Historically, war has always been a severe test of political institutions developed primarily for peacetime uses and the long-range purposes of government. This was particularly true of World War II. The relations of civil government and the military, the functioning of representative government and electoral processes, the protection of the rights of individuals and minorities, the reciprocal relations of the individual and the state—all were subjected to the inexorable pressures imposed by the requirements of national survival in a global war. The purpose of this article is to show one effect of total war on the relations of the individual and the state by an examination of the character and security of citizenship in Latin America.
During World War II the twenty Latin American republics showed a profound disregard for the concept of nationality and citizenship as inalienable rights, proof against the assault of government. Nationality was casually revoked in the name of internal security and “political defense.” Nationals were transformed into enemy aliens or stateless persons by executive fiat, merely as one phase of a program of internal security. The native-born were somewhat safer from such assaults—but only somewhat—and naturalized citizens were not secure against it at all.
In the 1930’s many of the republics introduced into their nationality laws provisions depriving naturalized citizens of nationality for political activities and requiring political tests for naturalization. These served as forerunners for more extensive wartime measures by establishing the principle that nationality could be revoked in the name of internal security.
After the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939, while several Latin American countries took measures to deprive certain classes of native-born citizens of their nationality, the most severe measures were directed against naturalized citizens and those petitioning for citizenship. In many republics, naturalization procedures, not only for nationals from Axis countries but also for nationals from other states, were suspended for the duration of the war. Every republic annulled naturalization papers. Prewar laws and broadly interpreted nationality statutes provided one means of such annulment, although “emergency” measures and executive decrees were the basis for most of the governmental actions.
The motivation for such measures may have been fears, probably exaggerated, of the machinations of Axis sympathizers and the threats posed by fascist organizations. Impetus was undoubtedly given by the meetings of ministers of foreign affairs for consultation under the Inter-American Agreements of Buenos Aires and Lima. The first of these was held in Panama in late September, 1939, and the second in Havana in July, 1940. In addition to affirming hemispheric neutrality and pledging mutual efforts to preserve the peace, the delegates to both meetings recommended that all states counter “subversive ideologies.”1 The third meeting, held at Rio de Janeiro in late January, 1942, recommended, among other measures, vigorous action to counteract “the abuse of naturalization” and established the Inter-American Emergency Advisory Committee for Political Defense. This Committee, active throughout the war, advised all the republics on matters dealing with internal security. One of its recommendations, disseminated to the governments in November, 1942, was that requirements for naturalization be stiffened and that the nationality of native-born and naturalized citizens be annulled for pro-Axis activity.2
Pre-1939 denationalization.—In the 1930’s none of the constitutions or nationality laws of the twenty republics contained a provision for loss of nationality by the native-born for political beliefs or activity. The traditional grounds, common to almost all of the republics, for loss of nationality by native-born and naturalized citizens alike were: naturalization in a foreign state; service in the armed forces of a foreign state; accepting a post of responsibility or jurisdiction or acceptance of honors or titles from a foreign government without governmental approval.
In this period, however, Peru deprived many of its native-born citizens of their Peruvian nationality by executive action, despite a constitutional provision that “those born in the territory of the Republic are Peruvians.”3 This action, as well as a similar one taken in Peru in 1940 (see below), was directed against persons of Japanese ancestry.
A Supreme Decree, issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on June 26, 1936, limited and regulated immigration to Peru and instituted strict controls over aliens. Among other rules was one which held that aliens who had been resident in Peru but had left the country would not be allowed to return if the yearly quota of immigrants was filled, though they would be given preference.4 Proof of Peruvian citizenship was required of all those seeking to re-enter the country. Because of this, many native-born persons who had neglected to register their births, and many aliens who had neglected to register the births of their offspring, appeared before local judges requesting registration of birth and hence documentation of Peruvian nationality. Most of these were Japanese, since many young Peruvians of Japanese ancestry were sent to Japan for their education.
Although registration of births, according to the Civil Code of 1933, as well as of the previous Civil Code, had to be made within eight days after the birth occurred,5 the Code of Civil Procedure allowed for later registration by deposition. Even if a person were of age he could appear before a judge and petition for registration of his birth.6 This Code also provided that registrations and other legal transactions could be challenged by interested parties if such challenges were instituted within six months.7
Noting the increase in petitions for late registration after the issuance of the decree of June, 1936, President Benavides, although acknowledging the absence of legal barriers to such action, declared that the government “could not consent to the mockery of governmental orders by indirectly performing an irregular naturalization” (that is, through registration of Peruvian birth). On April 20, 1937, he summarily ordered the annulment of all late registrations of births to alien parents if the birth had occurred before June 26, 1936, and forbade the further registration of any births before that date. Registration of births of offspring of aliens which occurred after June 26, 1936, was and would be valid only if made within the statutory eight days. This decree, Law 8526,8 was issued by the president under a measure giving him the powers constitutionally granted to Congress to enact, interpret, and amend existing laws on nationality and other matters.
Pre-1939 denaturalization.—In the early 1930’s a number of the republics had provisions for the loss of naturalized citizenship. Absence from the state of adoption for a specified period was a common ground, as was residence in the state of origin. In no state were expressions of political belief or political activity, such as membership in political parties or organizations, grounds for denaturalization.
During the period from 1930 to the outbreak of the European war, however, seven states introduced measures which enabled them to revoke naturalized citizenship for certain political activities. These measures differed somewhat in their scope and specificity. In the laws of Argentina, the Dominican Republic, and Uruguay, the provisions were sweeping and general. In Argentina, and also Costa Rica, they were specifically related to the oath required of naturalized citizens. In Brazil and Chile, denaturalization was prescribed as a penalty for violation of decrees declared necessary to preserve internal security or the “political and social order.” In Bolivia the measure was specifically directed against communist and anarchist propaganda.
