Kawakita vs Us

8/16/2019 Kawakita vs Us

1/22

KAWAKITA vs US

Kawakita v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Kawakita v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued April 2 – April 3, 1952

Decided June 2, 1952

ull case

name Kawakita v. United States

Citations 343 U.S. ! "more#

!rior

histor"

$% F. S&pp. '(4 "S.). *al. *.). !$+#-

!$ F.(d +% "$th *ir. !$+!#- certiorari

ranted, 34( U.S. $3( "!$+(#.

#olding

A U.S. citi/en o0es alleiance to the United States

and can 1e p&nished for treason, reardless of d&al

nationality or citi/enship, and irrespective of co&ntryof residence.

Court mem$ership

Chief Justice

Fred 2. inson

Associate Justices

&o 5lack % Stanley F. 6eed

Feli7 Frankf&rter % William 8. )o&las

6o1ert . 9ackson % arold . 5&rton

Tom *. *lark % Sherman 2inton

Case opinions

&a'orit")o&las, :oined 1y 6eed, 9ackson,

2inton

Dissent inson, :oined 1y 5lack, 5&rton

Frankf&rter and *lark took no part in the consideration or

decision of the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reportshttps://supreme.justia.com/us/343/717/case.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/us/343/717/case.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_343https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1395686/united-states-v-tomoya-kawakita/http://openjurist.org/190/f2d/506/tomoya-kawakita-v-united-stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorarihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_M._Vinsonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Blackhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Forman_Reedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Frankfurterhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_O._Douglashttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_O._Douglashttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Jacksonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hitz_Burtonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hitz_Burtonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_C._Clarkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Mintonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reportshttps://supreme.justia.com/us/343/717/case.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_343https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1395686/united-states-v-tomoya-kawakita/http://openjurist.org/190/f2d/506/tomoya-kawakita-v-united-stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorarihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_M._Vinsonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Blackhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Forman_Reedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Frankfurterhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_O._Douglashttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Jacksonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hitz_Burtonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_C._Clarkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Minton


2/22

Wikiso&rce has oriinal te7t related to this article;(a)a*ita + United States

Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. ! "!$+(#,9apanese citi/en co&ld 1e convicted of treason

aainst the United States for acts performed in 9apan d&rin World War II. TomoyaKa0akita, 1orn in *alifornia to 9apanese parents, 0as in 9apan 0hen the 0ar 1roke o&tand stayed in 9apan &ntil the 0ar 0as over. After ret&rnin to the United States, he 0asarrested and chared 0ith treason for havin mistreated American prisoners of 0ar . Ka0akita claimed he co&ld not 1e fo&nd &ilty of treason 1eca&se he had lost his U.S.citi/enship 0hile in 9apan, 1&t this ar&ment 0as re:ected 1y the co&rts "incl&din theS&preme *o&rt#, 0hich r&led that he had in fact retained his U.S. citi/enship d&rin the0ar. 8riinally sentenced to death, Ka0akita?s sentence 0as comm&ted to lifeimprisonment, and he 0as event&ally released from prison, deported to 9apan, and 1arredfrom ever ret&rnin to the United States.

Contents

• ! 5ackro&nd

• ( Trial and appeal

• 3 8pinion of the *o&rt

o 3.! )issent

• 4 S&1se@&ent developments

• + See also

• % 6eferences

• 7ternal links

-ac*ground

Tomoya Ka0akita "川北友弥 Kawakita Tomoya?# 0as 1orn in *ale7ico, *alifornia, onSeptem1er (%, !$(!, of 9apaneseB1orn parents. e 0as 1orn 0ith U.S. citi/enship d&e tohis place of 1irth, and also 9apanese nationality via his parents. After finishin hihschool in *ale7ico in !$3$, Ka0akita traveled to 9apan 0ith his father "a rocer andmerchant#. e remained in 9apan and enrolled in 2ei:i University in !$4!. In !$43, hereistered officially as a 9apanese national.

Ka0akita 0as in 9apan 0hen the attack on Cearl ar1or dre0 the United States and 9apan

into World War II. In !$43, he took a :o1 as an interpreter at a minin and metal processin plant 0hich &sed Allied prisoners of 0ar "C8Ws# as la1orers.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikisourcehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikisourcehttps://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Search/Kawakita_v._United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reportshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#endnote_citationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#endnote_citationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Dual_citizenshiphttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_IIhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_IIhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_warhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_warhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishmenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishmenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commutation_of_sentencehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#Backgroundhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#Trial_and_appealhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#Opinion_of_the_Courthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#Dissenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#Subsequent_developmentshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#See_alsohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#Referenceshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#External_linkshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Installing_Japanese_character_setshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calexico,_Californiahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calexico,_Californiahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nationality_law#Nationality_by_birthhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_Universityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#cite_note-Shibusawa-1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#cite_note-Shibusawa-1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#cite_note-Chuman-2https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harborhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harborhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_powershttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_warhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#cite_note-Kim_HC-3https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#cite_note-Kim_HC-3https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Southern_Californiahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Southern_Californiahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Southern_Californiahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#cite_note-Shibusawa-1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#cite_note-Shibusawa-1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikisourcehttps://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Search/Kawakita_v._United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reportshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#endnote_citationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Dual_citizenshiphttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_IIhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_warhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishmenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commutation_of_sentencehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#Backgroundhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#Trial_and_appealhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#Opinion_of_the_Courthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#Dissenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#Subsequent_developmentshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#See_alsohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#Referenceshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#External_linkshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Installing_Japanese_character_setshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calexico,_Californiahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nationality_law#Nationality_by_birthhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_Universityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#cite_note-Shibusawa-1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#cite_note-Chuman-2https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harborhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_powershttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_warhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#cite_note-Kim_HC-3https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Southern_Californiahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakita_v._United_States#cite_note-Shibusawa-1


3/22

In 8cto1er !$4%, a former C8W sa0 Ka0akita in a Dos Aneles department store andreconi/ed him from the 0ar. e reported this enco&nter to the F5I, and in 9&ne !$4,Ka0akita 0as arrested and chared 0ith m&ltiple co&nts of treason arisin from alleeda1&se of American C8Ws.

.rial and appeal

At Ka0akita?s trial, presided over 1y U.S. )istrict 9&de William *. 2athes, the defenseconceded that Ka0akita had acted a1&sively to0ard American C8Ws, 1&t ar&ed that hisactions 0ere relatively minor, and that in any event, they co&ld not constit&te treasonaainst the United States 1eca&se Ka0akita 0as not a U.S. citi/en at the time, havin losthis U.S. citi/enship 0hen he confirmed his 9apanese nationality in !$43.

