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; . . .

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution provides Congress with the “power . . . To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . .throughout the United States.” 1 The Supreme Court has described naturalization as “the act of adopting a foreigner, and clothing him with the privileges of a native citizen.” 2 Pursuant to this authority, Congress may legislate terms and conditions by which a foreign-born national (alien) may become a U.S. citizen.3 Moreover, Congress’s power over naturalization is exclusive; states may not impose their own terms and conditions by which aliens may become U.S. citizens.4 Based on this broad power, Congress has enacted a series of laws governing the naturalization of aliens in the United States since the end of the eighteenth century.5 These naturalization laws have generally applied to three main categories of aliens: (1) those who have resided in the United States for certain periods of time and applied for naturalization; (2) those born abroad to U.S. citizen parents; and (3) those who derived citizenship after their parents naturalized in the United States.6

Congress’s power under the Naturalization Clause is not limited to conferring citizenship. The Supreme Court has recognized the power as also giving Congress the ability to revoke citizenship improperly obtained through fraud or other unlawful means.7 Additionally, the Court has recognized that Congress has the power to expatriate an individual who, through some voluntary act, has relinquished his or her U.S. citizenship.8

In addition to conferring Congress with power to determine when foreign nationals may obtain U.S. citizenship, the Naturalization Clause is sometimes viewed as contributing to Congress’s power over immigration, including its power to set rules for when aliens may enter or remain in the United States.9

Congress’s implied power over immigration is explained in the discussion of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution).10

Footnotes

1

U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4.

2

Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135, 162 (1892); see also Osborn v. President of Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 827 (1824) (a naturalized citizen “becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the [C]onstitution, on the footing of a native” ), superseded by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1349.

3

See Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964) (noting that the rights of a naturalized citizen derive from the requirements set by Congress); Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm., 334 U.S. 410, 419 (1948) ( “The Federal Government has broad constitutional powers in determining what aliens shall be admitted to the United States, the period they may remain, regulation of their conduct before naturalization, and the terms and conditions of their naturalization.” ). See also Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417 (1857) (recognizing that the naturalization power strictly applies to “persons born in a foreign country, under a foreign government” ), superseded by constitutional amendment, U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

4

See Takahashi, 334 U.S. at 419 ( “Under the Constitution the states are granted no such powers; they can neither add to nor take from the conditions lawfully imposed by Congress upon admission, naturalization and residence of aliens in the United States or the several states.” ); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 701 (1898) ( “The power, granted to [C]ongress by the [C]onstitution, ‘to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,’ was long ago adjudged by this court to be vested exclusively in [C]ongress.” ); Chirac v. Lessee of Chirac, 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 259, 269 (1817) ( “That the power of naturalization is exclusively in [C]ongress does not seem to be, and certainly ought not to be, controverted” ).

5

See e.g., Naturalization Act of 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, 103–04 (repealed 1795) (providing that “free white person[s]” who resided in the United States for at least two years could be granted citizenship if they showed good moral character and swore allegiance to the Constitution); Naturalization Act of 1795, ch. 20, § 1, 1 Stat. 414, 414 (repealed 1802) (requiring a declaration of intent to become a citizen at least three years in advance of naturalization, and extending the minimum residence requirement to five years); Naturalization Law of 1802, ch. 28, 2 Stat. 153 (requiring applicants to maintain five years of residence in the United States, and to submit a declaration of intent to become citizens at least three years in advance of naturalization); Naturalization Act of 1855, ch. 71, 10 Stat. 604 (extending citizenship to foreign-born children of U.S. citizens and wives of U.S. citizens); Naturalization Act of 1870, ch. 254, § 7, 16 Stat. 254, 256 (extending citizenship to “aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent” ); Naturalization Act of 1906, ch. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (providing for “a uniform rule for the naturalization of aliens throughout the United States” ); Cable Act, ch. 411, § 2, 42 Stat. 1021, 1022 (1922) (requiring women married to U.S. citizens to fulfill naturalization requirements independently); Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, § 334, 66 Stat. 163, 254–55 (setting forth comprehensive requirements for naturalization of aliens).

6

Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 672. See also Constitutionality of Legis. to Confer Citizenship Upon Albert Einstein, 1 Op. O.L.C. 417 (1934) (describing different ways in which Congress has conferred citizenship).

7

See e.g., Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490, 506 (1981); Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, 672 (1946); Johannessen v. United States, 225 U.S. 227, 241 (1912).

8

See e.g., Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252, 261, 270 (1980); Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 262, 267–68 (1967).

9

For example, in Arizona v. United States, the Court declared that the Federal Government’s “broad, undoubted power” over immigration was partially based “on the national government’s constitutional power to ‘establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,’ and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.” 567 U.S. 387, 394–95 (2012) (quoting U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4); but see id. at 422 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) ( “I accept [immigration regulation] as a valid exercise of federal power—not because of the Naturalization Clause (it has no necessary connection to citizenship) but because it is an inherent attribute of sovereignty no less for the United States than for the States.” ). Similarly, in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, the Court observed that “[t]he power of Congress to exclude, admit, or deport aliens flows from sovereignty itself and from the power ‘To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.’” 342 U.S. 580, 599 (1952) (quoting U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4); see also INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 940 (1983) ( “The plenary authority of Congress over aliens under Art. I, § 8, cl. 4 is not open to question” ); Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1, 10 (1982) ( “Federal authority to regulate the status of aliens derives from various sources, including the Federal Government’s power '[t]o establish [a] uniform Rule of Naturalization’ . . . .” ) (quoting U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4); Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 79–80 (1976) ( “In the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.” ). Apart from the Naturalization Clause, the Supreme Court has cited Congress’s foreign commerce power as a basis for its immigration power. See Toll, 458 U.S. at 10 (observing that Congress’s immigration power also derives from “its power '[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,’ and its broad authority over foreign affairs” ) (citing U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3); United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 290 (1904) (recognizing that an immigration statute was based in part “on the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, which includes the entrance of ships, the importation of goods, and the bringing of persons into the ports of the United States” ); Edye v. Robertson, 112 U.S. 580, 600 (1884) ( “It is enough to say that, Congress having the power to pass a law regulating immigration as a part of the commerce of this country with foreign nations, we see nothing in the statute by which it has here exercised that power forbidden by any other part of the Constitution.” ).

10

See ArtI.S8.C18.8.1 Overview of Congress’s Immigration Powers.