In Argentina, a regulatory decree issued in 1931 and pertaining to the basic Nationality Law No. 746 of 1869 provided that “when the person granted citizenship has committed acts which show him to be unworthy in his public character, imply a violation of the oath of loyalty sworn by him to the Republic, or impair the fair name of the Republic or its Government abroad,” the public procurators shall request of the appropriate judicial authority that the certificate of citizenship be annulled.9
The Dominican Republic enacted a law in 1936 covering the “conditional naturalization” of immigrants who entered the country to engage in agriculture under special agreements. Such agricultural settlers (colonos) could be granted provisional naturalization papers if they conducted themselves properly, devoted themselves to their agricultural labors, respected and obeyed the constitution and laws, abstained from illicit activities and from “any action prejudicial or hostile to the Government . . . or foreign governments.” Naturalization could be revoked if the individual were convicted of any crime or “when he fails to fulfill his obligations as an agricultural settler” (Art. 10). Naturalization would become definitive if the settler gave none of these grounds for annulment within five years after the date of naturalization (Art. 11).10
The Uruguayan Constitution of 1934 provided that among the grounds rendering an alien ineligible for “legal citizenship” (equivalent to naturalization in other states) was “participation in social or political organizations that tend, by means of violence, to destroy the fundamental bases of nationality.”11 Law 9604 of 1936 provided that persons holding legal citizenship who displayed behavior falling in this category were liable to expulsion from the national territory (Art. 5), and re-entrance to Uruguay was denied to holders of legal citizenship who fell within the scope of this provision (Art. 1 (A)).12
Costa Rica, in a decree of 1931, required that the alien petitioning for naturalization papers must state under oath that his purpose in seeking Costa Rican nationality was not to obtain entry into other countries as a Costa Rican nor “to avail himself of [it] for the dissemination of religious, political, or social propaganda prejudicial to public order” (Art. 4). If it were later ascertained that he had committed any acts of such a character, the executive might annul his papers (Art. 8).13
A decree issued by President Getúlio Vargas of Brazil in 1935 defined “crimes against the political and social order” and provided that tacitly or voluntarily naturalized persons14 who committed any of the defined “crimes” would suffer the loss of Brazilian nationality. Among them were incitement of social groups to mutual hatred (Art. 14), incitement to violent religious strife (Art. 15), promoting, organizing, or being affiliated with domestic or foreign associations whose activities were designed to overthrow or alter the political or social order (Art. 20), and “propaganda in favor of war or of violent measures” (Art. 22).15 The Brazilian Constitution of 1937 incorporated this general provision,16 and in 1938, a decree again provided for annulment of naturalization for such crimes and for the dissemination of propaganda with such a purpose.17
In Chile, a presidential decree of 1937 was of the same character. Various “crimes against the internal security of the State” were specified, including dissemination of doctrines “tending to destroy by violence the social order or the political and judicial organization of the nation” and membership in organizations with such aims, publicly insulting the name, flag, or shield of the nation, and calumniation of the president or high officials. Conviction led to denaturalization and expulsion of naturalized citizens.18
In 1938, Lt. Col. Germán Busch, president of the military junta ruling Bolivia, issued a decree prohibiting “all activity and dissemination, be it oral, written, or graphic, of Communist, Anarchist, or Bolshevist character and, in general, of social extremist character” (Art. 7). Naturalized Bolivians, if convicted of any of the activities specified, would lose their naturalization and would be expelled from the country. The measure was justified on the ground that “secret Communist organizations, formed, helped, and directed from abroad and sustained with foreign resources, make a constant propaganda of social subversion,” and as they renounce the concept of the nation and its institutions, they should not be considered legal political parties.19
Wartime measures against native-born citizens.—At no time after September, 1939, when Hitler invaded Poland, did the twenty republics act as vigorously to deprive native-born citizens of nationality as they did to deprive naturalized citizens of theirs.
Several states did, however, take such action after the outbreak of World War II. Costa Rica and Guatemala adopted provisions for the revocation of the nationality of any citizen who engaged in political activities that could be shown to have links with a foreign state. Mexico and Nicaragua classified as alien enemies persons who by virtue of constitutional and legal provisions were nationals by birth but who had not taken legal steps to record this status, in the same way that Peru had deprived many native-born of their status as nationals since the 1930’s. Several states utilized prewar statutes to denationalize individuals considered dangerous or suspect.
The first Latin American country to legalize denationalization of native-born citizens for political activity was Guatemala. Executive Decree No. 2391, of June 14, 1940, provided that both those naturalized Guatemalans “and those who have acquired Guatemalan nationality by other methods established by the laws” who did not abstain from “acts or statements implying political ties with the country of origin” (Art. 3) would lose their Guatemalan nationality and be deported.20
The native-born citizens affected were those who had “acquired Guatemalan nationality by other methods established by the laws.” This referred primarily to a section of Executive Decree 2153 of October 7, 1938, which, amending the Law of Aliens of 1936,21 held that “those born in Guatemala who by treaties follow the the foreign nationality of their parents, may be declared native Guatemalans according to Article 5 (1) of the Constitution, if they so request it and prove domicile in Guatemala.”22 A treaty between Germany and Guatemala contained such a provision. It stated that the legitimate offspring, born in Guatemala, of German parents were of German nationality if within one year after reaching their majority they complied with the German laws on military service; if they did not fulfill this requirement, they were citizens of Guatemala.23
The Costa Rican provision for the loss of nationality by native-born as well as naturalized citizens was novel in that a decision made by another state could be a determining factor. Law 79 of July 9, 1942, added a clause to the Law of Aliens and Naturalization of 1889, providing that “Costa Ricans who in any way manifest adherence to the political regime of countries at war with Costa Rica” would lose Costa Rican nationality.24 An executive decree of July 8, 1944, amended this to apply only to the offspring of parents of alien origin, but made no distinction between naturalized citizens and natives who had elected Costa Rican nationality.25 The decree of July 8, 1944, stated further that “the fact that a citizen has been included in the Proclaimed Lists of those countries allied with Costa Rica is an indication of culpability which shall be taken into account.”26
On the day of its issuance this decree was utilized to denationalize five citizens who, born in Costa Rica of German parents, had chosen Costa Rican nationality, one as early as 1931. Having “manifested loyalty to the nations with which Costa Rica is at war [they incurred] loss of Costa Rican nationality.” The decree justified this action on the following grounds:
As much in the interest of the national security, as by the obligation of the treaties made and the resolutions and the measures adopted in various Conferences and Inter-American Meetings and by the recommendations and by the organizations created for the political and military defense of the American continent, it is necessary that the republic cooperate in the common work of the protection of the political ends of the Allied Nations, in respect to the exclusion from the protection of its nationality of whosoever shows attitudes or undertakes activities adverse to said superior ends.27
Mexico and Nicaragua both classified as enemy aliens, individuals who, though possessed of their respective nationalities by birth, had not taken legal steps to confirm their status. In Mexico, this meant that they had failed to make a legal declaration of the facts which entitled them to citizenship, and, in Nicaragua, that they had not taken steps first specified in the decree depriving them of nationality but not required in any treaty.