Tomoya Ka0akita, in a photoraph taken at his !$4' trial for treason

9&de 2athes?s instr&cted the :&ry that if they fo&nd that Ka0akita had en&inely 1elieved he 0as no loner a U.S. citi/en, then he m&st 1e fo&nd not &ilty of treason.


4/22

Ka0akita appealed to a threeB:&de panel of the Hinth *irc&it *o&rt of Appeals, 0hich&nanimo&sly &pheld the verdict and death sentence.


5/22

*hief 9&stice Fred 2. inson 0rote the dissent in the Kawakita case.

*hief 9&stice Fred 2. inson a&thored a dissentin opinion, 0hich 0as :oined 1yAssociate 9&stices &o 5lack and arold . 5&rton. The dissent concl&ded that Gforover t0o years, and reac@&ired 9apanese citi/enship &pon his arrival.


6/22

Da+id A &artin

WarnerB5ooker )istin&ished Crofessor of InternationalDa0 and *lass of !$%3 6esearch Crofessor University of irinia School of Da0

Chair ecture, /cto$er 2, 24

The calls started comin in the very first year I 0as listedas a teacher of immiration la0. They 0o&ld osomethin like this;

• I :&st fo&nd o&t that I can et Irish citi/enship

1eca&se my randparents 0ere 1orn there. It0o&ld 1e 0orth a lot to my career plans to 1e a&ropean *omm&nity citi/en. 5&t I donJt 0ant tolose my American citi/enship. *an I do thisM

ereJs a second e7ample;

• 2y h&s1and is from *hile and 0e :&st had o&r first child. Will 0e 1e in tro&1le if

0e et her t0o passports, US and *hileanM And any0ay I heard she has to choose 1et0een the t0o co&ntries 0hen she reaches (!. Is that rihtM

These are @&estions a1o&t d&al nationality or d&al citi/enship. They capt&re not onlyindivid&al dilemmas 1&t also sinificant @&estions of national and international policyand la0. 5oth the individ&al and the societal iss&es arise more often and more insistentlyas lo1ali/ation advances, and the 0orld seems to 1e rethinkin its c&stomary ans0ers.

The history of American and international la0 overnin citi/enship ives my callersood reason to e7press concern. )&al nationality is traditionally disfavored 1y la0 anddiplomatic practiceEdeno&nced as an evil, condemned as 0orse than 1iamy. 5&t some0riters, and also many overnment leaders on the 0orld stae, today endorse and even promote the stat&s. A rather rapid stroll thro&h that history provides a ood startin pointfor 1oth ans0erin my callersJ @&estions and, more importantly, fi&rin o&t 0hat r&lesfor d&al nationality make the most sense for the (!st cent&ry.5ackro&nd; the 6ise and Fall of Cerpet&al Alleiance

IJll start 1y lookin closely at American r&les. arly US co&rts took as their startin point

the 5ritish common la0 leacy. This approach proved e7ceedinly a0k0ard in the firstdecades of o&r national life, 1eca&se 5ritish la0 adhered to the theory of perpet&alalleiance to the soverein. 8nly the kin co&ld release s&1:ects,L as the 5rits liked tocall them, from their 1onds of nationality.

Kin Neore 0as taken to have consented to s&ch a partin 0ith reard to his re1ellio&scolonists, as part of the treaty of peace endin the American 6evol&tion. 5&t he 0asnJt prepared to treat that settlement as a&tomatic permission for later mirants to shed their

G)&al Hationality;T6?s ?SelfBvidentA1s&rdity?G "video#.Introd&ction 1y Crof.9ames 6yan

"re@&ires Windo0s2edia Clayer #

http://mms//wms.edgecastcdn.net/000184/podcast/streaming/news/2004_05/martin1004.wmvhttp://mms//wms.edgecastcdn.net/000184/podcast/streaming/news/2004_05/martin1004.wmvhttp://mms//wms.edgecastcdn.net/000184/podcast/streaming/news/2004_05/martin1004.wmvhttp://www.law.virginia.edu/lawweb/Faculty.nsf/FHPbI/1204912http://windowsmedia.com/9series/download/download.asphttp://windowsmedia.com/9series/download/download.asphttp://mms//www.law.virginia.edu/podcast/streaming/news/2004_05/supct04e.wmahttp://mms//wms.edgecastcdn.net/000184/podcast/streaming/news/2004_05/martin1004.wmvhttp://mms//wms.edgecastcdn.net/000184/podcast/streaming/news/2004_05/martin1004.wmvhttp://mms//wms.edgecastcdn.net/000184/podcast/streaming/news/2004_05/martin1004.wmvhttp://www.law.virginia.edu/lawweb/Faculty.nsf/FHPbI/1204912http://windowsmedia.com/9series/download/download.asphttp://windowsmedia.com/9series/download/download.asp


7/22

alleiance. Worse than that, his ma:estyJs navy fo&nd a partic&larly allin 0ay toenforce this doctrine as its h&ner for manpo0er re0 d&rin the Hapoleonic 0ars. Theystopped American ships and forci1ly impressed sailors into the royal service, on thetheory that Kin Neore never consented to their nat&rali/ation. These 5ritish acts helpedtrier the War of !'!(. For domestic reasons, 5ritain a1andoned impressment a fe0

years after Waterloo, ho0ever, and citi/enship iss&es receded from prominence for atime.

Shortly after the *ivil War, controversy flared aain, involvin the same t0o co&ntries.This time it 0as triered 1y 5ritainJs treatment of a handf&l of nat&rali/ed Americans0ho had :oined the Fenian movement to fiht for Irish independence. *apt&red and p&ton trial, they 0ere s&1:ected to nlish proced&res and p&nishments that properly appliedonly to 5ritish s&1:ects, not to aliens, as these travelin American tro&1lemakersconsidered themselves to 1e. C&1lic opinion 1ack on o&r shores 1&rned hot at thistreatment. 5ritain replied to American diplomatic protests 1y thro0in some of o&r o0ncase la0 1ack at &sEand s&re eno&h, federal co&rt precedents 0ere still s&pportin the

claim that a soverein had to consent to a chane of citi/enship.

