CITIZENSHIP-EXPATRIATION-DISTINCTION BETWEEN NATURALIZED AND NATURAL BORN CITIZENS

Authors

Gordon I. Ginsberg S.Ed., University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Plaintiff's father, a native of Germany, was naturalized in the United States in 1896. In 1901, he returned to Germany with his American wife, and plaintiff was born in that country in 1905. Plaintiff made occasional visits to the United States, but was at all times domiciled in Germany. He served in the German army during World War II. In 1947, upon refusal of his application for a passport as a citizen of the United States, he came to this country on a temporary visa and brought a declaratory judgment action for adjudication that he was a citizen. The trial court refused to believe his testimony that he did not take the oath of allegiance to Germany and concluded that he expatriated himself when he took such an oath. On appeal, held, affirmed. (1) The refusal of the trial court to believe plaintiff's testimony was justified. (2) As plaintiff's citizenship at birth was by virtue of the Act of 1855, he was a naturalized citizen, and therefore subject to the expatriation provision for naturalized citizens in the Act of 1907. He has failed to overcome the presumption of cessation of citizenship that arises thereunder from prolonged residence in a foreign country. Zimmer v. Acheson, (10th Cir. 1951) 191 F. (2d) 209.

Recommended Citation

Gordon I. Ginsberg S.Ed., CITIZENSHIP-EXPATRIATION-DISTINCTION BETWEEN NATURALIZED AND NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, 50 Mich. L. Rev. 926 (1952).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol50/iss6/8