Nicaragua, by Executive Decree No. 77 of February 17, 1942, after constitutional guarantees had been suspended and the president had been delegated legislative powers “to provide all that is conducive to the independence and security of the republic,”28 declared that
persons born in Nicaragua are to be considered as nationals of Germany, Italy and Japan under the general principles of international law or the terms of treaties in force prior to the existence of a state of war, if after coming of age according to Nicaraguan law they have not, in any way, tacitly or expressly, manifested a desire to adopt the nationality pertaining to them by birth, in accordance with the laws of Nicaragua.
“Acts tacitly manifesting” such a desire were specified: acceptance of public posts, registration on the electoral rolls, rendering of military service in Nicaragua in peace or war, or “any other act unquestionably demonstrating, in the opinion of the Nicaraguan government a desire to retain the nationality of origin. Such acts will lack validity if they took place after a state of war arose between Nicaragua and the countries in question.”29 A government committee was established to make decisions regarding nationality: decisions were final, and interested parties had only eight days in which to present evidence.30
This decree was an ex post facto declaration that certain acts not specified in the treaties with Germany (February 4, 1896) or Italy (September 20, 1917) that were in effect were necessary for securing Nicaraguan nationality. The treaty with Germany provided that the offspring of German nationals born in Nicaragua were Germans, but that sons must show, when of age, that “they are about to comply or have strictly complied with the laws of their country [i.e., Germany] regarding military service. In case they should not fulfill this condition within twelve months from the day of coming of age they may be considered as citizens of the country of their birth [i.e., Nicaragua].”31 The treaty with Italy provided that children born in Nicaragua to an Italian father were Italian subjects. They might, however, within the year of coming of age “elect the Nicaraguan or the Italian citizenship through a declaration made in person before the proper authority of the state whose citizenship they propose to renounce.”32
Mexico moved, on a procedural ground, to deny Mexican citizenship to persons who, though possessing this status on constitutional and legal grounds, had neglected to secure a certificate attesting to it. Issuance of such certificates was suspended for several classes of native-born and naturalized citizens (see below), and provision was made for annulment of certificates of persons who “committed acts contrary to national security.”
In the late 1930’s, the Mexican Office of Foreign Affairs issued a decree to the effect that all nationals of Mexico, unless they were native-born of Mexican parents (in which case a birth certificate sufficed) must secure a certificate of nationality (certificado de nacionalidad) in order to prove their nationality on demand. All persons not born of native parents in Mexico who had acquired Mexican nationality by meeting such legal requirements as making an explicit choice of Mexican nationality or proving residence before proper officials, were affected by this ruling.
On July 25, 1942, a decree was issued by President Manuel Ávila Camacho, based on the emergency law of June 1, 1942, which had suspended constitutional guarantees,33 and the Law of General Preparedness of June 11, 1942.34 This decree provided that “the issuance of certificates of Mexican nationality to persons of German, Bulgarian, Italian, Japanese, or Rumanian origin or to persons related to them by blood or marriage,” shall be suspended and that certificates already issued would be canceled if the person committed acts “contrary to national security.”35
The decree thus revoked the Mexican nationality of many persons from Axis states who had become Mexican nationals and of eight classes of persons related to them by blood or marriage. All such individuals who, though meeting legal requirements for Mexican nationality, had failed to register and secure a certificate “were left without being able to prove their nationality status, deprived of passports, immobilized and subject to the emergency laws.”36 They were, in short, regarded as enemy aliens.
Persons deprived of nationality had no recourse to law. The measures in the Regulations for Articles 47 and 48 of the Law on Nationality of 1934 that allowed for hearings and appeals for such cancellations were set aside by the decree until the constitutional guarantees, suspended by the emergency laws, were re-established.37
This decree was designed to enable the government to declare individuals to be enemy aliens, and hence subject to restrictions not applicable to citizens, though no constitutional or legal basis for such a declaration was in effect. As a publication of the Advisory Committee states,
In order to evade the constitutional limitation to the loss of nationality by natives, fulfilling practically the same goals . . . a procedure . . . has been followed in dealing with nationality acquired by option or marriage, based on requirements dealing with proof of nationality.38
The Preamble to the decree justified the measures on the grounds
That some nationals of the countries currently our enemies—or who must be assimilated to them—acquired fraudulently Mexican naturalization papers or have failed their solemn protest of adherence, obedience and submission to the laws and authorities of the Republic, in such a way that the Mexican nationality that they have only serves to cover their questionable activities and avoid the surveillance and treatment which they must receive as enemies of our country;
That the ordinary legislation establishes procedures for the cancellation of naturalization papers fraudulently acquired or misused but its laws are not adequate for the urgency of the present moment of emergency in which it is necessary to avoid or suppress rapidly an act which may be a threat to our security;
That, likewise, in the judicial situations of nationality originally doubtful or imprecise, such as those requiring some act of renunciation or protest which confirms and establishes the Mexican nationality, for example, the cases of option, recovery, nationality by matrimony, dual nationality, etc.,—certain persons have not requested their certificates of nationality, except when they tried to avoid the measures of prevention and surveillance decreed against the enemies of Mexico and previously never remembered their status as Mexicans nor took any step to obtain the corresponding certificates.
Five of the eight classes of persons who had their certificates suspended or liable to annulment because they were related to aliens by blood or marriage were legally Mexicans by birth. They comprised native-born Mexican women who had married aliens, now by virtue of the war enemy aliens, and persons born in Mexico of alien parents, now also enemy aliens.
