Clarification, err was correct
Okumaya devam et...
← Previous revision | Revision as of 12:49, 2 May 2024 |
| Line 35: | Line 35: |
| In its opinion, the Court firstly promulgated its belief that an application for citizenship within a marriage is sort of a simultaneous process, and thus the husband and wife are both subject to the same regulations and restrictions as prescribed by naturalization law. The entirety of this case was based off the [[Naturalization Act of 1906]] and its provisions. The specific provision in question is as follows:<blockquote>"Section 2. Not less than two years nor more than seven years after he has made such declaration of intention, he shall make and file, in duplicate, a petition in writing... | In its opinion, the Court firstly promulgated its belief that an application for citizenship within a marriage is sort of a simultaneous process, and thus the husband and wife are both subject to the same regulations and restrictions as prescribed by naturalization law. The entirety of this case was based off the [[Naturalization Act of 1906]] and its provisions. The specific provision in question is as follows:<blockquote>"Section 2. Not less than two years nor more than seven years after he has made such declaration of intention, he shall make and file, in duplicate, a petition in writing... |
| Section 6. When any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States dies before he is actually naturalized, the widow and minor children of such alien may, by complying with the other provisions of this Act, be naturalized without making any declaration of intention."<ref name=":0" /></blockquote>The court goes on to recognize the very specific requirements of the act, stating a widow may "obtain naturalization without her personal declaration of intention, [although] she must comply with all other prerequisites." The Court seemingly wished to {{Clarify|text=air on the caution||reason=perhaps what was meant was "err on the side of caution"|date=May 2024}} when dealing with naturalization law, stating,<blockquote>"Citizenship is a high privilege, and when doubts exist concerning a grant of it, generally, at least, they should be resolved in favor of the United States and against the claimant."</blockquote> | Section 6. When any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States dies before he is actually naturalized, the widow and minor children of such alien may, by complying with the other provisions of this Act, be naturalized without making any declaration of intention."<ref name=":0" /></blockquote>The court goes on to recognize the very specific requirements of the act, stating a widow may "obtain naturalization without her personal declaration of intention, [although] she must comply with all other prerequisites." The Court seemingly wished to err on the side of caution when dealing with naturalization law, stating,<blockquote>"Citizenship is a high privilege, and when doubts exist concerning a grant of it, generally, at least, they should be resolved in favor of the United States and against the claimant."</blockquote> |
| ==== Dissent ==== | ==== Dissent ==== |
Okumaya devam et...