Naturalization- Its forms and procedures in America

 

Prior to the Ratification of the Constitution, the states continued to operating under existing British 'Common Law' with regards to citizenship.  Each state followed its own rules for naturalization with their own requirements. There was great confusion in dealing with the citizens of one state under the laws of another.............

Art. 1:8:4 provides that: "Congress shall have the Power to Establish a 'Uniform Rule' of Naturalization"

   In Federalist Paper #42  James Madison addresses the reason for this grant of power......



The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization has long been remarked as a fault in our system, and as laying a foundation for intricate and delicate questions. .................. Whatever the legal consequences might have been, other consequences would probably have resulted, of too serious a nature not to be provided against. The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States



  In  Federalist Paper #32 Alexander Hamilton says:  


[this clause]declares that Congress shall have power "to establish an UNIFORM RULE of naturalization throughout the United States." This must necessarily be exclusive; because if each State had power to prescribe a DISTINCT RULE, there could not be a UNIFORM RULE


In 1855 the California Supreme Court  heard  Ex Parte Knowles.  The court looked closely at the naturalization powers of Congress and the manner of naturalization in America........


"If we examine the language closely, and according to the rules of rigid construction always applicable to delegated powers, we will find that the power to naturalize, in fact is not given to Congress, but simply the power to establish an uniform rule. The States are not forbidden to naturalize, nor is there anything in the exercise of the power by them, incongruous or incompatible with the power of Congress to establish an uniform rule.
That the States, if they choose to exercise the power as an original one, must abide by the rule which Congress makes, there cannot be the slightest difference of opinion. The power given to Congress was, according to my apprehension, intended to provide a rule for the action of the States, and not a rule for the action of the federal government. Else why was the term " uniform " made to qualify " rule ?"
If it was designed simply to give the power of making citizens, to Congress, simpler modes of expression might have been used, and ought to have been required, and surely there would have been no use for the term " uniform."

Why should the rule be uniform, unless more than one had to execute the rule ? It certainly could not have been imagined that Congress would have made a rule for its own action, or the action of its own officers, which could have operated without uniformity. “A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing.  To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. 

The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States.    Ex Parte Knowles.......



This Case is still being cited in U.S. Compiled Statutes of 1916 


In 1971, Justice Black states in Roger v. Bellei:




Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen. The first congressional exercise of this power, entitled "An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," was passed in 1790 at the Second Session of the First Congress.




He goes on to explain:


This provision is the earliest form of the statute under which Bellei acquired his citizenship. Its enactment as part of a "Rule of Naturalization" shows, I think, that the First Congress conceived of this and most likely all other purely statutory grants of citizenship as forms or varieties of naturalization. However, the clearest expression of the idea that Bellei and others similarly situated should for constitutional purposes be considered as naturalized citizens is to be found in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898):

"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution . . . contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts."

169 U.S. at 169 U. S. 702-703. The Court in Wong Kim Ark thus stated a broad and comprehensive definition of naturalization. As shown in Wong Kim Ark, naturalization, when used in its constitutional sense, is a generic term describing and including within its meaning all those modes of acquiring American citizenship other than birth in this country. All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent upon a congressional enactment are forms of naturalization. This inclusive definition has been adopted in several opinions of this Court besides United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra.

In 1789-90 Congress debated and wrote its first 'naturalization act'.   The 1790 Naturalization Act is often cited as 'proof'  Congress had defined 'natural born' and  made 'children born abroad to citizen parents natural born citizens'......There is no rational argument that can be made to support this conclusion.........

June 14, 1967 House Congressional Record  Page 15875




Thus the Act of March 26, 1790 would be unconstitutional if it attempted to enlarge the rights of a naturalized citizen to be equal to those of natural-born citizens under the Constitution.

Although it is not within the power of Congress to change or amend the Constitution by means of definitions of languages used in the Constitution so as to mean something different than intended by the framers (amendments being governed by Article V) an argument might be advanced to the effect that the use of identical language by Congress substantially contemporaneously might be considered in later years by a court to reflect the same meaning of the same words by the framers of the Constitution; and under this argument to attach importance to the Act of congress of March 26, 1790 (1 stat 103).

This argument fades away when it is found that this act used the term “natural-born” through inadvertence which resulted from the use of the English Naturalization Act (13 Geo. III, Cap 21 (1773) as a pattern when it was deemed necessary (as stated by Van Dyne) to enact a similar law in the United States to extend citizenship to foreign-born children of American parents. In the discussion on the floor of the House of Representatives in respect to the proposed naturalization bill of a committee composed of Thomas Hartley of Pennsylvania, Thomas Tudor Tucker of South Carolina and Andrew Moore of Virginia, Mr. Edamus Burke of South Carolina stated, “The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done In the case of English parents in the 12th year of William III.” (See pp 1121, Vol 1 (Feb. 4, 1790) of Annals of Congress.) The proposed bill was then recommitted to the Committee of Hartley, Tucker and Moore, and a new bill containing the provision in respect to foreign-born children of American parentage was included, using the Anglican phrase “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Manifestly, Mr. Burke had given the wrong reference to the Act of Parliament of the 12th year of William III which was an Inheritance law. But, it was a naturalization bill and the reference to the English acts shows the origin of the inadvertent error in using the term natural-born citizen instead of plain “citizen” came from copying the English Naturalization Act.