The first of these—Mexican-born women married to foreigners who had not re-acquired their Mexican nationality subsequent to marriage39—were technically enemy aliens (but morally, being native-born, might be said not to be). The Law of Nationality of 1934 provided that women marrying aliens did not lose their Mexican nationality;40 children born to aliens before that date did lose it.41 The Law provided, however, that those who had lost their nationality could recover it if they applied within a year and established domicile in Mexico.42 A series of later decrees extended the period for meeting this requirement to January 20, 1939.43
Of the four other classes of Mexican-born persons affected by the decree, one consisted of persons born in Mexico of parents who retained their alien nationality (Article 3 (e)). “Article 1, Mexicans by birth are: I. Those born in the territory of the republic whatever may be the nationality of their parents.”44 The other classes comprised persons born in Mexico of alien parents: they had the legal right to elect the nationality of their parents, but if they did not do so, were regarded as Mexicans by birth (Article 3 (f,g,h)).45
Three years after an initial assault against native-born citizens of Japanese ancestry, Peru moved again to deprive them of their Peruvian nationality. A resolution of the ministry of foreign affairs of July 31, 1940, noted that
there are native-born Peruvians whose parents came from countries which recognize the jus sanguinis or the principle of dual nationality, and who left the Republic during their minority in order to settle in the native lands of their parents, or to receive their education there, or to comply with requirements imposed by laws on military matters or by other, analogous laws. . ..
Then it was decreed that
these circumstances automatically confer nationality upon said persons under the laws of the said countries, in consequence of which they lose Peruvian nationality under the terms of Article 7 (2) of the Constitution.46
The constitutional provision referred to held that Peruvian nationality was lost by voluntarily acquiring foreign nationality.47 The constitution also held that persons born in Peru are Peruvians.
This decree, according to a high Peruvian official, was
designed to counteract especially a maneuver of Japanese subjects who although born in Peru were sent to Japan when 12 or 13 years of age, in order to be exposed to the Japanese national spirit, serve in the Army, and complete the formation of their Japanese character; once having fulfilled these goals and claiming their birth in Peru they tried to return or utilize their nationality of birth for espionage or fifth columnist activities.48
A publication of the Inter-American Emergency Advisory Committee described the Peruvian action as “an important emergency measure,” designed “to prevent what probably could have become the most serious abuse of American nationality on the part of natives.”49 Peru, it should be noted, did not declare war on Germany and Japan until February 12, 1945, although it broke relations with the Axis powers on January 24, 1942.
A subsequent decree of January 23, 1942, noting that many persons affected by the measure of 1940 had not acquired any other nationality and that
according to the principles of private international law, the various states should strive to check the growth of the condition of statelessness, establishing a procedure whereby persons who have lost their respective nationalities may regain them, when circumstances justify recovery,
provided that such individuals could petition the ministry of foreign affairs to regain their Peruvian nationality. The ministry would consider the “reasons which caused the loss” and “the motives leading to the request for reinstatement.”50
Many states made use of new interpretations of prewar laws to deprive native-born citizens of their nationality. But, as a publication of the Advisory Committee reported, the republics, in applying these measures “have acted rather cautiously and conservatively, choosing to guarantee the ties uniting a person to his respective country by reason of birth and combating in other ways the abuses of nationality by natives.”51 The loss of nationality, ex lege, by the commission of specific acts, such as accepting a post with a foreign government, however, was utilized by several states whose laws contained such provisions, and
although [they are] mainly formulas adopted in epochs previous to the emergency without provision for the needs of that period and encompass very specific and special hypotheses . . . there has been a tendency to interpret them as broadly as possible.52
Seven states provided for loss of nationality by a national who served in time of war in the armed forces of an enemy or its allies. In three of these states, Chile, Honduras, and Panama, the provision “was in full application.”53 Haiti provided in its Law of 1907 that the status of nationality would be lost by “services of any kind given to enemies of the republic or by transactions made with them (Article 17 (4)) or by abandoning the fatherland at times of imminent danger (Art. 17 (2)).”54 “Since Haiti has declared war on the Axis powers both formulae have been applied.”55
Six states had prewar laws that revoked the nationality of any citizen who accepted a position with a foreign state without government approval. In Brazil, nationality could be lost by acceptance of a “paid commission or employment” with a foreign government without presidential approval,56 and this was officially interpreted by the Brazilian government to mean that it was
enough to accept a paid commission of an association answering to an alien government for the loss of nationality to occur. . .. In the totalitarian states the majority of organizations and entities, mainly those with political goals, since all or most of them have become instruments of governmental action or quasi-governmental organs of propaganda, would be included. So the Brazilian formula, interpreted in this broad manner, is extremely adequate.57
Wartime measures against naturalized citizens.—Drastic action was taken by all twenty republics against naturalized citizens as well as against those in the process of becoming naturalized. Cessation of the naturalization procedure was ordered in almost all the states for nationals from Axis countries, and, in a number of states, for nationals of other countries also. Many states denied petitions for naturalization to aliens who had met all the legal requirements. In all of the republics naturalization papers were annulled, most frequently by emergency measures in the name of internal security.
A. Cessation of naturalization procedures.—The granting of naturalization papers was sharply curtailed. All the American republics adopted emergency measures or put into effect special measures already in the laws in order to prevent the acquisition of nationality by Axis subjects.58
Some states instituted sweeping prohibitions: three prohibited all naturalizations and two banned the naturalization of nationals from “non-American” states. Two states prohibited the naturalization of specified classes of aliens as well as the naturalization of nationals from Axis states. Twelve of the republics confined the prohibition to Axis nationals: three of these allowed exceptions to the ban and accepted petitioners who met political tests of belief and behavior.
The three states banning all naturalization were Argentina, Chile, and Haiti, the first by presidential decree of August 27, 1943. This was five months before Argentina broke relations with Germany and Japan, and a year and a half before she declared war on them. She justified the decree on the grounds of fulfilling international commitments, maintaining neutrality, preserving internal order, and upholding the national tradition of nationality.59
Chile suspended all naturalization except for aliens married to Chileans or having Chilean offspring,60 by Decree 3521 of July 7,1941. The prohibition was cancelled on May 15, 1942,61 but re-invoked a year later against Axis nationals. (See below.) Haiti acted through administrative procedures without legislative or executive decree.62
The two states that prohibited the naturalization of nationals of non-American states were Nicaragua and Peru. Nicaragua declared war against the Axis immediately after Pearl Harbor, but not until October 1, 1943, did President Anastasio Somoza direct the minister of government to refrain from processing naturalization petitions presented by nationals of “non-American” (i.e., non-Western Hemisphere) countries.63
Peru, noting that it acted in response to Resolution XV of the Emergency Advisory Committee, and waiting a year and half after breaking relations with the Axis powers on January 24, 1942, prohibited the issuance of naturalization papers to subjects of nonAmerican states on November 8, 1942. Exceptions were allowed, “subject to the discretion of the government,” for single persons with ten years of continuous residence in Peru, and for husbands or widowers of native-born Peruvian women with Peruvian-born offspring, who had resided five years continuously in Peru.64
Two states, Cuba and Mexico, prohibited the naturalization both of Axis nationals and of certain other groups who were constitutionally eligible for citizenship.
