Naturalization Act: Unconstitutional Violation Of Citizenship Rights?

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was the first law to define eligibility for citizenship by naturalization in the United States. The Act restricted citizenship to free white persons, which effectively excluded indentured servants, slaves, and most women. This act was the only US statute to use the term natural-born citizen, which is found in the US Constitution concerning the prerequisites for a person to serve as president or vice president. The question of whether the Act violated the Constitution is a complex one, as it depends on the interpretation of the Constitution's grant of power to Congress to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

Explore related products

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

On the Constitution of Violation of Discipline and the Punishment of Party Discipline(Chinese Edition)

$30.1

Violations of the Federal Constitution, in the "irrepressible conflict" between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery sentiments of the American people

$11.99

Lettre À M. de Villèle, Président Du Conseil Des Ministres, Sur La Violation Des Constitutions (French Edition)

$11.95

Universal Rights, Systemic Violations, and Cultural Relativism in Morocco

$26.68 $54.99

les discours constitutionnels sur la violation de la constitution sous la ve rép (141)

$93.16

Did the Act violate the 14th Amendment?

The Naturalization Act of 1790, which was enacted on March 26, 1790, was the first law to define eligibility for citizenship by naturalization and establish standards and procedures by which immigrants could become US citizens. The Act restricted citizenship to "any alien, being a free white person" who had been residing in the US for two years. This excluded indentured servants, slaves, and most women, and implied that black and Asian immigrants were not eligible for naturalization.

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to people born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, regardless of race, but it excluded untaxed "Indians" (Native Americans living on reservations). The Naturalization Act of 1870, enacted after the Fourteenth Amendment, extended "the naturalization laws" to "aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent." This act also revoked the citizenship of naturalized Chinese Americans.

While the Naturalization Act of 1790 did not explicitly violate the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified over half a century later, it did contradict the Amendment's spirit of racial equality by restricting naturalization to "free white persons." The Fourteenth Amendment aimed to grant citizenship regardless of race, while the 1790 Act limited it based on race.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was part of a series of early immigration laws that reflected the tension between the ideals of equality and freedom and the realities of race, gender, and politics in the young United States. The Act's racial restrictions on citizenship set a precedent for subsequent legislation and contributed to ongoing debates about immigration and citizenship rights in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

In conclusion, while the Naturalization Act of 1790 did not directly violate the Fourteenth Amendment, it contradicted the Amendment's spirit of racial equality and contributed to a complex and often contradictory history of naturalization and citizenship in the United States.

Did the Act violate the right to equality?

The Naturalization Act of 1790 set the criteria for naturalization as two years of residency, proof of good moral character, and an oath to support the Constitution. The Act limited access to U.S. citizenship to "free white persons", which in effect restricted citizenship to white immigrants, or people from Western Europe. The Act also granted citizenship to children born abroad to U.S. citizens, but only if the right of citizenship descended from the father, as a woman's loyalty was considered to be with her husband above her obligation to the state.

The Act was the only U.S. statute to use the term "natural-born citizen", which is found in the U.S. Constitution concerning the prerequisites for a person to serve as President or Vice President. The Act did not specifically preclude women from citizenship, but it did absorb the common law practice of coverture, which held that a married woman's physical body and any rights to her person or property were controlled by her husband. Jurisprudence on domestic relations held that infants, enslaved people, and women should be excluded from participation in public life and conducting business because they lacked discernment, the right to free will and property, and there was a perceived need to prevent moral depravity and conflicts of loyalty.

The Act's limitation of citizenship to "free white persons" and its absorption of the common law practice of coverture into the U.S. legal system can be seen as a violation of the right to equality. The tension between the ideals of equality and freedom and the realities of race, gender, and politics in the history of naturalization laws in the U.S. has set the stage for debates about immigration and immigration laws in the twentieth century.

However, it is important to consider the historical context in which the Act was passed. Upon declaring independence from Great Britain, the leaders of the new republic aspired to create a distinct American nationality and minimize the risk of another monarchy. The 1787 Constitution did not define what was meant by a "natural-born citizen" and said very little about immigration. The only distinction it made between "natural-born" and naturalized citizens was that the latter were to be ineligible for the presidency.

Did the Act violate the right to freedom?

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was the first law to define eligibility for citizenship by naturalization and establish standards and procedures for immigrants to become US citizens. The Act restricted naturalization to "free white persons", which in practice meant that only white male property owners could naturalize and acquire citizenship. This limitation raises questions about whether the Act violated the right to freedom, as it excluded certain groups based on race and gender.

The Act's use of the term "free white persons" implies that only individuals who were free and white were eligible for naturalization. This explicitly excluded enslaved people and people of colour from the path to citizenship, which can be seen as a violation of freedom and equality. The Act's impact on women's rights is also notable. While the Act did not specifically preclude women from citizenship, it absorbed the common law practice of coverture, which placed women under the control of their husbands and prioritized their loyalty to their husbands over their obligation to the state. This effectively excluded women from full participation in public life and conducting business, restricting their freedom and equal rights.

However, it is important to consider the historical context and intentions behind the Act. The leaders of the new republic aspired to create a distinct American nationality and minimize the risk of another monarchy. By requiring a period of residence and an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution, Congress emphasized that foreigners should spend sufficient time in the United States to appreciate American democracy. They viewed America as a school for equality and democracy, and the Act was an attempt to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

The Act's use of the term "natural-born citizen" is also significant. It is the only US statute to use this term, found in the US Constitution concerning the prerequisites for serving as president or vice president. The Act did not define "natural-born citizen" but made a distinction between natural-born and naturalized citizens, with the latter being ineligible for the presidency. This distinction suggests that the Act sought to protect the integrity of the American political system by ensuring that only individuals with a strong commitment to American values and principles could hold the highest offices.

