« PreviousContinue »
which the diverse laws and practices in regard to naturalization have given rise.
The municipal laws of some of the local states of the United States admit to all political privileges of the local state those who have taken the first steps toward naturalization. It is generally conceded that such as have exercised the privileges of full citizens can properly be held to the obligations of full citizens, as was declared in the above proclamation.
The inconsistencies in regard to jurisdiction over those naturalized or incompletely naturalized are gradually yielding to treaty provisions which distinctly determine the position of such persons.
$ 60. Jurisdiction over Aliens Citizens of one state, when sojourning in a foreign state, have a dual relationship by which they may claim certain privileges, both from their native state and from the foreign state.
(a) The native state naturally has jurisdiction of a qualified sort over its subjects even when they are in a foreign state.
(1) The right to make emigration laws may lead to restrictions binding in a foreign state. A state may banish its subjects. No other state is obliged to receive them, however.
(2) A state may recall its citizens for special reasons, as in the case of Greece in 1897, when Greek citizens were recalled for military service.
(3) There is much difference of opinion upon
the question of penal jurisdiction of the native state over its subjects who have committed crimes in a foreign state. In general American and English authorities agree that penal law is territorial. Some of the continental authorities take the view that a citizen on his return may be punished for crimes committed in a foreign state. The English law takes this position in certain crimes, as treason, bigamy, and premeditated murder. Usually a crime committed upon a vessel in a foreign harbor is held as within the jurisdiction of the state of the vessel's registry.
(4) A state may interfere to protect its subjects in a foreign state, thus extending its authority in their behalf. This has been frequently done to protect Western sojourners in Eastern states, e.g. the demands of Germany, in 1898, for concessions from China on account of injuries to missionaries. These demands, accompanied by a naval demonstration, resulted in the cession of
Kaio-Chau. (6) The jurisdiction of a state over aliens within its territory is very extensive.
(1) The absolute right of exclusion of all foreigners would hardly be maintained by any civilized state, though it could be deduced from the doctrine of sovereignty. Whether justly or not, Japan and China have been compelled by force to cede certain rights to states demanding admission for their citizens.
(2) The right of expulsion is, however, generally maintained. This right should, however, be exercised most carefully, as the fact of admission carries with it some obligation on the part of the admitting state.
(3) The right to conditional admission is generally allowed, as seen in laws in regard to immigration.
(4) The foreign state may impose such restrictions upon settlement as it sees fit.
(5) A foreign state may levy such taxes upon the person and goods of aliens as are in accord with state law.
(6) Aliens are subject to the local sanitary and police jurisdiction.
(7) The foreign state has penal jurisdiction over aliens for crimes committed within territorial limits, and many states maintain, also, for such crimes as plotting against the state, counterfeiting state money, or crimes directly imperiling the state's well-being even when committed outside of state limits.
(8) The state may require aliens to render service such as is necessary to maintain public order, even military service, to ward off immediate and sudden danger, e.g. as an attack by sayages, a mob, etc., but
(9) A state cannot compel aliens to enter its military service for the securing of political ends, or for the general ends of war.
(10) In nearly all states freedom of commerce is now conceded, the state giving to native and foreigner similar privileges. China still restricts trade to certain free ports.
(11) The holding and bequeathing of property of whatever sort is subject to local law.
(12) Freedom of speech and of worship are also subject to local law. All these laws are subject to the exemptions in favor of sovereigns, diplomatic agents, etc.
(c) Ordinarily the identity of an alien is established by a passport. This may also secure for him a measure of care in a foreign state. Below is the form of passport.
Good only for two years from date.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
To all to whom these presents shall come, Greeting :
America, hereby request all whom
it may concern to permit
a Citizen of the United States, Eyes ..........
... safely Nose .......
and freely to pass, and in case of Mouth.....
need to give......all lawful Aid Chin ......
and Protection. Hai Complexion............
Given under my hand and the Face..........................
Seal of the Department of State,
at the City of Washington, the (SEAL)
......day of....... in the year
19.., and of the Independence of (Signature of the Bearer) the United States the one hun.
dred and............ ....................
$ 61. Exemptions from Jurisdiction — General
As a general principle, the sovereignty of a state within its boundaries is complete and exclusive. For various reasons there has grown up the custom of granting immunity from local jurisdiction to certain persons generally representing the public authority of a friendly state. This immunity may extend to those persons and things under their control.
This immunity has been called exterritoriality. The persons and things thus exempt from local jurisdiction are regarded as carrying with them the territorial status of their native state, or as being for purposes of jurisdiction within their own state territory, and beyond that of the state in which they are geographically. Wherever they may go they carry with them the territory and jurisdiction of their home state. Doubtless this doctrine of exterritoriality in the extreme form may be carried too far, as many late writers contend, and some have desired another term, as immunity from jurisdiction, as more exact and correct.1 Such a term would have the merit of directing attention to the nature of the relation which the persons concerned sustained to the state. Hall sums up the case by saying, “ If exterritoriality is taken, not merely as a rough way of describing the effect of certain immunities, but as a principle of law, it becomes, or at any rate is ready to become, an independent source of legal rule, displacing the principle of the exclusiveness of territorial sovereignty within the range of its possible operation in all
1 Bonfils, 337.