Mexico prohibited the issuance of naturalization papers to nationals of Germany, Italy, and Japan by executive resolution on December 11, 1941,65 and extended the prohibition to nationals of Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania, on January 2, 1942.66 The prohibition applied to any person who had been a national of any of these six Axis states but had become a citizen of another country after January 1, 1939. The Mexican government assumed that
since the initiation of Germany’s acts of aggression any change of nationality was insincere or suspicious. . .. It was not forgotten that the most dangerous fifth columnists for the defense of Holland, Belgium, and France were those Germans who went to those countries, saying they were being persecuted by the Nazi regime and were abandoning their original nationality.67
In Decree of August 21, 1942, Cuba proclaimed that for the duration of the war the ministry of state would not accept petitions for citizenship certificates from natives of enemy states or of their allies “regardless of the reasons adduced.”68 Furthermore, only those aliens of another nationality who met the constitutional requirement of five years of continuous residence and who had a knowledge of Spanish could be naturalized.69 This barred aliens married to Cubans, who, by another constitutional provision, could be naturalized without a residence requirement if offspring resulted from the marriage, or if they had had two years of continuous Cuban residence after marriage and had renounced their nationality of origin.70 The preamble of the decree held that the restrictive measures were necessary for “fundamental reasons of vigilance and defense in behalf of the highest interests of the state.”
Nine months later exceptions were granted to the latter provision. Naturalizations were permitted but requirements were stiffer than the constitution called for. Decree 1468 of April 21, 1943, allowed the naturalization of Italian nationals who by marriage to Cubans came under the second constitutional provision (Art. 13 B), if they had lived within the national territory for five years prior to the declaration of war (December 9, 1941), and had married at least three years prior to the declaration (Art. II). In addition, certain conditions were stated to “give weight in evaluating the [national] ties formed by an alien in Cuba”; among these were the birth in Cuba of children resulting from the marriage, ownership of mercantile or industrial concerns prior to the war, and ownership of real property in Cuba. The minister of state was empowered to act on petitions “if he considers such action advisable” (Art. III).
Single Italian nationals or those married to natives of some other state could also be naturalized, but again they had to meet more severe conditions than specified in the constitution. The minister of state was authorized to issue papers if “he considered that the petitioner’s ties with Cuba have been evidenced by his residence within the national territory for a period of at least ten years, by his business interests, or by the nature of his activities and occupations.”
Finally, the offspring born in Italy of an Italian naturalized as a Cuban, who was a minor on the date of his father’s naturalization, could be naturalized. However, the minister of state would take into consideration “whether [he] had allowed a year to pass after coming of age, without registering his claim to Cuban citizenship; and, whether, if he did allow that interval to pass, he instituted the proceedings on the case at a date close to or after the declaration of war” (Art. VI).71
Twelve states suspended naturalization only for subjects of Axis nations and, in some cases, satellite or overrun nations. In four states this was effected by virtue of prewar statutes prohibiting issuance of naturalization papers to subjects of nations with which the state was at war. This measure was put into effect in Costa Rica, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras by their declarations of war against the Axis states in the days immediately following Pearl Harbor.72 Ecuador had such a law but declared war against Japan only and on February 2, 1945.73
In the eight other states naturalization was prohibited by executive decree, new wartime legislation, or administrative action.
Three of these states, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Panama, prohibited naturalization of all Axis subjects. Bolivia broke relations with the Axis powers on January 25, 1942. Immediately thereafter a Supreme Decree suspended the naturalization of citizens or subjects of Axis countries. The justification or the step was that
Bolivia has broken off relations with the Axis countries, and it has become absolutely necessary to take steps tending to ensure that this stand will not foment attacks, by alien or Bolivian subjects or citizens, against the democratic organization of the state, public order within the country, or the industrial and mining productivity of the republic.74
Immediately after severing diplomatic relations, Paraguay, in accord with the Advisory Committee recommendation, decreed that citizenship would be denied to persons who “in any manner continue to lend allegiance to or regard themselves as nationals of states parties to the Tripartite Paet or states subject thereto.”75 In Panama, after war was declared, “the government abstained from issuing naturalization papers to any native of any of the Axis countries or to natives of their satellites.”76
Five states prohibited the naturalization of Axis nationals but allowed exceptions. One state, Colombia, excepted specified classes of persons from the prohibition, while four states allowed individual exceptions if specified requirements or conditions were met. In three of these states, the requirements were political.
Colombia, through an administrative decision of the ministry of foreign affairs, on March 31, 1943,77 announced that government departments would not accept petitions for naturalization from German, Japanese, or Italian nationals except women married to native Colombians, and German or Italian subjects who had been “subjected to persecution by the German or Italian governments because of their race or political principles.” The requirements for naturalization set out in Law 22bis of 1936 had to be met.78 Petitions from persons native to the Free City of Danzig, Austria, Czechoslovakia, France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Greece, Poland, or Yugoslavia would be accepted if the petitioner had departed from these countries before or immediately after they were annexed or invaded by Germany or Italy and possessed a passport issued by the lawful government rather than a passport issued by the German or Italian occupation authorities. This also was permitted if he had lost the nationality of his origin through measures taken by occupation authorities or if he had been subjected to persecution on grounds of race, religion, or political opinions. Such individuals also had to meet the naturalization requirements of Law 22bis.
The three states in which an individual’s political beliefs or activities might exempt him from the prohibition against naturalization of Axis nationals were Uruguay, Chile, and Ecuador.
In Uruguay, the petitioner had to prove that he held specified political views. The Electoral Court (Corte Electoral)79 decreed on December 12, 1942, that “petitioners for legal citizenship in any of the countries with which Uruguay has broken off diplomatic relations (i.e., Hungary, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Germany) must furnish proof that they profess democratic ideas and consequently do not share the ideas sponsored by totalitarian regimes.”80 On March 1, 1945, after Uruguay’s declaration of war against Germany and Japan, the Court ordered the suspension of all applications for legal citizenship from German or Japanese nationals.81
In Chile and Ecuador, the petitioner might be granted his papers if he demonstrated that he did not possess specified political views or had not been engaged in specified political activities.
