In re Rallos
Decision Date | 23 April 1917 |
Parties | In re RALLOS. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Louis J. Castellano, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for petitioner.
Melville J. France, U.S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N.Y.
The applicant for citizenship has resided in the United States for more than two years and within the Philippine Islands for more than the five years specified in section 3 of the Naturalization Law. He appears to have been a Spanish subject (or else a native inhabitant of the Philippine Islands) at the time of the Treaty of Paris, inasmuch as his father was a Spaniard and his mother a Philippine. He is not, however, a 'white' person as the term is used in the Naturalization Law. In re Young (D.C.) 198 F. 715.
The case of In re Alverto (D.C.) 198 F. 688 sufficiently sets forth the statutes and treaty provisions and this court agrees with the holding in that case, that section 2169, R.S. (Comp. St. 1916, Sec. 4358), as well as section 14 of the act of May 6, 1882 (22 Stat. at Large, p. 61), limit the provisions of section 30 of the act of June 29, 1906. Section 30 in terms extended to 'all persons' in the Philippines and Porto Rico, and who became residents of a state of the United States, the right to declare their intention and to apply for citizenship, so far as the 'applicable provisions of the naturalization laws' give them the right to do so. The reason for this is that the Naturalization Law was a law in terms applying only to aliens, and the persons in question in section 30 were not aliens. Gonzales v. Williams, 192 U.S. 1 24 Sup.Ct. 177, 48 L.Ed. 317.
But the provisions defining those persons of all within any certain territory who may not become citizens, are certainly 'applicable,' in the sense that others cannot become citizens. A contrary interpretation would mean that Chinese, Japanese, and Malays could become citizens, if they were inhabitants of the Philippine Islands, so as to become citizens of the Philippines under the laws following the Spanish War, and if they thereafter moved to the United States.
The present applicant seeks to take advantage of the act of June 30 1914 (38 Stat. 392, 395, c. 130), in order to use his honorable discharge in the place of the declaration of intention, and there would seem to be no reason why that section, even though it in terms states that 'any alien' who has such discharge may apply, should not be also held 'applicable'...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
De Cano v. State, 28101.
... ... them eligible for United States naturalization: In re ... Mallari, D.C., 239 F. 416, and In re Bautista, ... D.C., 245 F. 765. The following cases held them ... ineligible: In re Alerto. D.C., 198 F. 688; In ... re Lampitoe, D.C., 232 F. 382; In re Rallos, ... D.C., 241 F. 686 ... In ... 1918, Congress amended § 4 of the act of June 29, 1906, by ... adding thereto a seventh subdivision, 40 Stat. 542, 8 ... U.S.C.A. § 388. This amendatory statute, with that portion ... thereof which has been added or ... ...
-
Hidemitsu Toyota v. United States
...see 27 Op. Attys. Gen. 12. They were held not eligible in Re Alverto (D. C.) 198 F. 688, in Re Lampitoe (D. C.) 232 F. 382, and in Re Rallos (D. C.) 241 F. 686. But we hold that until the passage of that act, Filipinos not being 'free white persons' or 'of African nativity' were not eligibl......
-
United States v. Gancy
...see 27 Op.Attys.Gen. 12. They were held not eligible in Re Alverto, D.C., 198 F. 688, and in Re Lampitoe, D.C., 232 F. 382, and in Re Rallos, D.C., 241 F. 686. But we hold that until the passage of that act, Filipinos not being `free white persons' or `of African nativity' were not eligible......
-
In re Fisher
...whose father was a white Canadian and his mother an Indian woman, is not a "white person," within the meaning of section 2169. In re Rallos (D. C.) 241 F. 686, it was held that one whose father was a Spaniard and his mother a Filipino is not entitled to naturalization. Also in Re Lampitoe (......
-
The Insular Cases Run Amok: Against Constitutional Exceptionalism in the Territories.
...239 F. 416 (D. Mass. 1916) (denying application of racial bars and petition for naturalization on other grounds), with In re Rallos, 241 F. 686 (D.N.Y. 1917) (applying racial bars). For a discussion of this history and its relationship to former President Trump's effort to restrict birthrig......