duty. The United States recognizes the dual nationality of such children and would find it difficult to maintain a claim for their exemption from military service; indeed, the Department has stated that it may not properly be called upon to intervene in their behalf against the country in which they reside.1 The right to American protection is in such cases considered as suspended during the minority and foreign residence of the child, but it may be revived upon the attainment of the child's majority, by his carrying out an election to return to the United States. The question of election will be examined presently. The matter of protection abroad in cases of dual allegiance depends very largely upon the law of the foreign country in which the question arises, and upon the naturalization treaties which it may have concluded. Thus, in the case of countries which deny either absolutely or conditionally the right of voluntary expatriation, the American-born child of a native of such country, whether the father was naturalized or not in the United States, is subject upon his visit to such country to the obligations which native allegiance may impose upon him. 2

In countries with which the United States has concluded naturalization treaties, conflicting claims to the allegiance of sons of naturalized citizens have occasionally occurred. By the laws of the United States the minor children of naturalized citizens, upon taking up permanent residence in the United States, become citizens thereof by virtue of the parent's naturalization.3 The question has arisen whether by return of the father to the native country for a sufficiently long time to involve a renunciation of his American citizenship, his minor children follow his status. Notwithstanding the general rule that an infant child partakes of the nationality of his father, the United States has

1 Mr. Bayard, Sec'y of State, to Mr. Liebermann, July 9, 1886, Moore's Dig. III, 542; Liebmann's case, 1885; Blancafort's case, 1885; Steinkauler's case, 15 Op. Atty. Gen. 15. The ruling of the Dept. of State in Pinto's case, in which the Americanborn son of Costa Rican parents, taken back to Costa Rica when three years old, was considered apparently as an American citizen only, and not subject to dual allegiance, is exceptional. The misconception is discussed by Mr. Moore in his Digest, III, 535. 2 Gendrot's case in France, For. Rel., 1888, I, 495-499; 1899, 269-271, Moore's Dig. III, 537-539; Dubuc's case in France, For. Rel., 1910, 514–516; Reinhard's case in Switzerland, 1914.

3 Act of March 2, 1907, § 5, 34 Stat. L. 1229.

considered that the father is legally unable to deprive the child of his natural allegiance and that the child's title to American protection is merely suspended during his minority and residence abroad until, upon reaching majority, he made a definite election of nationality.1

§ 258. Foreign-born American Citizens.

According to § 1993 of the Revised Statutes "all children. . . born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."

When such foreign-born children of American citizens are born in a country by whose laws they become its subjects jure soli, a case of dual nationality also arises. While passports may be and are frequently issued to such foreign-born minors,3 their efficacy is qualified by the fact, unreservedly admitted, that it is not competent for the United States by its municipal legislation to interfere with the rights, obligations and duties which may attach to them under the laws of the country in which they were born and in which they continue to reside. In third countries no such limitation would apply.

1 See Pierrepont, Atty. Gen., in Steinkauler's case, 15 Op. 15 and criticism by Morse, op. cit., 104; Grimm's case, 1882. In Great Britain a more logical rule is followed. The minor child follows the status of the father, and with him, would cease to be a British subject. Within a year after attaining his majority, he may, however, make a declaration that he wishes to resume British nationality. See the recent Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, § 12 (2).

When the American-born child taken abroad at an early age returns to the United States during minority and remains here, the U. S. will resist any claim to his allegiance by the country of his father, where he resided during a part of his minority. Boisselier's case, Moore's Dig. III, 544; Revermann's case, ibid. III, 536.

* Moore's Dig. III, §§ 426-427; Wharton, § 185; Van Dyne, Citizenship, 34 et seq. There is no uniform practice in the matter. See, however, Mr. Seward, Act'g Sec'y of State, to Mr. Foster, July 2, 1879, For. Rel., 1879, 815. Such minors may also be registered in American consulates. Mr. Rockhill to Mr. Williams, March 16, 1896, Van Dyne, 43.

Hoar, Atty. Gen., June 12, 1869, 13 Op. Atty. Gen. 89, 91; Mr. Bayard, Sec'y of State, to Mr. Vignaud, July 2, 1886, For. Rel., 1886, 303; Report of Sec'y Fish to the President, Aug. 25, 1873, For. Rel., 1873, II, 1191; Mr. Olney, Sec'y of State, to Mr. Strobel, June 4, 1896, For. Rel., 1896, 35, Moore's Dig. III, § 427; Van Dyne,

The question is frequently presented whether the foreign-born minor child of a naturalized citizen is entitled to American protection. If born prior to the naturalization of the father and never resident in this country, the child of course never became a citizen of this country. If born after the naturalization of the father, it becomes first necessary to determine whether the father had expatriated himself, at the time of the child's birth. If so, the child is born an alien, and is not entitled to American protection. As already observed, if the father renounced or forfeited his American citizenship subsequent to the birth of the child and acquired a new nationality, this has been held to operate not as a renunciation, but merely as a suspension of the child's right to American protection against a conflicting claim of the country of residence, notwithstanding the general rule that the minor child follows the status of the father. A passport may be issued to such a child until he attains majority, and becomes competent to elect his nationality.2 The American citizenship of such a minor may, however, be divested by his continued residence abroad after reaching the age of majority. So that, while protected as a minor, he must, in order to conserve his American citizenship and right to protection, manifest his election to assume the rights and duties of American citizenship, for upon reaching majority his citizenship is no longer derivative, but is a matter of personal election. When, therefore, the foreign-born child of an American citizen or the American-born child of foreign parents continues to reside abroad after reaching the age of majority, his right to American protection depends upon his having op. cit., 35; Cons. Reg., 1896, § 138. The English law appears to be the same. Appendix to Report of Naturalization Board Commissioners, 1869, 60, 67; Cockburn, Nationality, 108–110; For. Rel., 1873, II, 1326. See also Lavigne, No. 11, and Bister, No. 20 (U. S.) v. Spain, Feb. 12, 1871, Moore's Arb. 2454.