*onress had had eno&h. In order to end this slavish :&dicial reception of the commonla0, it passed the 7patriation Act of !'%', declarin that the riht of e7patriation is anat&ral and inherent riht of all people, indispensa1le to the en:oyment of the rihts oflife, li1erty, and the p&rs&it of happiness.L *onress 0ent on to state that any action 1y aUS officer 0hich denies, restricts, impairs, or @&estions the riht of e7patriation, ishere1y declared inconsistent 0ith the f&ndamental principles of this overnment.L Thela0 also imposed a d&ty on the president to take steps, short of 0ar, 0henever any citi/en0as &n:&stly deprived of his li1ertyL 1y a forein soverein.

5ritain took the point. Within a co&ple of years it sined a treaty areein to treatnat&rali/ed US citi/ens as no loner holdin 5ritish nationality, and it soon passed astat&te reconi/in individ&al choice in s&ch matters. Hor 0as 5ritain the only po0er that 1ean chanin its vie0s. We had enco&ntered similar conflicts 0ith several other&ropean states aro&nd this time, ro0in mainly o&t of their nasty ha1it of conscriptinnat&rali/ed US citi/ens d&rin temporary visits 1ack to their native lands. It proved possi1le, ho0ever, to neotiate areements, kno0n as the 5ancroft treaties, that resolvedmost of these iss&es. The parties pleded to treat nat&rali/ation as an act severin all prior citi/enship ties.

Th&s the theory of perpet&al alleiance died a s&rprisinly speedy and &nlamented deathin the late !$th cent&ry. Hations came to reconi/e that this medieval notion no loner fitthe needs of a lo1e 0here rail and steamship travel, co&pled 0ith the dislocations of theind&strial revol&tion, led to massive flo0s of permanent miration.

ights and Duties to 67patriate

A concern for rihts fi&red prominently in the passae of o&r 7patriation Act andcertainly triered the immediate chanes. 5&t the imperatives of states also played a


8/22

ma:or role. In fact, the state interest thread soon came to dominate the ne7t ro&nd ofmoves in the d&al nationality arena. The emerin consens&s of the era 0as that m&ltipleclaimed citi/enships 0o&ld only ive rise to intolera1le diplomatic pro1lems for 1oth polities. Indeed, that 0as e7actly 0hy the perpet&al alleiance doctrine 0ithered a0ay.5&t lo and 1ehold, some individ&als 0ere fo&nd 0ho miht prefer to keep 1oth

nationalities. The literat&re of the time enerally portrayed them as crass opport&nists,dodin the o1liations of citi/enship 1y livin else0here, 1&t then assertin thenationality of the distant state 0hen it momentarily s&ited their private interests. The riskof national friction from s&ch a scenario 0as seen as intolera1le, 0hatever theindivid&alJs 0ishes. From the riht of e7patriation anno&nced in o&r !'%' Act, it provedto 1e only a short step to0ard a d&ty of e7patriationEa forced loss of citi/enshipEforthose individ&als 0ho created circ&mstances that miht p&t the t0o nations in conflict.

In conse@&ence, State )epartment officers policed viilantly aainst sit&ations tho&htlikely to ive rise to s&ch complications. Invokin some provisions of the 5ancrofttreaties, for e7ample, they systematically notified nat&rali/ed US citi/ens 0ho 0ent 1ack

to live for e7tended periods in their native lands that they there1y lost their USnationality. The )epartment also treated nat&rali/ation in another co&ntry as trierinthe a&tomatic loss of US citi/enship, 0hatever the individ&alJs 0ishes. The same forthose 0ho took an oath to a forein overnmentE0hich meant that nearly anyone 0hoass&med p&1lic office in another state or served in a forein military 0o&ld loseAmerican nationality.

*onress finally ot into the act in !$, passin a ne0 la0 that essentially codified mostof these administrative r&les overnin e7patriation. Doss of citi/enship depended on theactEnat&rali/in else0here or ass&min lenthy forein residence, for e7ampleEnot theconscio&s choice of the individ&al to ive &p US nationality as a res&lt. 5&t *onress alsodecided to add a ne0 ro&nd for loss of citi/enship. American 0omen 0ho marriedforein h&s1ands, *onress decreed, 0o&ld immediately lose their US citi/enship. Atleast part of the motivation 0as to help prevent d&al nationality, on the part of the 0omanand her children. When thel 2acken/ie, a s&ffraist leader, tried to reister to vote&nder a proressive !$!! *alifornia la0 that e7tended the franchise to 0omen, she 0asdenied on the ro&nd that she lacked US citi/enship 1ased on her recent marriae to a0ellBkno0n Scottish tenor 0ho had taken &p residence here. She fo&ht the federale7patriation la0 all the 0ay to the S&preme *o&rt, claimin that *onress lacked po0erto take a0ay citi/enship 0itho&t individ&al assent. In 2acken/ie v. are, in !$!+,ho0ever, the 9&stices fo&nd little diffic&lty re:ectin her challene. Th&s the !$ Act,no0 d&ly 1lessed 1y the S&preme *o&rt, seemed to have pl&ed most loopholes thro&h0hich d&al nationality miht enter.

5&t there remained one other &navoida1le so&rce of pl&ral citi/enship; the varyin r&lesadopted 1y different nations for the ac@&isition of nationality at 1irth. The United Stateshad enshrined the :&s soli in its *onstit&tion as part of the !4th amendment, meanin thatvirt&ally anyone 1orn on American soil is a US citi/en. 5&t most &ropean states, the primary so&rce of o&r !$th cent&ry immiration, follo0ed the :&s san&inis, the riht of 1lood, 0here1y citi/enship depends on descent, not the place of 1irth. )&al nationality


9/22

often res&lted. The State )epartment had an ans0er, ho0ever, adoptin a stance commonto several other overnments of the day. It insisted that children 1orn 0ith do&1lenationality had to choose one or the other &pon attainin ma:orityEa process kno0n aselection.L If a (!ByearBold d&al national contin&ed his residence for an e7tended periodin the other co&ntry, he 0as deemed to have elected the other nationJs citi/enship. US

diplomats 0o&ld no loner offer their protection, and the individ&al stood no chance ofo1tainin a US passport.