Chile decreed on January 28, 1943, a week after breaking relations with the Axis, that the granting of naturalization papers to subjects of Germany, Italy, and Japan should be suspended unless a petitioning alien from any of these states could give adequate reasons why he had failed to apply earlier for Chilean nationality, and could supply proof that he had not “carried on any activities inimical to the purposes in view when the decision was taken to suspend diplomatic and consular relations.”82 After Chile broke relations with Vichy France, Hungary, Rumania, and Bulgaria on May 18, 1943, a similar decree affecting nationals of these states was issued.83
In Ecuador a presidential decree of November 13, 1942, provided that naturalization would be withheld from subjects of Germany, Italy, or Japan who “participate in subversive activities or lend their support to ideas or systems prejudicial to the democratic order upheld by the Republic.”84
In Brazil, immediately after the declaration of war on August 22, 1942, naturalization of Axis nationals was suspended by administrative decision. The president, however, could grant naturalization papers in exceptional cases if he judged it to be in the national interest, but only after detailed inquiry into the life and activities of the petitioner.85
The Brazilian minister of justice and internal affairs stated:
Naturalization is an act of grace that the government should grant only to those who not only satisfy the special conditions defined by law, but more specially to those who show a serious interest in the acquisition of the new nationality and who in no way could become noxious elements to the security, order and prosperity of the country which adopts them. It is impossible to trust in the declaration of renunciation of original nationality made by aliens whose countries are at war with Brazil. When it does not hide unconfessable purposes, it is the result of transitory material interests and not a sincere desire to assume the duties of a Brazilian citizen.88
B. Denial of naturalization.—During the war many states utilized other features of their naturalization laws or procedures to deny naturalization to those aliens they considered dangerous or objectionable, despite the absence of specific constitutional or legal bars.
One of these was the use of the power or right claimed by many governments to deny naturalization papers to a petitioning alien on grounds of national interest or governmental convenience, even if he had fulfilled the legal requirements. That a government had this right was demonstrated in the nationality laws and constitutions of many of the republics in the decade before the war, or was affirmed by the courts in passing on naturalization, or had become implicit in administrative practice. At the beginning of the war, eleven states specifically reserved this right to their government in their nationality laws: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile (where the president had to specify the reasons for rejection), Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela.87 Panama gave the government this power in its constitution;88 in Argentina, the government’s right to exercise the power had been upheld by competent courts;89 in Cuba, the right was assumed in practice, although it was not mentioned in the laws or the constitution.90 In Honduras, El Salvador, and Uruguay, the petitioning alien could not be denied his papers if he met the specified legal requirements.91 The laws of Haiti, Nicaragua, and Paraguay were silent on the matter.
This power was widely used during the war. As a publication of the Advisory Committee stated:
In some American states it was not necessary to adopt a special measure prohibiting or restricting the naturalization of dangerous aliens or suppressing the liberties granted by the various constitutional or legal systems, for the authorities exercising this power could deny naturalization to the applicants, whose naturalization was considered inconvenient from the points of view of political defense.92
Another practice existed by which aliens who were considered undesirable were denied naturalization in states that had no political requirements in their naturalization laws or had not adopted emergency measures; they interpreted the “good conduct” required of the petitioning alien during his residence in the state as meaning adherence to pro-democratic or anti-Axis ideology. The requirement that the petitioning alien prove his “good conduct” or “good moral and civil behavior,” as in Brazil, or “good living and habits,” as in the Dominican Republic, or “good character,” as in El Salvador, was universal in the republics’ naturalization laws.
The interpretation of good conduct as adherence to specific political ideals was explicit in Uruguay. A circular of the Electoral Court issued on December 12, 1942 (almost a year after breaking relations with the Axis but long before the declaration of war on February 22, 1945), stated that the Court had ruled that
petitioners for legal citizenship who were bom in any of the countries with which Uruguay has broken off diplomatic relations (i.e., Hungary, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Germany) must furnish proof that they profess democratic ideas and consequently do not share the ideas sponsored by totalitarian regimes. A declaration to this effect made by two persons of unquestionably democratic sympathies or a certification given by two citizens well known to be supporters of democracy will be admissible as proof.93
The political requirements for naturalization adopted by many of the republics in the 1930’s specified that an individual either adopt a particular ideology, reject one, or give evidence of adherence to the system of government prevailing in the adopting state. These states, as a publication of the Advisory Committee declared, “have special formulae for determining the conditions of access to nationality for ideological reasons. In the other [states] the authorities have recourse to other means to gain the same end.” The “requisite of good conduct” was one of these, and was widely used. Although the [Advisory] Committee did not possess information about this it would not be impossible that this requirement of good conduct, interpreted broadly as in the case of Uruguay, has been the basis for taking into account the ideological tendencies of all petitioners before nationality is granted.94
C. Annulment of naturalization.—In all of the American states measures for the deprivation of nationality obtained through naturalization were adopted as security goals, sometimes in special laws issued during the present emergency, sometimes in strict application of existing rules. It became customary to consider naturalization as a “gracia” or honor, which was revocable when its recipients gave evidence that they were unworthy of it.95
Every Latin American state deprived some of its naturalized citizens of their nationality during the war years. Some used prewar measures that made political activity of one sort or another the basis for such deprivation. Others relied on the concept of fraud, holding that subsequent behavior proved that the renunciation of former nationality or the oath of allegiance had been fraudulent. Still others, without applicable legislation providing for denaturalization, passed special or emergency measures to effect it.