1 Sec'y Fish to the President, Aug. 25, 1873, For. Rel., 1873, II, 1191. See two instructions of Sec'y Frelinghuysen, 1883 and 1884 in Moore's Dig. III, 528, For. Rel., 1885, 396; Rosenheim's case, 1896, Sec'y Olney to Mr. Uhl, For. Rel., 1896, 215-220; Mr. Hay, Sec'y of State, to Mr. Tower, May 31, 1904, For. Rel., 1904, 314; Williams, Atty. Gen., in 14 Op. 295 (1873).

2 Mr. Adee, Act'g Sec'y of State, to Mr. Combs, Sept. 15, 1903, For. Rel., 1903, 595; Same to Mr. Beaupré, Aug. 30, 1904, For. Rel., 1904, 36. See also Mr. Seward to Mr. Foster, Aug. 13, 1879, For. Rel., 1879, 824, and Hine's case, For. Rel., 1901, 421. The same rule would apply to the foreign-born sons of native citizens, who become expatriated after the birth of the child. For. Rel., 1893, 401-404.

elected American citizenship in accordance with the law of the United States.

§ 259. Right of Election.

The municipal law of many countries gives to the native-born child of foreign parents, affected with a dual nationality, a right of election of nationality upon reaching majority or within a reasonable time thereafter. Such, for example, is the law of France, Spain, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Mexico, Chile and Costa Rica.1 This principle, which is generally recognized in international law even in the absence of express provision of municipal law, is based upon the fact that when a person becomes sui juris he cannot logically retain two nationalities, and he is required to elect between them in order that he may be bound exclusively by the one or the other. This election may be manifested in various ways. In some countries, e. g., Portugal, Italy and France, silence operates as an election of domestic nationality; in other countries, as in Spain, it is construed as an election of the foreign nationality of the parents. While there is no express provision in the law of the United States giving election of citizenship to the child born here of alien parents, it has always been held by the Department of State that if such a child is taken during minority to the country of his parents, he must, upon arriving at majority or shortly thereafter, make his election between the citizenship which is his by birth and the citizenship which is his by parentage. In case such a person should elect American citizenship he must, unless in extraordinary circumstances, in order to render his election effective, manifest

3

1 Brazilian Minister to Mr. Blaine, Sec'y of State, and Sec'y Blaine to Brazilian Minister, Dec. 2, 1890 (not sent). See also Van Dyne, op. cit., 25. For Chile, see the opinion of the Court of Appeals at Santiago printed in For. Rel., 1907, I, 124. For Portugal, see For. Rel., 1910, 834. See Appendix to Report of Citizenship Board, 1906.

2 See the cases in American courts collected by the Citizenship Board, H. Doc. 326, 59th Cong., 2nd sess., 74-76. The new German law of nationality of July 22, 1913 makes it expressly possible for an adult to possess two nationalities, supra, p. 576. A similar possibility is maintained by the Italian law of June 13, 1912, art. 7.

De Bourry's case, 2 Wharton, 401; Steinkauler's case, 15 Op. Atty. Gen. 15; Surmann's case, Mr. Olney, Sec'y of State, to Mr. Reichenau, Nov. 20, 1896, For. Rel., 1897, 182; Van Dyne, 24-31.

and carry out in good faith an intention to return with all convenient speed to the United States and assume the duties of citizenship.1

With respect to the foreign-born child of American citizens, the United States has adhered to the generally recognized principle of international law to the effect that the child upon reaching full age must elect one nationality, and repudiate the other, his election being final. This election is required to be made within a "reasonable time" after reaching majority.3 On different occasions this government has declined to extend its protection to persons who had reached the age of twenty-four, and twenty-six,5 and had failed to elect United States citizenship. While the United States requires the foreign-born citizen upon majority to expressly manifest his election of American citizenship, the foreign-born child of Italian parents, a citizen of the country of his birth, retains his Italian nationality unless he expressly renounces it on attaining majority."

The United States has held that the foreign-born child of an American citizen was not competent to make an election of his nationality during minority, and that his right to claim United States citizenship upon reaching majority could not be taken from him. It was this view of the status of such a child, it seems, which led to the enactment of that provision of the Act of March 2, 1907, which requires foreignborn American children who continue to reside outside the United States, in order to receive the protection of this government, to record at an American Consulate "upon reaching the age of eighteen," their

1 Sec'y Bayard in For. Rel., 1886, 12 and 303 and For. Rel., 1887, 1131; For. Rel., 1888, I, 489 and 510.

2 Wharton, Conflict of laws, § 10; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N. Y. 356; Mr. Bayard, Sec'y of State, to Mr. Pendleton, April 27, 1886, For. Rel., 1886, 327; Van Dyne, op. cit., 38. For decisions of municipal courts, see H. Doc. 326, 59th Cong., 2nd sess., 74 et seq., 79–80; also Count Wall's case, 3 Knapp P. C. Rep. 13 and Jephson v. Riera, ibid. 130.

3 Sec'y Bayard in For. Rel., 1886, 327; Sec'y Frelinghuysen in Klingenmeyer's case, For. Rel., 1885, 398.

For. Rel., 1886, 12; ibid. 1887, 965–967.

5 For. Rel., 1903, 595.

• Art. 7 of the Italian law of June 13, 1912, Parl. Pap., Cd. 6526, Misc. No. 1 (1913),

p. 2.

'For. Rel., 1879, 815 and 825; ibid. 1901, 421 (Hine's case); For. Rel., 1886, 317, 327 and Van Dyne, 47 (George's case).