.heodore oose+elt 8eighs n

Aro&nd this time another po0erf&l voice :oined the chor&s. The retired 1&t never retirinTheodore 6oosevelt ave a 0ellBkno0n speech in !$!+, si7 years after leavin theCresidency, deno&ncin 0hat he called hyphenated Americans.L is speech is oftenmischaracteri/ed. It 0as not an antiBimmirant diatri1e. e 0elcomed immiration, 1&the insisted that immirants m&st 1ecome, as he p&t it, heartily and sinly loyal to this6ep&1lic.L At a time 0hen &rope 0as descendin into 0hat 1ecame World War I, he

asserted that the foreinB1orn pop&lation of this co&ntry m&st 1e an Americani/ed pop&lationEno other kind can fiht the 1attles of America either in 0ar or peace.L 5&t heemphasi/ed that this 0as not a oneB0ay proposition- America had to do riht 1y its ne0immirants as 0ell. We cannot sec&re s&ch loyalty,L he 0rote, &nless 0e make this aco&ntry 0here men shall feel that they have :&stice.... We cannot afford to contin&e to&se... immirants merely as ind&strial assets 0hile they remain social o&tcasts.L

Another 1rief article that 6oosevelt p&1lished aro&nd this time in the :o&rnal2etropolitan spelled o&t 0hat his vie0s implied for d&al citi/enship. is 0ritin 0astriered 1y a State )epartment letter that its addressee, one C.A. Delon, had shared 0ithhim. Delon had 1een 1orn in He0 8rleans to parents 0ho had immirated from France.

e had al0ays considered himself a US citi/en, consistently voted in US elections, hadheld p&1lic office here, and 0as a mem1er of the 1ar. e planned to travel to France on 1&siness, 1&t had 1een 0arned that he miht 1e conscripted 0hile there or p&nished forfailin to f&lfill his military d&ties to France. Delon so&ht department ass&rance that it0o&ld help defend his claim that my constit&tional privilees as an American citi/enfollo0 me 0herever I o.L State responded very matterBofBfactly, @&otin French la0 to point o&t that France 0o&ld reard him as a citi/en &nder its :&s san&inis r&les. Oo& 0eretherefore 1orn 0ith d&al nationality, the letter contin&ed 1landly, and the department canive no ass&rance a1o&t yo&r lia1ility for military o1liations sho&ld yo& vol&ntarily place yo&rself 0ithin French :&risdiction.L

6oosevelt co&ld hardly stand it. The United States,L he th&ndered, cannot 0ith selfBrespect permit its oranic and f&ndamental la0LEhere he referred to the :&s soli r&lesenshrined in o&r *onstit&tionEto 1e overridden 1y the la0s of a forein co&ntry.L )&alnationality, he added for ood meas&re, is a selfBevident a1s&rdity.L The 1&rea&craticattit&des reflected in the letter seem like the phantasmaoria of an &npleasant dream.L

T6 0as kno0n for his e7&1erance, of co&rse. 8ne :o&rnalist 0rote; Oo& o into6ooseveltJs presence... and yo& o home and 0rin the personality o&t of yo&r clothes.L


10/22

is hyper1ole nonetheless 1rins home to &s the common citi/enship ass&mption of theearly (th cent&ry, a fe0 riskBaverse diplomats to the contrary not0ithstandinEthatnational loyalty is indivisi1le. This 0as not :&st an American vie0. 5y !$!+ virt&ally allother overnments follo0ed the same theory of nationality. *o&ntries of emiration,havin a1andoned the perpet&al alleiance theory, 0ere &s&ally as viilant as co&ntries of

immiration to 1ase their actions on the same ideaEthat d&al nationality makes no sense,and holds daners for ood relations 1et0een nations.

A Slo) 6rosion of the A+ersion to Dual :ationalit"

ie0s like 6ooseveltJs also la&nched an am1itio&s effort to harmoni/e lo1al practiceson the rantin and 0ithdra0al of nationalityEan effort to codify nationality r&les in one&niversal treaty. arvard Da0 School devoted its considera1le prestie to this process,and a m&ch p&1lici/ed arvard 6esearch st&dy on nationality la0s, co&pled 0ith a proposed draft treaty that scholars derived from their la1ors, 1ecame the startin point for an international conference at the a&e. The preface to the !$3 a&e *onvention

sinaled its chief aims in lofty rhetoric; the ideal to0ards 0hich the efforts of h&manitysho&ld 1e directed in this domain is the a1olition of all cases 1oth of statelessness and ofdo&1le nationality.L The a&e *onvention 0o&ld have helped red&ce each. 5&t thediplomats 1acked off from many of the more am1itio&s harmoni/ation provisions offered 1y the arvard scholars. And in the end the a&e *onvention, tho&h sined 1y manynations, 0as ratified 1y only (.

It co&ldnJt 1e spotted at the time, 1&t the relative fail&re of the a&e conference aveevidence that the consens&s aainst d&al nationality 0as s&1tly erodin from 0hat mayhave 1een its hihB0ater mark aro&nd the time 0hen T6 0rote, in !$!+. As far asAmerican r&les are concerned, the erosion started in the political arena, 1&t later fo&nd its

real moment&m in the co&rts.

Think 1ack to thel 2acken/ie, stripped of her citi/enship 1eca&se she married a foreinh&s1and. 2acken/ie and her s&ffraist collea&es did not take the S&preme *o&rtJsdictate as the final 0ord on the s&1:ect. Within five years of the *o&rtJs !$!+ r&lin theyhad sec&red the enactment of the !$th amendment to the *onstit&tion, &aranteein to0omen the riht to vote nationally. And e7actly as the s&ffraist movement had promised,it promptly mo1ili/ed its ne0 votin po0er to c&t 1ack reatly on the s0eep of that !$ provision that stripped married 0omen of their citi/enship. A repentant *onress acted promptly. The leislators did not think of themselves as votin in favor of d&alnationality, of co&rse. 5&t as a res&lt of that repeal, more children 0o&ld 1e 1orn toAmerican mothers and forein national h&s1ands. Alon 0ith later reforms that&ltimately ave 0omen e@&al rihts to transmit citi/enship to their offsprin, this repealcreated lots more opport&nities for d&al nationality, partic&larly as more crossBnationalmarriaes took place, a trend that accelerated as the (th cent&ry mat&red.

Cerhaps that stat&tory amendment 0o&ld have meant little if the State )epartmentJs preferred remedy for d&al nationality at 1irth had retained its viorEthe re@&ired electionof a sinle nationality &pon attainin ma:ority. The arvard 6esearch pro:ect favored that


11/22

approach and incl&ded a &niform election re@&irement in its draft lo1al treaty. 5&t thediplomats assem1led at the a&e conference @&ietly dropped that provision. 2eantime,US co&rts often fo&nd fa&lt 0ith partic&lar actions 1y the State )epartment in applyinits election re@&irement. Then in !$+(, the S&preme *o&rt essentially declared that theemperor had no clothes. The State )epartmentJs 1road election re@&irement, the 9&stices

ently pointed o&t, s&ffered from the modest defect that it &tterly lacked stat&toryfo&ndation. lection disappeared from the )epartmentJs arsenal aainst d&al nationality.

