No. 499.
The Secretary of
War to the President.
Washington City , November 6, 1873.
Sir: In response to your request of August 6, addressing to me certain questions concerning the relations between the Government and persons who may claim its protection as citizens of the United States, I have the honor to reply as follows:
First question. The law-making power having declared that “the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” (15 Stat. Large, 223,) should the Executive refuse to give effect to an act of expatriation of a citizen of the United States?
Answer. In my opinion the Executive should not refuse.
Second question. May a formal renunciation of United States citizenship, and a volununtary submission to the sovereignty of another power be regarded otherwise than an act of expatriation?
Answer. In my opinion it may not.
Third question. Can an election of expatriation be shown or presumed by an acquisition of domicile in another country with an avowed purpose not to return?
Answer. It can.
Fourth question. Ought the Government to hold itself bound to extend its protection, and consequently exert its military and naval power for such protection in favor of persons who have left its territories, and who reside abroad, without an apparent intent to return to them, and who do not contribute to its support?
Answer. It ought not. Such a residence abroad, prolonged and accompanied by no avowed, known, or apparent intent to return, would constitute a prima-facie case of expatriation which would justify the Government in withholding its protection until explained away and overcome by counter satisfactory testimony.
Fifth question. What should constitute evidence of the absence of an intent to return in such cases?
Answer. The evidence indicating an absence of an intention to return may consist of a great number of particulars, which it would be difficult to enumerate. The question is purely one of fact, to be determined by testimony, and each case must be decided on its peculiar circumstances, since it is clear that Congress, in its declaration on the subject, neither required nor contemplated any special form or mode in which the right of expatriation, so broadly recognized by it, should be exercised. Long residence abroad, accompanied by an absence of business relations with and a failure to assert and exercise the political rights of citizenship in the country left, would naturally be among the most conclusive indicia of expatriation.
Sixth question. When a naturalized citizen of the United States returns to his native country, and resides there for a series of years, with no apparent purpose of returning, shall he be deemed to have expatriated himself where the case is not regulated by treaty?
Answer. This, like the former, is a question of fact, to be determined on the testimony. The naturalized citizen may expatriate himself, and thut lose his newly-acquired citizenship, in the same manner as the citizen born can do. Perhaps, in his case, a smaller measure of proof as to the animus of his continued residence in his native country would be required than might be deemed necessary in the case of the citizen born.
[Page 1211]Seventh question. Are the children born abroad of a person who has been a citizen of the United States, but who has become a subject or citizen of another power, or who has expatriated himself, citizens of the United States, and entitled to its protection?
Answer. This question is supposed to relate to children born abroad, and who are minors at the time their parent expatriates himself. Under such circumstances, his domicile being theirs, in contemplation of law, it is believed that they would necessarily share the change wrought in his status by expatriation. In our country minors become citizens through the act of their parents in bringing them here, and their resulting residence, and there seems to be no reason why they should not equally abide the effect of his action when it results in their expatriation.
Eighth question. Can a person who has formally renounced his allegiance to the United States, and assumed the obligations of a citizen or subject of another power, become again a citizen of the United States in any other way than in the manner provided by general laws?
Answer. He cannot. A citizen who expatriates himself becomes, it is thought, to all intents and purposes, an alien, and, like all other aliens or subjects of a foreign government, he can only become again a citizen of the United States by a compliance with our naturalization laws.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
Secretary of War.
To the President,
(Through the honorable the Secretary of State.)