A common provision of wartime laws relating to naturalization was one directing the government ministries or police to investigate the behavior of naturalized aliens, from both enemy or friendly nations, to discover if they had committed any acts rendering them liable to denaturalization.96
1) Use of prewar measures.—The constitutions and prewar laws of many Latin American countries made certain forms of political activity grounds for denaturalization. The wide application of such statutes against naturalized citizens in the war years is made evident by a discussion of these measures in a publication of the Advisory Committee.97
One state, Bolivia, amended a prewar measure explicitly to include political acts of naturalized persons favorable to the Axis countries. The Supreme Decree of January 20, 1942, provided that the Supreme Decree of March 27, 1938, directing denaturalization for political propaganda of a communist, anarchist, or bolshevist character, membership in an “extremist organization” and other activities, was now to be “extended to cover in its effects all totalitarian elements and collaborators thereof.”98
A wartime application of an already existing provision for denaturalization, but not specifically for political activities, occurred in Panama. The Constitution of January 2, 1941, provide that when a petitioning alien met the legal requirements he was issued “provisional naturalization papers” valid for one year. At the end of this year final papers were granted “if no motive for denying them has come up or has reached the knowledge of the President” (Art. 16), who may deny them “for reasons of public health, morality, or security,” or on the grounds that the petitioner came from states whose constitutions or laws allowed them to keep the nationality of origin even after acquiring that of another state (Art. 15).99 Law No. 8 of February 11, 1941, reaffirmed these points and established procedure.100
During the war provisional naturalization certificates issued to persons of German origin or Axis sympathies were annulled under these provisions. In March, 1942, seven provisionally naturalized citizens were “accused . . . of attachment to countries which are in a state of war with [Panama] and of enmity toward the democratic institutions and precepts by which we are governed.” The president declared that the security of the republic demanded cancellation of the provisional certificates for the seven persons named.101
States that required that the naturalized citizen maintain certain standards of behavior after his naturalization could denaturalize former Axis nationals or, for that matter, anyone, by administrative or judicial interpretation of such requirements. Uruguayan officials informed the Advisory Committee that
the Electoral Court is empowered to decree the suspension of the effects of the naturalization papers, as a result of the bad political conduct of the naturalized person, understanding by this, his democratic disloyalty. According to the constitutional laws in effect, the subsequent violation of any of the necessary conditions for naturalization shall be a ground for the suspension of legal citizenship and the “good conduct,” interpreted as democratic loyalty (lealtad democrática) . . . is an indispensable condition for the access to legal citizenship.102
In several states nullification of papers was based on a broad interpretation of the general legal rules relating to fraud; it was held that subsequent behavior could reveal that the oath taken by the naturalized citizen had been falsely sworn or violated. El Salvador and Mexico incorporated this concept in wartime emergency measures; Argentina at first adopted it as administrative practice, later embodied it in a law.
The constitutions of El Salvador and Mexico allowed few grounds for annulment of naturalized citizenship. In El Salvador, native and naturalized alike could lose citizenship only by naturalization in a foreign state.103 In Mexico, under the Constitution of 1917 and the Law of Nationality of 1934, citizenship was lost by naturalized citizens only by residing for five years in the country of origin, by passing as an alien in a public legal document, or by using a foreign passport.104 An Advisory Committee publication said that the ordinary legal rules must revert to the concept of fraud in order to decree the loss of nationality when the subsequent conduct of the naturalized person gives evidence of disloyalty.105
In 1940 Mexico issued regulations for the administration of the Law of Nationality of 1934. These regulations provided, among other things, that
the will to renounce all submission, obedience and fealty to any foreign government and to practice adherence, obedience and submission to the laws and authorities of the republic . . . must be a genuine, constant, and effective will. Pretense, mental reservations or violations in regard to this will or any other fault invalidating it, revealed by circumstances either antecedent or subsequent to affirmation thereof, render it ineffective and consequently annul the granted naturalization.
“Circumstances” indicating such “invalidating faults” were specified, and among them were acts prejudicial to the internal or external security of the state, and maintenance of relations of any kind with non-Mexican authorities or groups that would imply submission to a foreign state.106
A decree of July 25, 1942, provided for the nullification of naturalization papers “fraudulently acquired by Germans, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Italians, Japanese or Rumanians.” In consideration of the fact that “some nationals of the countries currently our enemies—or who must be assimilated to them—acquired fraudulently Mexican naturalization papers or have failed their solemn protest of adherence, obedience and submission to the laws and authorities of the republic,” President Ávila Camacho decreed that the secretary of foreign affairs shall nullify naturalization papers of nationals of the six states when he deems that they “have been obtained with fraud, that the beneficiary has failed in his protest of adherence, obedience and submission to the law and authorities of the Republic, or that the activities of the naturalized person, although being legal, represent a danger to the national security.”107
Almost three years later these regulations governing nullification of naturalization papers were extended to cover any naturalized person, regardless of nationality of origin.108 Acts subsequent to the acquisition of nationality were thus declared by the decree to be evidence of an absence of a genuine desire to acquire and keep Mexican nationality. As an Advisory Committee publication stated:
Defects of the will are revealed not only by previous acts, but also by acts subsequent to their declaration. . .. Thus under the cloak of the concept of fraud at the time of the acquisition of nationality, the criterion of loss of naturalization by subsequent disloyal conduct is actually introduced. . .. Actually, although the loss is decreed by nullity of the papers as a result of the fraud in the acquisition, at bottom, the conduct subsequent to naturalization is held in account . . . more than the original defect (vicios originarios) of the will of the naturalized person. . .. This system confuses, perhaps deliberately and for the constitutional reasons indicated, what is called in civil law nullification by non-fulfillment (resolución por incumplimiento) with nullity by defect of consent (vicio del consentimiento).109
El Salvador, with the same constitutional limitation as Mexico, also relied on the concept of fraud, basing its action on an article of the Law of September 30, 1886, which held that naturalization obtained fraudulently was void.110 When the Advisory Committee suggested that El Salvador use the concept of fraud “to take nationality away from Axis nationals who by acts indicating their loyalty to their native countries have shown that they renounced falsely their tie with their previous nationality,” officials of El Salvador
informed [the Advisory Committee] that the Council of Ministers has sufficient power to take nationality away from those naturalized persons who perform acts against the state and in favor of the enemy and that disloyal individuals from Axis countries had been deprived of nationality, basing the action on the circumstance that the respective papers had been obtained by fraud.111
Argentina, during the early years of the war, considered fraudulent or void because of mental reservations the oath of every naturalized person showing subsequent disloyalty,112 Argentina did not break relations with Germany and Japan until January 26, 1944, and did not declare war against them until March 27, 1945. On August 27, 1943, Decree 6605 provided for annulment of papers if, among other “abuses” of nationality, the naturalized citizen “violated in any manner the sworn oath of allegiance.”113
2) Wartime emergency measures.—A large number of the republics, in the absence of constitutional provisions or laws for denaturalization that could be applied to resident naturalized citizens, put into effect special measures for the deprivation of naturalized citizenship. These were generally based on emergency powers granted by the executive to suspend constitutional guarantees or protect national security, and were effective only for the duration of the war.