US diplomats, ho0ever, 0ere still enforcin the 5ancroft treaties and the s&rvivine7patriation provisions that act&ally appeared in the US codeEirrespective of the personJs s&1:ective 0ish to retain citi/enship. Those 0ho vol&ntarily nat&rali/ed in aforein state, or took an oath of alleiance, for e7ample, 0o&ld still find their citi/enshipforfeited.

For several decades after 2acken/ie v. are, the S&preme *o&rt remained s&pportive ofs&ch forfeits. 5&t midBcent&ry 1ro&ht the 1einnins of serio&s :&dicial resistance.

Aain the direct motivation 0as not to promote d&al nationalityE1&t only to avoid a fatethat many of the 9&stices deemed overly harsh; the invol&ntary strippin of USciti/enship. A contradictory trio of cases in !$+' sinaled the 1einnin of the end ofinvol&ntary e7patriation. In Trop v. )&lles, the *o&rt r&led that takin a0ay citi/enshipfrom a military deserter 0as cr&el and &n&s&al p&nishment and hence &nconstit&tional.The same day, in Hishika0a v. )&lles, it also reversed the e7patriation of a d&al national0ho had fo&ht 0ith the 9apanese in World War II. 5eca&se citi/enship is so precio&s, the*o&rt decided, Hishika0a sho&ld 1e iven a ne0 hearin 0here the overnment 0o&ld 1e placed &nder a heavier 1&rden of proof to sho0 that his forein military service 0as notcoerced.

Those decisions 0ere +B4 r&lins. The third case of the day, ho0ever, Cere/ v. 5ro0nell,sent a very different sinal, like0ise 1y a +B4 marin. 9&stice 5rennan s0itched sides tohelp s&stain e7patriation for an act that 0o&ld seem on its face far less serio&s than thatinvolved in the other t0o cases. Cere/ had 1een 1orn in the United States, 1&t lived mostof his life in 2e7ico, his parentsJ co&ntry of nationality. A d&al national, he voted in2e7ican elections. 5&t in !$4, *onress had e7panded the list of e7patriatin acts toincl&de votin in a forein election. The ma:ority opinion is vintae Feli7 Frankf&rterEa 1it pedantic, condescendin, and &ltimately 1lind to the h&man impact of the technicaldoctrine he 0as affirmin. 5&t the opinion also reflects the aversion a devoted nat&rali/edciti/en like Frankf&rter m&st have felt to0ard Cere/Js checkered history, his fre@&entfalsehoods a1o&t his citi/enship stat&s, and his clear lack of devotion to the co&ntry0hose mem1ership he 0as no0 opport&nistically assertin.

Frankf&rter fo&nd that *onress had po0er to re&late American participation in foreinelections as part of its 1road a&thority over forein relations. Oet the key @&estion 0as notthe o1:ective, 1&t rather the means; 0hether *onress co&ld enforce its re&lation 1ydecreein loss of citi/enship for those 0ho violated the votin r&les. Frankf&rter r&ledthat only a rational 1asis 0as re@&ired to find the la0 constit&tional. S&ch votin, he0rote, is potentially em1arrassin to the American Novernment and prenant 0ith the


12/22

possi1ility of em1roilin this co&ntry in disp&tes 0ith other nations.L What an eye for prenancyP There 0as no evidence that any nation had ever o1:ected to any s&ch votin 1y US citi/ens, and no other co&ntry on the lo1e had a compara1le provision, as *hief9&stice Warren pointed o&t in a passionate dissent.

Academic commentary 0as not kind to the Cere/ r&lin, and it may have helpedenco&rae a spate of additional e7patriation challenes in the s&cceedin years. In all ofthem the S&preme *o&rt distin&ished Cere/ and held for the individ&al. 2ostimportantly, in !$%4 the *o&rt str&ck do0n a ro&nd of e7patriation that had fi&red prominently in the 5ancroft treaties and had 1een historically cr&cial to the State)epartmentJs efforts to diminish the conflicts ro0in o&t of d&al nationality. This 0asthe provision decreein that nat&rali/ed citi/ens 0ho ret&rned to live for a specified period of years in their former co&ntry 0o&ld 1e deemed to have lost US citi/enship.Unlike the Cere/ provision, this one did have a respecta1le provenance and 0as s&pported 1y the practice of most other co&ntries. It fell nonetheless, in a ma:ority opinion a&thored 1y 9&stice )o&las. This r&lin 0as vintae )o&lasErhetorically catchy and

sympathetic, 1&t li1 and analytically sloppy at 1est or disinen&o&s at its 0orst.C&rportin to apply Cere/, he fo&nd an e@&al protection violation, 1eca&se *onress, inhis vie0, lacked any reason 1eyond administrative convenience to distin&ish 1et0eenthe native 1orn and the nat&rali/ed citi/en in applyin these r&les. e s&mmed &p 1ycondemnin *onress for creat


13/22

oneEto avoid do&1le ta7ation or m&ltiple military service claims. If that o&tcome isdesired, US la0 ives them that po0er, provided they make it clear that they have there@&isite intent to s&rrender citi/enship. And of co&rse the other co&ntry of nationalitymiht 0ell still impose its o0n re@&irements, rioro&sly terminatin citi/enship, fore7ample, for anyone 0ho nat&rali/es else0here. Still, it is no 0onder that d&al nationality

involvin Americans has proliferated &nder Afroyim and Schneider.

Dual :ationalit" and its &odern !rotections

ence I co&ld ans0er the phone in@&iries 0ith 0hich I 1ean this e7ploration 0ith adecisive response; )onJt 0orryEat least as far as US la0 is concerned. Takin &p Irishciti/enship or holdin t0o passports &nder these circ&mstances is a riht protected 1y the*onstit&tion. And no d&al national child can 1e forced 1y American a&thorities to elect asinle nationality &pon reachin ma:ority.

2oreover, it is increasinly rare for persons in these circ&mstances to have to 0orry

a1o&t the la0s of the other co&ntry. The trend is partic&larly prono&nced amon co&ntriesthat are ma:or so&rces of emiration, in a pattern that 1ean in earnest a1o&t (+ years ao 1&t has recently added several key nations to its ranks. 2e7ico, for e7ample, lon asta&nch opponent of d&al nationality, treated nat&rali/ation else0here as an a&tomatice7patriatin act &ntil very recently. 5&t in !$$' it amended its *onstit&tion to permit,indeed to enco&rae, its nonresident natives to keep their 2e7ican nationality &ponnat&rali/in. T0o other co&ntries amon AmericaJs top fo&r so&rce co&ntries forimmiration :oined these ranks in (3; India and the Chilippines. Those overnmentscame to reali/e that their diasporas, already a ma:or so&rce of hard c&rrency thro&hremittances to their native lands, miht 1e more likely to contin&e that practiceEandindeed to &se their 0estern 0ealth to invest in fledlin 1&sinesses 1ack in the old

co&ntryEif they co&ld retain the old citi/enship even as they ained a ne0 one. Ifnothin else, the eased travel that comes from enterin on a local passport is likely to promote s&ch connections.