Mr. James Madison, who had been a member of the Constitutional Convention and had participated in the drafting of the terms of eligibility for the President, was a member of the Committee of the House, together with Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts and Thomas A. Carnes of Georgia when the matter of the uniform naturalization act was considered in 1795. Here the false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President was noted, and the Committee sponsored a new naturalization bill which deleted the term “natural-born” from the Act of 1795. (1 Stat 414) The same error was never repeated in any subsequent naturalization act. 

 

 

 

Here is a link to the select committee of ten..................http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships8.html

English Common Law

In the Case of Kim Ark Wong, the U.S. government made the following statements:


We are aware that it is generally supposed to be the law that a person born within the United States is ipso facto a citizen thereof, irrespective of the nationality of his parents; but that doctrine never did have any justification , and is not sustained by any principle  of international or constitutional law.
It is apparently originated in a misunderstanding of the nature and province of the English common -law rule that birth with the allegiance of the King made the person a subject, even though he were born of alien parents, and was applied by our people more as a traditionary (sic) dogma than as a rule of law.  For that reason the doctrine has escaped investigation or examination of the higher judicial tribunals of the land and THUS HAS A VERY DANGEROUS ERROR been perpetuated by acquiescence and repetition.

In this connection the remarks of Lord Chief Justice Denman in the case of Queen v. O'Connell (11 Clark & Fin., 372) are very pertinent.
He there delivered the prevailing opinion of the court, overruling the judges of the law courts on what by common consent was DEEMED to be law. 
He said:" I am tempted to take this opportunity of observation that a large portion of that legal opinion which  has passed current  for laws falls within the description of "law taken for granted."  If a statistical table of legal propositions should be drawn out, and the first column headed "Law by statute,"  and the second "Law by decision," a third column under the heading  of "Law taken for granted" would comprise as much as both the others combined. 

But when in pursuit of truth we are obliged to investigate the grounds  of the law it is plain, and has often been proved by recent experience, that the mere statement of a doctrine--the mere repetition of the cantilena of lawyers--can not make it law unless it can be traced to some competent authority and if it be irreconcilable to some clear principle.



Many websites and articles by 'law scholars' make the claim that under English Common law, a child born outside the jurisdiction of the King was a 'natural born subject'.   All it took was being born in the country.........

Those who support this claim seem unaware of  Calvin's Case.  Lord Coke commented in depth on this case and stated the following........(see page 208)

There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a "subjectborn".
1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.
2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion.
3. t
he time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom


It is often claimed under British statutory naturalization law children born to British parents outside of the dominions of the King became citizens at birth, such child was a “natural-born” British citizen, and our constitution should be so interpreted.
Not only is this argument contrary to the cited decisions of the British appellate courts, and not a part of the British common law, as pointed out in Levy vs. McCartee, 31 U.S. 102, but, as pointed out in Rawle’s View of the Constitution, the early Congress found it necessary to adopt similar naturalization law
otherwise the foreign born children of American parents would not even be American citizens.

 

Under the common law of England a child born abroad of a father who is a subject of England does not become a citizen of England. U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 670, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890
Wong Foong v. United States, 69 F. 2d 681 - Circuit Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1934

 

Naturalization

There are two forms of naturalization in America. 

Most people are only familiar with one, and this causes much of the confusion we see today. For the last 224 years the Courts of America have held the same opinion.  Never straying from this well settled fact.

 The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person "born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization." 169 U. S., at 702.
Persons
not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703. http://www.ecases.us/case/scotus/118198/miller-v-albright

and

 There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens;[1] and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen.[2]
[1] Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101, 102, 5 S.Ct. 41, 28 L.Ed. 643; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890; Johansen v. Staten Island Shipbuilding Co., 272 N.Y. 140, 5 N.E.2d 68, 70; Schaufus v. Attorney General of United States, D.C.Md., 45 F. Supp. 61, 67.

[2] United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 702-703, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890; Johansen v. Staten Island Shipbuilding Co., 272 N.Y. 140, 5 N.E.2d 68, 70; United States v. Kellar, C.C.Ill., 13 F. 82, 85; Schaufus v. Attorney General of United States, D.C.Md., 45 F.Supp. 61, 67.

