Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 15.pdf/116

Foot Notes ou American Citizenship, yond this and declares it to be the inherent Treaties on the subject, to be a matter of right of "all peoples"—of the human race at dispute. large. It declares, moreover, that naturalized II. citizens of the United States, "while in foreign The nationality of married women has countries" are entitled to and shall receive been, and is still, another source of inter from this Government the same measure of national controversy. In every country ex protection that is accorded by it to native- cept where the old English common law pre born citizens under like conditions! vails, the nationality of the wife merges into In the first place, it is needless to point out that of her husband. She loses her own na that Congress has no authority to speak for tionality and gains his. Even in England "all peoples; its authority is limited to the this is now the law, the old common law rule people of the United States. It is equally having been superseded by provisions in the superfluous to point out that Congress can naturalization act of 1870. But in the United not alter or abrogate the law of nations; and States, where there is no statute defining the that foreign governments are not bound by status of American women married to aliens, any declaration it may make further than they the old common law rule still prevails. An may agree thereto by treaty, or further than alien woman married to an American citizen the declaration itself may be, in reality, in acquires her husband's nationality and loses accordance with the law of nations. her own; whereas, an American woman mar In the next place, whilst a naturalized citi ried to an alien, acquires her husband's na zen, so long as he remains in the United tionality and retains her own. She thus con States, is entitled to and should receive the tracts a double allegiance—an obligation ab same measure of protection that is accorded horrent to reason and anomalous in modern to native-born citizens, it is manifest that the international law. Yet our law is powerless rule cannot be extended to him in .for to relieve her of possible embarrassment in eign countries, and more particularly in consequence of it. the country of his former allegiance. If 1 f. therefore, it be desirable to appear conlie visits that country, the protection to; sistent before the eyes of the world, and to place ourselves in harmony with modern be accorded him therein becomes com plicated with certain questions of natural international usage with respect to this im portant matter, some legislation is necessary. rights which no civilized government can af ford to disregard. His change of allegiance And the shortest and simplest, though per is not retroactive. It does not exempt him haps not in all casos the most equitable, from obligations or penalties incurred before method of accomplishing that end would be émigration. These remain. Xor is it in the by a statute making the nationality of the wife power of our Government to absolve him to follow that of her husband, and to change from them. So long as he remains within as he changes his. Of course, such a law our domain and jurisdiction, we may refuse would not be without objections; it would to give him up or not at discretion. But the doubtless work hardships in exceptional moment he voluntarily passes beyond our cases, as do most general laws. But if it borders and enters the country of his former would cause American hciressos to be a little allegiance, that discretion ends. He must more cautious about entering into matrimo nial relations with foreign adventurers and then take the consequences of his own act. titled paupers and profligates, that would, in This is a principle too fundamental, too well established by international usage, and too itself, overbalance objections, and be a very specifically recognized in all our modern strong argument in its favor.