limits, of such a right is not properly questioned. If, however, the executive should undertake in pursuance of an anti-foreign program, to make continued residence conditional on the surrender of the rights, which the foreigner enjoys under international law, such action could not fail to arouse protest on the part of the states whose nationals were involved. The exercise of the "exclusive" right of the executive to expel "without judicial process" any resident foreigner whose presence in the country "he may deem inexpedient" or "undesirable" is one, the exercise of which can not be arbitrary. If it were so, the property and personal rights of those whom Mexico has "virtually invited to spend their wealth and energy within its borders"[1] would practically be beyond the effective protection of the law. No self-respecting country could permit itself to accept such a standard.
The home governments of all foreigners living in Mexico can not escape the responsibility of doing all that is allowed under international law to assure that their rights in the republic shall be recognized and preserved. The law under which they live must be one that establishes equitable standards, not one which, while having regularity of form, denies them the substance of their rights. Broadly considered the firm insistence on such a standard is not a policy lacking in friendliness for Mexico. To fail to insist on such treatment for foreigners would be to encourage the creation of conditions in Mexico that would bring with them a serious menace to its independence.
- ↑ The words quoted are in the American note of April 2, 1918.