Zimmer v. Acheson, Secretary of State, 191 F.2d 209 (10th Cir. 1951)



St. George Tucker wrote in his commentaries:

Congress have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization. C. U. S. Art. 1. §. 8, In 1790, they passed an act for that purpose. L. U. S. 1 Cong. 2 Sess. c. 3.

Persons naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural born citizens, except,

first, that they cannot be elected as representatives in congress until seven years, thereafter.

Secondly, nor can they be elected senators of the United States, until nine years thereafter.

Thirdly, they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States.

Persons naturalized before the adoption of the constitution, it is presumed, have all the capacities of natural born citizens. See C. U. S. Art. 1, 2. http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb2.htm

on Blackstone............

Persons naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural born citizens, except, first, that they cannot be elected as representatives in congress until seven years, thereafter. Secondly, nor can they be elected senators of the United States, until nine years thereafter. Thirdly, they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States. Persons naturalized before the adoption of the constitution, it is presumed, have all the capacities of natural born citizens. See C. U. S. Art. 1, 2.          http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb2.htm



The State Dept says:

Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA, or Form FS-240)

If you are a U.S. citizen and have a child overseas, you should report his or her birth as soon as possible so that a Consular Report of Birth Abroad can be issued as an official record of the child's claim to U.S. citizenship. Report the birth of your child abroad at the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html

And

Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1)Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment
. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

22 U.S.C. 2705 provides that a Form FS-240, issued by a consular officer to document a citizen born abroad shall have the same force and effect as proof of U.S. citizenship as certificates of naturalization or of citizenship issued by the Attorney General or by a court having naturalization jurisdiction.” http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86801.pdf

STEP 5: Once the citizenship claim has been approved, the Consular Report of Birth Abroad will be printed in the
United States and sent to the address you designate in the United States or the address you designate abroad in
countries where the mailing of U.S. citizenship documents is permitted unless you indicate that you will pick it up at the
U.S. embassy, consulate or consular agency.  http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/156216.pdf

U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter III › Part II - Nationality Through Naturalization

U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter III › Part II › § 1431

8 U.S. Code § 1431 - Children born outside the United States and residing permanently in the United States; conditions under which citizenship automatically acquired; determinations of name and birth date:

(a) In general A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled:
(1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.
(2) The child is under the age of eighteen years.
(3) The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1431

A person who claims to have derived United States citizenship through .... paragraph (c), (d), (e), or (g) of section 1401 of this title, may apply to the Attorney General for a certificate of citizenship.
Upon proof to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the applicant is a citizen, and
upon taking and subscribing before a member of the Service within the United States to the oath of allegiance required by this chapter of an applicant for naturalization,
such individual shall be furnished by the Attorney General with a certificate of citizenship, but only if such individual is at the time within the United States.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1452


Volume 12 – Citizenship & Naturalization, Part H – Children of U.S. Citizens
Chapter 3 – United States Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)
A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth

A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a person born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe. [1]

In general, a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if:

•The person has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen; and

•The U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession prior to the person’s birth in accordance with the pertinent provision

In 1854 Horace Binney wrote an article pointing out that between the naturalization act of 1802 and 1854  Congress had failed to provide 'automatic naturalization' for children born abroad to American parents.  Chief Justice William H . Taft provided a quote from it in the case of Weedin v. Chin Bow (1927 ):



"It does not probably occur to the American families who are visiting Europe in great numbers, and remaining there frequently for a year or more, that all their children born in a foreign country are aliens, and when they return home will return under all the disabilities of aliens. Yet this is indisputably the case, for it is not worthwhile to consider the only exception to this rule that exists under the laws of the United States, viz., the case of a child so born whose parents were citizens of the United States on or before the 14th day of April, 1802."
 

So, since the first naturalization act in 1790, Congress has provided a 'fast track naturalization' procedure for children born outside of America to American parent(s)............And they could be denied the 'fast track' method if Congress so desired.

Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process.
http://www.ecases.us/case/scotus/108307/rogers-v-bellei


And the Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent. As hereinabove noted, persons born abroad, even of United States citizen fathers who, however, acquired American citizenship after the effective date of the 1802 Act, were aliens.
http://www.ecases.us/case/scotus/108307/rogers-v-bellei



In  Weedin v. Chin Bow 274 U.S. 657 (1927) Justice Taft said:




"The Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, passed presumably because of Mr. Binney's suggestion, was entitled "An act to secure the right of citizenship to children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits thereof," and read as follows:"That persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States."

"Sec. 2. . . . That any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen."

The part of the Act of 1855 we are interested in was embodied in the Revised Statutes as § 1993.

It is very clear that the proviso in § 1993 has the same meaning as that which Congress intended to give it in the Act of 1790, except that it was then retrospective, as it was in the Act of 1802, while, in the Act of 1855, it was intended to be made prospective as well as retrospective. What was the source of the peculiar words of the proviso there seems to be no way of finding out, as the report of the discussion of the subject is not contained in any publication brought to our attention.