In conclusion, while the Naturalization Act of 1790 excluded certain groups from citizenship based on race and gender, it is important to consider the historical context and intentions behind the Act. The Act sought to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and protect the American political system. However, the exclusion of enslaved people, people of colour, and the effective exclusion of women from full participation in public life can be seen as a violation of freedom and equality. The tension between the ideals of equality and freedom and the realities of race, gender, and politics in the early United States set the stage for ongoing debates about immigration and citizenship rights.

Explore related products

Constitution to Crisis

$3 $15

Paul Kruger and the Transvaal Judiciary: His Violations of the Constitution, and His Destruction of the Independence of the High Court of the Transvaal

$13.95

The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Broken State, Collapse of Law, Human Rights Violations, Veil of Injustice and Constitutional Smokescreens—A Case ... against a Postcolonial Dictatorship

$3.99 $24.99

Relevance of Sedition Laws in the Post Colonial Era: IS IT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19(A) OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION?: Volume 1, Issue 4 of Brillopedia

$9.99

D’un dernier mandat présidentiel plus long que prévu vers une passation du pouvoir en RD Congo :: Un parcours de violation et du respect de la constitution (French Edition)

$44

From a longer than expected final presidential term to a transfer of power in DR Congo:: A course of violation and respect of the constitution

$48

Did the Act violate the right to property?

The Naturalization Act of 1790, also known as the Nationality Act, set the first uniform rules for granting US citizenship by naturalization. The Act restricted citizenship to "free white persons" who had been residing in the US for two years, thus excluding black and Asian immigrants from naturalization. While the Act did not explicitly mention the citizenship status of non-white persons born on American soil, it implied that they were not eligible for naturalization.

The Act's requirement of "free white persons" left out indentured servants, slaves, and most women. Courts interpreted whiteness as being associated with Christianity, thereby excluding Muslim immigrants from citizenship until the Ex Parte Mohriez decision in 1944. The Act also produced the legal category of "aliens ineligible for citizenship," which predominantly affected Asian immigrants and restricted their rights as non-citizens in areas such as property ownership, representation in courts, public employment, and voting.

The Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1868, granted citizenship to people born within the United States, regardless of race, but excluded untaxed "Indians" (Native Americans living on reservations). The Naturalization Act of 1870 extended citizenship rights to "aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent" while revoking the citizenship of naturalized Chinese Americans. However, racial barriers to naturalization persisted for Asians, and it wasn't until further changes in the 20th century that eligibility for citizenship was expanded to include "descendants of races indigenous to the Western Hemisphere," "Filipino persons or persons of Filipino descent," "Chinese persons or persons of Chinese descent," and "persons of races indigenous to India."

In conclusion, while the Naturalization Act of 1790 did not directly address the right to property, it set in motion a series of legal categories and racial requirements that had significant implications for property ownership and other civil rights for different racial and social groups. The Act's exclusionary criteria, such as "free white persons," contributed to a history of racial and gender-based discrimination in naturalization and citizenship laws, which were gradually addressed through subsequent amendments and legal challenges.

Did the Act violate the right to due process?

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was the first law to define eligibility for citizenship by naturalization and establish standards and procedures by which immigrants could become US citizens. The Act restricted citizenship to "any alien, being a free white person" who had been in the US for two years. In effect, it left out indentured servants, slaves, and most women. This implied that black and, later, Asian immigrants were not eligible to be naturalized, but it said nothing about the citizenship status of non-white persons born on American soil.

The Act was based on the Plantation Act of 1740, passed by the British Parliament, which was titled "An Act for Naturalizing such foreign Protestants and others therein mentioned, as are settled or shall settle in any of His Majesty's Colonies in America". The US Congress was authorized to pass such an act under the Constitution, which grants Congress the power "to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (Article I, section 8, clause 4).

The Act was amended in 1795, which extended the residence requirement to five years and required a three-year notice of application. The 1795 Act also removed the term "natural-born citizen". The 1798 Act further extended the residence requirement to 14 years and the notice period to five years. This Act was passed under the guise of protecting national security, but most historians believe it was intended to decrease the number of citizens who disagreed with the Federalist Party.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 did not specifically preclude women from citizenship, but courts absorbed the common-law practice of coverture into the US legal system. Under this practice, the physical body of a married woman, and thus any rights to her person or property, was controlled by her husband. A woman's loyalty to her husband was considered above her obligation to the state. Jurisprudence on domestic relations held that infants, enslaved people, and women should be excluded from participation in public life and conducting business because they lacked discernment, the right to free will and property, and there was a need to prevent moral depravity and conflicts of loyalty. By the end of the 19th century, a woman's nationality depended entirely on her marital status.

While the Naturalization Act of 1790 did not violate the Constitution, it certainly violated the right to due process for many groups, including black and Asian immigrants, indentured servants, slaves, and most women. The Act's two-year residency requirement and the later amendments extending the residency requirement further restricted the rights of these groups to become citizens. The Act's focus on free white persons and the absorption of the common-law practice of coverture into the legal system also violated the right to due process for those who were not considered "free white persons".

The Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which is part of the Alien and Sedition Acts, also raises concerns about violations of constitutional rights in wartime and peacetime. The law allows the president to detain or deport the natives and citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing and based solely on their country of birth or citizenship. This has been invoked during major conflicts, such as the War of 1812 and World Wars I and II, and has been used to target German, Austro-Hungarian, Japanese, and Italian immigrants. While this law was enacted to prevent foreign espionage and sabotage in wartime, it has been wielded against lawful, non-disloyal immigrants and raises serious concerns about equal protection and due process.

Frequently asked questions