Article I, Section 8, Clause 4:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; . . .

While Congress, by the early nineteenth century, had established the general framework for a foreign subject who came to the United States to acquire citizenship, the expansion of the United States into new areas prompted the Federal Government, through statute or treaty, to provide for collective naturalization of the inhabitants of those newly acquired territories.1 The United States’ acquisition of the Louisiana territory and Florida in the early 1800s raised the question of whether the Federal Government could collectively naturalize designated groups of persons through statute or treaty.2

In American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, an 1828 case involving a challenge to the legality of admiralty proceedings in a Florida territorial court, the Supreme Court recognized the collective naturalization of Florida inhabitants under an 1819 treaty between the United States and Spain that ceded the territory of Florida to the United States.3 The Court explained that “the ceded territory becomes a part of the nation to which it is annexed,” and that, upon such transfer, the inhabitants of the territory sever ties with their former country and establish a political allegiance with the government that has acquired their territory.4 The Court declared that “[t]his treaty is the law of the land, and admits the inhabitants of Florida to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities, of the citizens of the United States.” 5

The notion of collective naturalization through federal statute or treaty continued to play a role throughout the nineteenth century, particularly as the United States engaged in its westward expansion. For example, in 1845, Congress passed a resolution admitting the Republic of Texas into the union “on an equal footing with the original States,” 6 and all the citizens of the former republic became citizens of the United States.7 In 1848, the United States signed a treaty with Mexico that officially ended the Mexican-American War, and, under that treaty, Mexican nationals who remained in the territory ceded to the United States (e.g., modern-day Arizona, New Mexico, and California) could become citizens of the United States.8 Additionally, in 1900, Congress established the territory of Hawai’i and conferred citizenship on its residents.9

Through legislation, Congress also provided for the collective naturalization of specific groups of people who were present in the United States or its territories. For instance, in 1887, Congress passed the Dawes Act, which authorized the President to allot tribal land to individual American Indians, and conferred citizenship on American Indians who accepted individual land grants.10 A few decades later, in 1924, Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act, which declared that all American Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States were U.S. citizens.11 Additionally, in 1917, Congress passed the Jones Act, which provided that all citizens of Puerto Rico, which had become a United States territory in 1898, would become U.S. citizens.12

In short, naturalization is not strictly limited to conferring citizenship on individual foreign nationals. Congress also has the power to grant citizenship collectively to designated groups of persons through legislation, such as the naturalization of all residents of an acquired territory or state, or through a treaty provision.13

Footnotes

1

For example, a 1794 treaty with Great Britain provided that British subjects who remained in the United States and did not declare their intention to remain British subjects were deemed to be U.S. citizens. Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation, Between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, by their President, with the Advice and Consent of their Senate, Gr. Brit.-U.S., art. 2, Nov. 19, 1794, 8 Stat. 116. Under the 1803 Treaty of Paris, the United States acquired the Louisiana territory from France, and the treaty provided that “[t]he inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States.” Treaty Between the United States of America and the French Republic, Fr.-U.S., art. 3, Apr. 30, 1803, 8 Stat. 200. An 1819 treaty with Spain that allowed the United States to acquire Florida similarly stated that the inhabitants of Florida were to be “admitted to the enjoyment of all the privileges, rights, and immunities, of the citizens of the United States.” Treaty of Amity, Settlement, and Limits, Between the United States of America and his Catholic Majesty, Spain-U.S., art. 6, Feb. 22, 1819, 8 Stat. 252.

2

See Am. Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. 511, 525 (1828) ( “In what relation then do, the inhabitants of an acquired territory, stand to the United States? Are they citizens, or subjects? This is a grave question, and merits the serious consideration of the Court.” ).

3

Id. at 542.

4

Id.

5

Id.; see also Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135, 162 (1892) ( “Congress, in the exercise of the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, has enacted general laws under which individuals may be naturalized, but the instances of collective naturalization, by treaty or by statute, are numerous.” ). Additionally, during the War of 1812 and shortly after the admission of Louisiana into the Union, a federal district court considered whether individuals who were born in Great Britain and had resided in the territory of Orleans when it became the state of Louisiana could be detained as “alien enemies” or whether they were instead citizens of the United States. United States v. Laverty, 26 F. Cas. (3 Mart.) 875, 875–76 (D. La. 1812) (No. 15,569a). The U.S. Government argued that the only way to become a U.S. citizen was by fulfilling the uniform requirements for naturalization as Congress provided. Id. at 875–77 ( “It is contended by the attorney of the United States that congress alone have power to pass laws on the subject of the naturalization of foreigners, and that, by the constitution, if is declared that the rule for their admission must be uniform.” ). The court disagreed, ruling that all “bona fide inhabitants” of the territory of Orleans became U.S. citizens upon the admission of Louisiana as a state. Id. at 877. The court reasoned that, although Congress has the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization for individuals seeking citizenship, Congress’s power to admit new states into the union enabled the government “to admit at once great bodies of men, or new states, into the federal Union.” Id. at 876–77. See also Desbois’ Case, 2 Mart. (La.) 185 (1812) (holding that French national who had resided in the territory of Orleans since 1806 could be considered a U.S. citizen upon the admission of Louisiana into the union); U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 1 ( “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union . . . .” ); U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 ( “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States . . . .” ).

6

J. Res. 1, 29th Cong., 9 Stat. 108 (1845).

7

Boyd, 143 U.S. at 169; see also Contzen v. United States, 179 U.S. 191, 193 (1900) ( “It is not disputed that citizenship may spring from collective naturalization by treaty or statute, nor that by the annexation of Texas and its admission into the Union all the citizens of the former Republic became, without any express declaration, citizens of the United States.” ).

8

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mex.-U.S., art. 8, Feb. 2, 1848, 9 Stat. 922; see Boyd, 143 U.S at 162 ( “Manifestly the nationality of the inhabitants of territory acquired by conquest or cession becomes that of the government under whose dominion they pass, subject to the right of election on their part to retain their former nationality by removal, or otherwise, as may be provided.” ).

9

Hawaiian Organic Act, ch. 339, § 4, 31 Stat. 141, 141 (1900).

10

Dawes Act of 1887, ch. 119, § 6, 24 Stat. 388, 390.

11

Indian Citizenship Act, ch. 233, 43 Stat. 253 (1924).

12

Jones Act, ch. 145, § 5, 39 Stat. 951, 953 (1917).

13

Boyd, 143 U.S. at 170; Contzen v. United States, 179 U.S. 191, 193 (1900); U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 1 ( “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union . . . .” ); U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 ( “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States . . . .” ). See also Boyd, 143 U.S. at 170 ( “Congress having the power to deal with the people of the territories in view of the future states to be formed from them, there can be no doubt that in the admission of a state a collective naturalization may be effected in accordance with the intention of congress and the people applying for admission.” ).