'The applicable law for transmitting citizenship to a child born abroad when one parent is a U.S. citizen is the statute that was in effect at the time of the child's birth.' ") (quoting Ablang v. Reno, 52 F.3d 801, 803 (9th Cir.1995)

.....naturalization and derivative grants of citizenship by birth are both conferred by statutes, and are at root both naturalization proceedings. See Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420, ----, ----, 118 S.Ct. 1428, 1432, 1446, 140 L.Ed.2d 575 (1998) (plurality opinion); Wong Kam Wo v. Dulles, 236 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir.1956) ("Section 1993 is therefore a naturalization law in the constitutional sense.").
http://www.ecases.us/case/ca9/762811/99-cal-daily-op-serv-2242-99-cal-daily-op-serv-242

 

8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23); INA 101(a)(23)) defines naturalization as “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever.”

For the purposes of this subchapter naturalization includes:

(5)Automatic” acquisition of U.S. citizenship after birth, a form of naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents or  children adopted abroad by U.S. citizen parents.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86759.pdf

 

So, under its power to naturalize, Congress has provided for foreign born children to be made 'citizens at birth' by statute.........This law is contained in Title 8 of the United States Code. ALIENS and Nationality.



So for 100 + years the Courts have returned the same  opinion...........Children born outside the 50 states to citizen parents are naturalized.

Since Kim Ark Wong in 1898 the courts have continued to say the same thing, decade after decade.

In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) Justice Gray giving the opinion of the court said:


"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."



In Morrison v. California (1934) the court quoted that opinion verbatim.




"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."




And once again in Rogers v. Bellei (1971) the Court said:




""But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization. Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action"



And again in Miller V. Albright (1998)




There are "two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person "born in the United States, and subject to the *424 jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization." 169 U. S., at 702.

Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703.



8 U.S.C. 1401 is naturalization statute.

  Petitioner Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky was born in Jerusalem on October 17, 2002, shortly after §214(d) was enacted. Zivotofsky’s parents were American citizens and he accordingly was as well, by virtue of congressional enactment. 8 U. S. C. §1401(c); see Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U. S. 815, 835 (1971) (foreign-born children of American citizens acquire citizenship at birth through “congres- sional generosity”).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/566/10-699/opinion3.html

 Dual Nationality

The Congress has an appropriate concern with problems attendant on dual nationality. Savornan v.

Page 401 U. S. 832

United States, 338 U. S. 491, 338 U. S. 500 (1950); N. Bar-Yaacov, Dual Nationality xi and 4 (1961). These problems are particularly acute when it is the father who is the child's alien parent and the father chooses to have his family reside in the country of his own nationality. The child is reared, at best, in an atmosphere of divided loyalty. We cannot say that a concern that the child's own primary allegiance is to the country of his birth and of his father's allegiance is either misplaced or arbitrary.

The duality also creates problems for the governments involved. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN recognized this when, concurring in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144, 372 U. S. 187 (1963), a case concerning native-born citizens, he observed: "We have recognized the entanglements which may stem from dual allegiance. . . ." In a famous case, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS wrote of the problem of dual citizenship. Kawakita v. United States, 343 U. S. 717, 343 U. S. 723-736 (1952). He noted that "[o]ne who has a dual nationality will be subject to claims from both nations, claims which at times may be competing or conflicting," id. at 343 U. S. 733; that one with dual nationality cannot turn that status "into a fair-weather citizenship," id. at 343 U. S. 736; and that "[c]ircumstances may compel one who has a dual nationality to do acts which otherwise would not be compatible with the obligations of American citizenship,"

 

 

 

 

 

In regard to the use of the word " jurisdiction" in the phrase, " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," it may be remarked, that a child of a foreign ambassador, born within the limits of the United States, is not subject to its jurisdiction within the meaning of the language just quoted. He remains a foreigner and a subject of the kingdom or country which is represented by his father, and the same is true of all other diplomatic representatives. If a stranger or traveller passing through, or temporarily residing in this country, who has not himself been naturalized, and who claims to owe no allegiance to our Government, has a child born here which goes out of the country with its father, such child is not a citizen of the United States, because it was not subject 'to its jurisdiction.

Lectures on the Constitution of the United States  By Samuel Freeman Miller  Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. http://books.google.com/books?id=NOQ9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA280

 

Cases.............
"Citizenship is a high privilege, and when doubts exist concerning a grant of it, generally at least, they should be resolved in favor of the United States and against the claimant." United States v. Manzi, 276 U.S. 463, 467, 48 S.Ct. 328, 329, 72 L.Ed. 654.

Father naturalized citizen, Mother German citizen,  child born in Germany, unable to return to America until 1927, had to be formally naturalized and failed to comply with requirements.   Not a citizen......

 

HAALAND v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES.