governs the descent of land and the law of the owner's domicil the distribution of the personal estate.

The exclusive power to make treaties with foreign nations is vested in the President of the United States by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Treaties so made become the supreme law of the land and cannot be defeated or limited in their operation by any act of the legislature of a state. If there is a conflict between the provisions of the treaty and a state statute the treaty prevails.

43

Aliens are subject to the municipal law of the country into which they go, and are subject to prosecution and punishment by the courts of the country for crimes committed within their jurisdiction. An alien's right to remain in the territory of a foreign government is wholly dependent on the will of that government, and may be terminated at any time by it.""

46

44

While warring nations formerly claimed the right and exercised the power to confiscate the property of aliens within their possession, modern international law does not recognize this as a right. Alien property may be seized and held and dealings between citizens and aliens may be suspended during the war. The right of an alien to sue in the courts of the enemy country is suspended during war." The property seized may be used by the government and the right to compensation adjusted either with the private owner or with the government of his country when peace is reestablished. The belligerent has the power to confiscate the property of the enemy and of its citizens in its possession, but the Hague conventions deny the right to confiscate private property and undoubtedly express modern sentiment on the subject.

The subject of the status of aliens in the United States was 43 De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 258. Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S. 483. Japanese Immigration Cases 189, U. S. 86. In re Parrott 6 Saw. 349. 44 Barrington v. Missouri, 205 U. S. 483. In re Burbidge (Eng.), 1 Ch. 426.

45 In re Wang Tuck 11 Hawaii 600. Fok Young Yo v. U. S. 185 U. S. 296. Schwartz v. Adams, 228 U. S. 592.

4o 40 Cyc. 320. Trading with the Enemy act Oct. 6, 1917.

47 Dorr v. Gibboney, 7 Fed. Cases 4006,

very fully considered and discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark. He was born at San Francisco of Chinese parents who were subjects. of the Emperor of China, but domiciled residents of San Francisco. He made a temporary visit to China and on his return applied to the collector of customs for permission to land, which was refused on the ground that he was not a citizen of the United States. The opinion contains an extended review of the authorities bearing on the question presented in the case. Quoted from the opinion in the English case of Udny v. Udny is the following: "The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions; one, by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another, by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status," and from the language of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn: "By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foriegn ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them) or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality." It is further said in the opinion: "But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, 'citizens, true and native-born citizens, are 49 Udny v. Udny (1869) L. R. 1 H. L. Sec. 441.

50 Cockburn on Nationality 7.

those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France,' and 'mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil'; and 'children born in a foreign country, of a French father who had not established his domicil there nor given up the intention of returning,' were also deemed Frenchmen, as Laurent says, by 'a favor, a sort of fiction' and Calvo, 'by a sort of fiction of exterritoriality, considered as born in France, and therefore invested with French nationality."51

"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke, in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, 'strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject,' and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.'

"Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are 51 Pothier Traite des Personnes, pt. 1, tit. 2, sect. I, nos. 43, 45.

permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. . .

"Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."52

From this opinion and the authorities cited in it it appears that the alien owes a double allegiance, to the country of his birth and that of his domicil, and that he is entitled to the protection of both until he renounces one or the other. His allegiance to his native country is of a political character. He is not personally subject to its jurisdiction and will not be delivered up by the country of his domicil on the demand of that of his birth except for an extraditable offense committed in that country. Political offenses do not afford grounds for extradition. If his sovereign calls the alien home for military duty, he is legally bound to go, but will not be forced to do so by the country of his adoption. He may renounce his allegiance if he sees fit to do so, but whatever property he has in the country of his birth is subject to its laws, and if he returns to it he subjects himself to its jurisdiction for any disobedience of its laws while in foreign countries.

53

Nowhere else are the principles above declared of so much importance as in the United States, the citizenship of which is so largely made up of alien born people and their descendants born in this country. Though in the early years of the republic there was some controversy with European powers over questions of expatriation and naturalization, it now has satisfactory treaties with most of the nations removing the grounds of controversy. The exclusion of Asiatic laborers has caused complaints from China and Japan, but amicable adjustments of the limitations of their rights to migrate to this country have thus far been accomplished by treaties. Race prejudices and antipathies are hard to overcome. There is

52 United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649.

53 Stat. 33 and 34 Vict. c. 52, § 3. In re Munier 2 Q. B. 415. In re Ezeta, 62 Fed. 972.

little of these left in the United States as to the Europeans, of the blood of all nations of whom we now have so many citizens, but with the Asiatics there is as yet very little intermixture. With rapidly increasing acquaintance friendly feeling grows, but it is hardly to be expected that Orientals will be soon regarded with the same feeling as the Europeans with whom we are allied by blood.