These visi1le leal chanes have stirred ne0 opposition to d&al nationality in someimmiration co&ntries, raisin do&1ts a1o&t conflicted loyalties, or 0orries that theso&rce co&ntries 0ere tryin to &se the ne0 la0s as a means of manip&latin votin in USelections. That concern is mis&ided, ho0ever, 1oth empirically and concept&ally, and inany event has so far not had m&ch effect in slo0in the international moment&m to0ardacceptin d&al nationality.

.he /ther Side of the Coin

5&t there is still another side to the coin, so far as US la0 is concerned. There remainsome formal 1arriers to d&al nationality. *onsider another set of phone calls I havere&larly received over the years. Those @&estions o somethin like this;

• IJve 1een here for ! years on a reen card, and no0 IJve decided to 1ecome an

American citi/en. Some1ody at the State )epartment told me it 0o&ld 1e no


14/22

pro1lem to keep my other citi/enship and keep travelin on my U passport. 5&tI :&st ot the application packet, and the oath I have to take doesnJt so&nd that0ay at all. IJm not s&re I 0ant to nat&rali/e if I have to ive &p my otherciti/enship.

There is definitely a pro1lem here. 8&r nat&rali/ation la0, follo0in a pattern set in!$+, spells o&t in considera1le detail the oath to 0hich a ne0 citi/en m&st s0ear. Itsrich, oldBfashioned lan&ae re@&ires a plede;

that I a1sol&tely and entirely reno&nce and a1:&re all alleiance and fidelity to anyforein prince, potentate, state, or sovereinty, of 0hom or 0hich I have heretofore 1eena s&1:ect or citi/en....

And the oath concl&des 0ith these 0ords;

I take this o1liation freely, 0itho&t any mental reservation or p&rpose of evasion, so help

me Nod.

*onressJs intent co&ld hardly 1e clearer. The S&preme *o&rtJs r&lins in Afroyim andTerra/as, so s0eepinly po0erf&l in defendin d&al nationality 0hen chosen 1y those0ho already en:oy US citi/enship, have no 1ite here. These phone calls ask 0hat kind ofconditions the United States can impose on those 0ho stand implorinly at the door ofmem1ership. It is the one settin in 0hich US la0 no0 appears to stand fo&rs@&areaainst d&al nationality.

5&t the act&al effect of this provision in practice has 1een pro1lematic for enerations.This re@&irement often prompted US immiration officials to collect the old passports at

the time of the nat&rali/ation ceremony. They then d&tif&lly ret&rned them to the em1assyof the oriinal co&ntry. Some em1assies then do&1tless recorded the chane and notifiedtheir capitals that the person had iven &p her oriinal nationality. 5&t I have heardn&mero&s stories of em1assies that had no s&ch ro&tine. At first p&//led over 0hat to do0ith these doc&ments, they event&ally chose the path of 1&rea&cratic least resistance.They cleared o&t their in1o7es 1y mailin the passport 1ack to the person 0ho initiallys&rrendered itP

Sometime over the last 3 years, ho0ever, the State )epartment 1ean to ac@&iesce in,and even to em1race, the retention of d&al nationality at the time of nat&rali/ation, to the point that it no0 informally advises aspirin ne0 citi/ens that they can of co&rse retain

their oriinal nationality. ence my phone calls. When I first heard of s&ch advice, Ico&ld hardly 1elieve that the State )epartment 0o&ld do this. 8ne 0o&ld think that State0o&ld at least sho0 a 1it of em1arrassment at the fact that its advice is totally contrary tothe stat&te, 0hich spells o&t in reat detail the ren&nciation re@&irement incl&ded in theoath.

A0hile 1ack, at a conference, I 0as finally a1le to pin do0n some State )epartmentofficers on ho0 they rationali/e this advice. Their :&stification oes somethin like this;


15/22

0e cannot &arantee that other states 0ill reconi/e the ren&nciation oath as an effectives&rrender of the first nationality. "Fair eno&h.# And *onress, &nlike, say, the Nerman5&ndesta, has not re@&ired nat&rali/in citi/ens to present evidence that they haverioro&sly p&rs&ed the other nationJs formalities to ens&re that loss of nationality 0ill 1eeffective. "Also correct.# ence the other co&ntry may 0ell still consider them its citi/en,

and 0e miht as 0ell tell them so.

As I listened to the officialJs e7planation, I co&ld almost sense Teddy 6oosevelt risinfrom his rave. This is so m&ch like the sit&ation that triered his !$!+ diatri1e. Whocares 0hat those other nations doM The oath, he miht say, creates a solemn compact 1et0een this co&ntry and the ne0 citi/enE0ho has, &nder o&r !'%' stat&te, an a1sol&teriht to e7patriate. 8&r ne0 citi/en has solemnly s0orn that he is reno&ncin all otherties. ItJs the other co&ntryJs pro1lem to fi&re o&t ho0 to make their la0s match o&rs, notvice versa. Sho&ld that other co&ntry ever treat o&r ne0 citi/en as s&1:ect to itso1liationsE0ell, 0here are my &n1oatsM

Ho0 there is of co&rse one important difference 1et0een my caller and the !$!+ case thatstirred T6Js ire. Delon 0anted to 1e considered a monoBnational. Today, perhaps in somemeas&re 1eca&se many nations have a1andoned conscription, my in@&iries tend to comefrom people 0ho firmly 0ish to keep 1oth nationalities.

So ho0 sho&ld I ans0er my callerJs @&estionM Were I a social scientist, I co&ld report thatthe US overnment for decades has f&lly s&pported a nat&rali/ed citi/enJs onoine7ercise of rihts as a d&al national, and that this pattern appears likely to contin&e. 5&tas a la0yer, 1o&nd 1y a la0yerJs ethical o1liations, I co&ld not possi1ly advise anindivid&al to s0ear to o&r re@&ired oath 0hile plannin to violate its pledes.

