In re Para

269 F. 643, 1919 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 641
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMay 3, 1919
DocketNo. 452
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 269 F. 643 (In re Para) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Para, 269 F. 643, 1919 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 641 (S.D.N.Y. 1919).

Opinion

AUGUSTUS N. HAND, District Judge.

The petitioner in the first proceeding is a South American Indian, and in the second proceeding a Japanese. Each petition is filed under the seventh subdivision of section 4 of the Act of June 29, 1906, as amended by the Act of Congress approved May 9, 1918 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 4352). The petitioners claim that, by reason of service in the naval forces of the United States during the present war, they are eligible for citizenship, notwithstanding that the first is of the American Indian race and the second of the Mongolian race. The government contends that naturalization is under any circumstances restricted to free white persons, persons of African descent, and native-born Filipinos and Porto Ricans. Heretofore persons eligible for naturalization have not included Indians, Malays, or Mongolians. In re Camille (C. C.) 6 Fed. 256; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 13 Sup. Ct. 1016, 37 L. Ed. 905; In re Alverto (D. C.) 198 Fed. 688; Bessho v. United States, 178 Fed. 245, 101 C. C. A. 605; In re Buntaro Kumagai (D. C.) 163 Fed. 922; In re Knight (D. C.) 171 Fed. 299.

Section 2169, United States Revised Statutes (U. S. Compiled Statutes, § 4358), provides that:

“The provisions of this title shall apply to aliens being free white persons, and to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent.”

Section 14 of the Act of May 6, 1882 (U. S. Compiled Statutes, § 4359), provides that:

“Hereafter no state court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship; and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.”

[644]*644Section 4 of the Act of June 29, 1906 (being section 4352 of the. U. S. Compiled Statutes), provides:

“An alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following manner and not otherwise.”

United States Revised Statutes, § 2166 (U. S. Compiled Statutes, § 4355), provides:

"Any alien, of the age of twenty-one years and upward, who has enlisted, or may enlist, in the armies of the United States, either the regular or the volunteer forces, and has been, or may be hereafter, honorably discharged, shall be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, upon his petition, without any previous declaration of his intention to become such, * * * ” ■

The last section was construed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Bessho v. United States, 178 Fed. 245, 101 C. C. A. 605, as limited by the provisions of section 2169 of the United States Revised Statutes, which admits to the privilege of naturalization only free white persons and persons of African nativity or descent; that is to say, the words “any alien,” in section 2166 of the Revised Statutes, supra, were held to mean-any alien of the restricted class, and not to include a* subject of the Mikado of Japan, who in that case was applying to be naturalized. See, to the same effect, In re Buntaro Kumagai, supra; In re Knight, supra.

Subdivision 7, section 4, of the act of June 29, 1906, as amended by Act of May 9, 1918, provides that:

“Any native-born Filipino of the age of twenty-one years and upward who has declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States and who has enlisted or may hereafter enlist in the United States Navy 'or Marine Corps or the Naval Auxiliary Service, and who, after service of not less than three years, may be honorably discharged therefrom, or who may receive an ordinary discharge with recommendation for reenlistment; or any alien, or any Porto Rican not a citizen of the United States, of the age of twenty-one years and upward, who has enlisted or entered or may hereafter enlist in or enter the armies of the United States, either the regular or the volunteer forces, or the National Army, the National Guard or Naval Militia of any state, territory, or the District of Columbia, or the state militia in federal service, or in the United States Navy or Marine Corps, or in the United States Coast Guard, or who has served for three years on board of any vessel of the United States government, or for three years on board of merchant or fishing vessels of the United States of more than twenty tons burden, and while still in the service on a re-enlistment or reappointment, or within six months after an honorable discharge or separation therefrom, or while on furlough to the Army Reserve or Regular Army Reserve after honorable service, may, on presentation of the required declaration of intention petition for naturalization without proof of the required five years’ residence within the United States if upon examination by the representative of the Bureau of Naturalization, in accordance with the requirements of this subdivision it is shown that such residence cannot be established; any alien serving in the military or naval service of the United States during the time this country is engaged in the present war may file his petition for naturalization without making the preliminary declaration Of intention and without proof of the required five years’ residence within the United States; any alien declarant who has served in the United States Army or Navy, or the Philippine Constabulary, and has been honorably discharged therefrom, and has been accepted for service in either the military or naval service of the United States on the condition that he becomes a citizen of the United States, may file his petition for naturalization upon [645]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Toyota v. United States
268 U.S. 402 (Supreme Court, 1925)
Ichizo Sato v. Hall
217 P. 520 (California Supreme Court, 1923)
United States v. Toyota
290 F. 971 (D. Massachusetts, 1923)
Terrace v. Thompson
274 F. 841 (W.D. Washington, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
269 F. 643, 1919 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-para-nysd-1919.