Miranda v. Clark, 12334.
Decision Date | 15 February 1950 |
Docket Number | No. 12334.,12334. |
Parties | MIRANDA v. CLARK, Attorney General et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Rosenberg & LaVetter, Tucson, Ariz., for appellant.
Frank E. Flynn, U. S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., Don Hummel, Asst. U. S. Atty., Tucson, Ariz., for appellee.
Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, BONE and ORR, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment in an action wherein appellant sought declaratory judgment against Tom C. Clark, Attorney General of the United States, Ugo Carusi, United States Commissioner of Immigration, and William I. Crane, Officer in charge of the Port of San Luis, Arizona. The judgment of the district court revoked a previous interim order of the court which had restrained the arrest and deportation of appellant, and declared that appellant was, by reason of forfeiture, no longer a citizen of the United States.
The case was disposed of below upon a formal statement of facts signed by the parties with the agreement that it should be the basis of the district court's decision. Omitting irrelevant matter the statement is as follows:
The parties are in agreement here that the question presented on this appeal is whether appellant, who was born in United States and when about five years of age was taken to Mexico (the country of his parents' origin) and who thus became subject to a dual nationality, can expatriate himself by voting (at the age of 20) in a primary local election in his then city of residence in Mexico.
The controlling provisions of law are Sections 801 and 803 of Title 8 U.S.C.A., these being part of the so-called Nationality Act of 1940. Section 801 provides that a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by: (e) "Voting in a political election in a foreign state * * *."
Section 803(b) provides: "No national under eighteen years of age can expatriate himself under subsections (b) to (g), inclusive, of section 801."
In our view, the statutory provisions above noted leave no doubt that Congress thereby removed, and intended to remove, the barrier to a voluntary expatriation by a national who is over the age of eighteen years. After arriving at that age a voluntary act of expatriation binds him, sec. 803(b). Any other construction of the language of the Act (as applied to the situation in the case at bar) would amount to an amendment of the Act by judicial interpretation and import into it obscurities which we believe would thwart a clearly expressed Congressional will.1
The provisions of law we have quoted do not result in the rights of citizenship being "destroyed by ambiguity" because that sort of vice is not present in these plain and simple provisions of the 1940 law. They bind the courts unless it can be said that they are clearly unconstitutional, a conclusion without rational foundation.
Appellant summarizes his argument as follows: "A person born in the United States and taken during his minority to the country of his parents' origin and who became subject to a dual nationality, does not lose his citizenship in the United...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hichino Uyeno v. Acheson
...age, the plaintiff, under the rules laid down by the Supreme Commander Allied Powers (SCAP), was permitted to vote. See, Miranda v. Clark, 9 Cir., 1950, 180 F.2d 257. And the ultimate question is: Did the plaintiff by this act expatriate II What is a "Foreign State"? To achieve expatriation......
-
Takehara v. Dulles
...which requires a reversal. Appellant voted in a Japanese political election held in 1947 after he was 21 years of age (see Miranda v. Clark, 9 Cir., 180 F. 2d 257) and from the record and the inferences which might legitimately be drawn from the testimony of appellant1 I am fully persuaded ......
-
Mitsugi Nishikawa v. Dulles
...136, 138; Gonzales v. Landon, 9 Cir., 215 F.2d 955, reversed on other grounds, 350 U.S. 920, 76 S.Ct. 210; as to § 401(e), Miranda v. Clark, 9 Cir., 180 F.2d 257. There is nothing in these previous holdings of this Court to indicate that the same result should not be reached as to § 401(c).......
-
Nieto v. McGrath, Civ. A. No. 532.
...or participating in an election or plebecite to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory; or * * *." Defendant cites Miranda v. Clark, 9 Cir., 180 F.2d 257, where the facts are strikingly similar to those alleged here, holding that the statute means what it says; and that it applies......