2ore importantly, as a matter of p&1lic policy, the State )epartmentJs arroation of the po0er to co&ntermand a conressional stat&te has left &s in 0hat may 1e the 0orst possi1le sit&ation. Its stance amo&nts to enco&rain ne0 citi/ens to start theirmem1ership 0ith an act of per:&ry. 5ad eno&h on its o0nEand perhaps it even leavesthe individ&al open to denat&rali/ation if a f&t&re administration ever decides to crackdo0n on false s0earin "altho&h I do&1t that 0ill happen#. 5&t the State )epartmentJsstance has also taken a0ay most impet&s for *onress to revisit these provisions anddecide e7plicitly 0hether they sho&ld 1e revised to fit a different leal and sociallandscape.

Dual :ationalit" on the &erits

So sho&ld this provision 1e chanedM 6en&nciation as part of the oath made sense 0hen it0as 0ritten over ( years ao. It reflected stronly held 1eliefs that individ&als, notsovereins, 0ere entitled to control their citi/enship ties. The oath affirmed 0hat itmeant, &nder conditions of the time, to 1e a free citi/en rather than a perpet&allys&1ordinate s&1:ect of a Kin.


16/22

We sho&ld pay d&e honor to that tradition and meanin. 5&t to do so in modernconditions, I 1elieve, re@&ires &s to chane co&rse in 0hat 0e ask of nat&rali/in citi/ens.We no loner inha1it a lo1e of :ealo&s or reedy monarchs, nor a lo1e 0here mirationmarks a definitive oneBtimeBonly movement that &tterly chanes the mirantJs entire lifeframe0ork. The (th cent&ry revol&tion in transportation and comm&nications ena1les

mirants to retain close and meaninf&l ties 0ith the co&ntry of oriin, and 0ith family0ho remained 1ehind, even as they develop close affiliations 0ith their ne0 co&ntry ofciti/enship.

The eopolitical conte7t is also totally differentEsomethin that miht ca&se evenTheodore 6oosevelt to reconsider some of his doma. As he 0as 0ritin those 0ordscallin d&al nationality a1s&rd, 1ack in !$!+, he 0as s&rro&nded 1y evidence of thefickleness of national alliances. World War I 0as &nder0ay, tho&h the United States 0asnot yet involved. It had 1een triered 1y rapidly shiftin alliances as monarchs :ockeyedfor position. *iti/en armies 0ere 1ein fed into the fire of machine &ns 0ielded 1y theciti/ens of another nation not too lon 1efore rearded as an ally on the same side of the

lo1al chess ame. In that conte7t, leavin m&ltiple calls on a citi/enJs loyalties posedreal risks.

Today, far more nations e7hi1it an end&rin commonality of interest than they did in theae of the monarchs, a commonality 1&ilt aro&nd a commitment to democracy and tosome form of market economy. These are not &niversally held commitments, to 1e s&re.5&t the differences that remain amon nations are far more likely to 1e resolved peacea1ly. The risk of nationBtoBnation 0ar is considera1ly more remote. In fact, 0e area1o&t as far removed from 6ooseveltJs time as he 0as from the Hapoleonic Wars and theera of perpet&al alleiance. That citi/enship doctrine sho&ld take another t&rn afteranother cent&ry miht not s&rprise that amate&r historian.

We also have a richer &nderstandin, one may hope, of the nat&re of loyalty. 6ecentdecades have led to m&ch commentary on the val&e of civil societyEthat 0e1 oforani/ations and commitments that e7ist separate from, and often in co&nter1alance to,the national overnment. To val&e civil society is to accept that citi/ens 0ill hold avariety of involvements and loyalties at the same timeEcommitments that are not seen asdil&tin a healthy alleiance to the nation. We sho&ld 1e a1le to reconi/e, in the (!stcent&ry, that national alleiance is not allBcons&min, that patriotic commitment cancoe7ist 0ith loyalty and devotion to other ro&ps and instit&tions. We sho&ld e7tend thatinsiht to the sphere of national loyalties. ven if there are limits at the e7tremes "s&ch asin time of act&al 0ar 1et0een the t0o nations#, those deeply atypical com1inationssho&ld not dictate the leal frame0ork that applies to most people most of the time.Therefore 0e sho&ld drop the lan&ae re@&irin ren&nciation of other nationalities,altho&h it remains a so&nd idea to incl&de a nonBe7cl&sive oath of alleiance as part ofo&r nat&rali/ation ceremonies.

So far my acco&nt parallels the advocacy to 1e fo&nd in most contemporary academic0ritin on the s&1:ect, 0hich 0armly em1races d&al nationality. 5&t I do part company0ith the reatest enth&siasts, and I do so for reasons a1o&t 0hich 6oosevelt felt stronly.


17/22

Some 0ho em1race d&al nationality, like Oasemin Soysal or )avid 9aco1son, see itsro0in incidence as sinalin an end of the nationBstate and o&r passae into a postBnational lo1al order. 8thers treat national mem1ership as simply one amon manydifferent affiliations that are to 1e picked &p and dropped entirely at an individ&alJsoption. Ceter Spiro characteri/es citi/enship as simply e@&ivalent to mem1ership in a...

civic orani/ation.L Thomas Franck 0rites of loyalty as less like a dollar to 1e 1et ononeJs favorite racehorse than a handf&l of 1irdseed to 1e distri1&ted amon severalfeedin stations.L

S&ch cas&alness a1o&t national alleiance oes too far. HationBstates are oin to remainthe lo1eJs key overnance &nits, at least for many decades to come. 2em1ership in thetype of instit&tion that holds a monopoly on the leitimate &se of violence is a far moreserio&s matter than :oinin the 6otary or choosin yo&r sports teamEeven if it is the 6edSo7. Doyalty to a nation can of co&rse o to e7tremes. It can foster 1lind and &nthinkino1edience. It can descend to cha&vinism. 5&t a more meas&red loyalty, 1&ilt on a en&ineand end&rin sense of commitment, is cr&cial in makin democracy 0ork. *iti/ens in

democracies have to c&ltivate a farBfromBnat&ral imp&lse to remain enaed in anonoin common political enterprise even 0hen their side loses an election or a policy 1attle. 5eneath the 1om1ast, Theodore 6oosevelt reconi/ed this core val&e of nationalsolidarity. That is 0hy he 0anted ne0 immirants to identify so completely 0ith theAmerican polityEand also 0hy he 0anted the American polity to 1e s&re to treat them,and all citi/ens, 0ith :&stice and dinity. In the realm of citi/enship, all mem1ers aree@&al. 8ne citi/en, one vote. The concept of e@&al citi/enship also ives a stronfo&ndation for 1ridin ethnic divides and for adoptin meas&res meant to red&ce thedifferences 1et0een rich and poor. @&al citi/enship can 1e a foothold for resistinindivid&al retreat into selfishness, for 0innin the comforta1le over to p&1lic or privateefforts to assist the poor or to contri1&te, even at some individ&al cost, to comm&nity

enterprises.

