70.

[1073] 66 Stat. 163; t.i.t. II, ---- 261-266.

[1074] 338 U.S. 537 (1950).

[1075] 59 Stat. 659.

[1076] 338 U.S. at 543.

[1077] Carlson _v._ Landon, 342 U.S. 524 (1952).

[1078] 54 Stat. 670.

[1079] Harisiades _v._ Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 587 (1952).

[1080] 8 U.S.C, -- 156 C was the provision in question.

[1081] United States _v._ Spector, 343 U.S. 169 (1952).

[1082] Keller _v._ United States, 213 U.S. 138 (1909).

[1083] Ibid. 149-150. For the requirements of due process of law in the deportation of alien, _see_ p. 852 (Amendment V).

[1084] Adams _v._ Storey, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 66 (1817).

[1085] 2 Stat. 19 (1800).

[1086] Story's Commentaries, II, 1113 (Cooley's ed. 1873).