S&ch national loyalty may 1e even more important today, in the face of trends in many parts of the 0orld that seem likely to heihten ethnic divisions. 2ichael Inatieff, in hisimportant 1ook called 5lood and 5elonin, on the violent dissol&tion of O&oslavia,o1served that the only relia1le antidote to ethnic nationalism t&rns o&t to 1e civicnationalism, 1eca&se the only &arantee that ethnic ro&ps 0ill live side 1y side in peaceis shared loyalty to a state stron eno&h, fair eno&h, e@&ita1le eno&h, to commandtheir o1edience.L

I line &p decidedly 0ith Theodore 6oosevelt on the val&e of s&ch civic solidarity. Wesho&ld not demean or dismiss it. 5&t national alleiance can 1e en&ine 0itho&t 1einoneBdimensional. The proper analoy for d&al citi/enship is not 1iamy, 1&t rather the 1irth of a second child. A ood parent e7tends complete love and devotion to the infant,0itho&t diminishin at all the love and devotion felt to0ard the si1lin.

*iti/enship is a key 1&ildin 1lock in civic nationalism, intimately linked to solidarityand effective democratic enaement. ven in a 0orld that rihtly accepts d&al


18/22

nationality on a 0ider scale, 0e sho&ld, like 6oosevelt, foster the sense of reciprocalcommitment that national citi/enship rihtly represents.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vance v. Terrazas

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued /cto$er 3, 199

Decided Januar" 15, 19;

ull case nameCyrus Vance, Secretary of State v.

Laurence J. Terrazas

Citations444 U.S. (+( "more#

! S. *t. +4- %( D. d. (d 4%!

!rior histor"Terra/as v. ance, + F.(d "th

*ir. !$'#

Su$se0uent

histor"

Terra/as v. 2&skie, 4$4 F.S&pp.

!! "H.). Ill. !$'#- Terra/as v.

ai, %+3 F.(d ('+ "th *ir.

!$'!#

#olding

An American cannot have his U.S. citi/enship taken

a0ay aainst his 0ill. Intent to ive &p citi/enship

needs to 1e esta1lished 1y itself and cannot 1e

irre1&tta1ly pres&med merely 1eca&se a person did

somethin esta1lished 1y la0 as an action

a&tomatically ca&sin loss of citi/enship. o0ever,

*onress has po0er to decide that an intent to ive &p

citi/enship may 1e esta1lished 1y preponderance of

evidence.

Court mem$ershipChief Justice

Warren . 5&rer

Associate Justices

William 9. 5rennan, 9r. % Cotter Ste0art

5yron White % Th&rood 2arshall

arry 5lackm&n % De0is F. Co0ell, 9r.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reportshttps://supreme.justia.com/us/444/252/case.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_444https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Muskiehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Haighttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preponderance_of_evidencehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preponderance_of_evidencehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_E._Burgerhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Brennan,_Jr.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potter_Stewarthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potter_Stewarthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_Whitehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_Whitehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurgood_Marshallhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Blackmunhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_F._Powell,_Jr.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_F._Powell,_Jr.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reportshttps://supreme.justia.com/us/444/252/case.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_444https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Muskiehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Haighttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preponderance_of_evidencehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preponderance_of_evidencehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_E._Burgerhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Brennan,_Jr.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potter_Stewarthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_Whitehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurgood_Marshallhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Blackmunhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_F._Powell,_Jr.


19/22

William 6ehn@&ist % 9ohn C. Stevens

Case opinions

&a'orit"White, :oined 1y 5&rer,

5lackm&n, Co0ell, 6ehn@&ist

ConcurContents

• ! 5ackro&nd

• ( 8pinion o (.! )issents

• 3 S&1se@&ent developments

• 4 See also

• + 6eferences

• % 7ternal links

-ac*ground

Da&rence Terra/as 0as 1orn in the United States in !$4.


20/22

GUnited States citi/enship, as 0ell as any s&1mission, o1edience and loyalty to anyforein overnment, especially to that of the United States of America.G


21/22

this claim and held that *onress 0as 0ithin its rihts to specify a standard of preponderance of evidence "more likely than not# 0hen cases allein loss of USciti/enship 0ere involved.

Finally, the S&preme *o&rt ma:ority &pheld the validity of another aspect of the la0 as

enacted 1y *onress; that the overnment co&ld ass&me that a potentially e7patriatin acthad 1een performed vol&ntarily and that any claim that a person had acted &nder d&ress0as &p to the person involved to esta1lish 1y preponderance of evidence.

The S&preme *o&rt did not e7plicitly r&le on 0hether or not Terra/as had lost his USciti/enship- rather, it remanded the case 1ack to the oriinal trial co&rt "a Federal )istrict*o&rt in Illinois# for f&rther proceedins consistent 0ith the co&rt?s r&lin.

Altho&h the co&rt?s mem1ership 0as divided on the @&estion of 0hether aGpreponderance of evidenceG standard 0as s&fficient for esta1lishin someone?s intent toive &p their U.S. citi/enship, all nine :&des areed 0ith the key holdin in froyim v.

!usk that US citi/enship 0as safe&arded 1y the Fo&rteenth Amendment and co&ld not 1e taken a0ay 1y an act of *onress from a person 0itho&t consent.

Dissents

The fo&r :&stices 0ho disareed 0ith the ma:ority filed three separate dissentinopinions. All of the dissentin :&stices s&pported the froyim v. !usk principle thatretention of US citi/enship 0as a constit&tionally protected riht, and they all areed"contrary to the co&rt?s ma:ority# that Terra/as?s actions sho&ld not have led to the loss ofhis citi/enship.

9&stice Th&rood 2arshall re:ected the ma:ority?s decision that an intent to ive &pciti/enship co&ld 1e esta1lished merely 1y a preponderance of evidence. Ar&in thatGthe *o&rt?s cas&al dismissal of the importance of American citi/enship cannot 0ithstandscr&tiny,G


22/22

alleiance to 2e7ico= adds nothin to the e7istin forein citi/enship and, therefore,cannot affect his United States citi/enship.G

Date post:	05-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	bianca-viel-tombo-caligagan
View:	228 times
Download:	0 times

Kawakita vs Us

Documents