One state summarily annulled the naturalization papers of former Axis nationals who had become citizens after September 3, 1939. Another declared various classes of persons who, though naturalized, had not officially secured a statement to that effect, to be enemy aliens. Ten states introduced measures for the denaturalization of citizens if they committed acts of a specified character. In six states naturalization could be annulled for acts interpreted by the government to be “threats to internal security.” Six states, including two of the former six, adopted measures authorizing denaturalization for open adherence to specified political-ideological beliefs or for specified political activity; and one state amended its basic nationality law in that direction.
Nicaragua, by Executive Decree 77 of February 17, 1942, provided that former citizens—by birth or naturalization—of countries at war with Nicaragua who had acquired Nicaraguan naturalization papers after September 3, 1939, were to be considered nationals of those enemy states even though their Nicaraguan naturalization had not been annulled.114 On October 1, 1943, President Somoza directed the minister of government to refrain from processing petitions for naturalization submitted by nationals of any non-American country and to “suspend those which have been issued recently, after a previous date, to be fixed by you according to circumstances.”115
Mexico “procedurally denaturalized” three classes of persons who by the constitution and nationality laws were legally naturalized but who had not officially registered their status, a procedure similar to the “procedural denationalization” described earlier. A decree of July 25, 1942, stated that certificates of nationality were no longer to be issued to women of Axis nationality married to Mexican citizens, either native-born or naturalized, or to children born in an Axis state of parents who had subsequently become naturalized Mexicans.116 According to Mexican law, alien women who married Mexicans,117 alien women whose husbands acquired Mexican nationality after marriage,118 and foreign-born minors whose parents become naturalized Mexicans,119 automatically became Mexican citizens. But by the decree of 1942, individuals in these classes who had not gone through the formality of registering their status and securing certificates were regarded as enemy aliens. Those who had registered could have their certificates revoked if they committed specified acts.
Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, and Paraguay adopted measures to annul the naturalization of any person who committed acts considered by the authorities to be threats to internal security or to public order. In Argentina and Colombia, this applied to a naturalized person of any previous nationality; in Paraguay, it applied only to former nationals of non-American states; and in Bolivia, Cuba, and Mexico, only to former Axis nationals.
Argentina, which in the early years of the war relied on the concept of fraud for denaturalization, issued Decree 6605 on August 27, 1943, in which the grounds for annulment of naturalization were the commission of one or another “abuses” of nationality. Among these was “the performance of acts unfavorably affecting the sovereignty, integrity or defense of the Argentine nation.”120 After Argentina declared war on Germany and Japan this was broadened in a decree of May 24, 1945: naturalized Germans or Japanese who had “undertaken activities inimical to the Allied Nations or to the security of the Continent” were declared liable to annulment of their papers.121
Bolivia, in a supreme decree of January 20, 1942, suspended naturalization of citizens of Axis states and provided for the annulment of papers granted earlier.122 The preamble noted that, as Bolivia had broken relations with the Axis,
it has become absolutely necessary to take steps tending to ensure that this stand will not foment attacks, by alien or Bolivian subjects or citizens, against the democratic organization of the state, public order within the country, or the industrial and mining productivity of the republic.
Colombia, in a presidential decree of January 29, 1942, suspended “the efficacy of naturalization certificates” issued to “Colombians who are nationals by choice and whom the Government with good reason regards as involved in activities inimical to public order and the national security.”123
Cuba, in an executive decree of April 21, 1943, a year and a half after declaring war on the Axis, provided for the annulment of naturalization papers already issued “whenever it is proved that the interested party has committed acts opposed to our own national security or to that of any country allied with Cuba.”124 The preamble noted that the state of belligerency “demanded as necessary the adoption of resolutions for strengthening the national security and maintaining public order.”
In the Decree of July 25, 1942, Mexico specified fraudulent oaths as a basis for denaturalization during the war years, and provided for nullification of naturalization papers granted to Axis nationals “when it is believed that . . . the activities of the naturalized individual, although legal, represented a danger to national security.”125
A publication of the Advisory Committee said of this decree:
The most recent laws issued [in Mexico] to face the serious dangers of abuse of nationality which Axis agents and sympathizers might incur, tend clearly and in a way which seems definite, to leave behind that formal appearance that the cancellation must always be based on fraud existing at the time of acquisition, in order to take into account in a frank and open manner the conduct of the naturalized person subsequent to the attainment of nationality. . .. This is conclusive proof of the inefficiency of the rule of revocation of naturalization based rigorously and exclusively on the defect (vicios) of obtaining it, which becomes more evident when it is necessary to face exceptional circumstances.126
Two and a half years later Mexico moved to annul the naturalization papers granted to any person, whatever his national origin, if the president judged that they had been obtained fraudulently, or that the individual had not kept his oath of allegiance, “or when the activities of the naturalized persons, whatever they may be, represent a danger for the national security, or alter the social tranquility.”127
Paraguay, noting that the second and third meetings of the ministers of foreign affairs of the American republics recommended the adoption of counter-subversive measures, prohibited the naturalization of Axis nationals by a presidential decree. This decree also directed the Supreme Court to order the annulment of naturalization granted “to citizens of non-American origin who commit acts prejudicial to the security or independence of the Paraguayan state,”128 and it provided for strict control over enemy aliens.
Argentina, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Peru, adopted measures allowing the annulment of naturalized citizenship if the naturalized persons engaged in one or another type of political activity.
Argentina, in Decree 6605, to which we have referred above, also authorized annulment of the citizenship of any naturalized person who acted in ways “involving disrespect for the emblems” of the Argentine nation, or “revealing an ideological or doctrinal background opposed to the political institutions of the Republic or to its form of government.”129
In 1940 the Ecuadorean congress passed a comprehensive law relating to aliens, extradition, and naturalization.130 Regulations for the enforcement of this law were issued by presidential decree the following January. Naturalization papers could be revoked if the individual “is disseminating propaganda in support of subversive ideas detrimental to public order” (and for such nonpolitical activities as engaging in the narcotics traffic).131
In 1940 a Guatemalan executive decree declared that naturalized Guatemalans “must abstain from committing acts or making statements implying political ties with the country of origin” (Art. 3). “Included in the acts or statements referred to . . . are: use of foreign passports, affiliation with foreign political parties and propaganda or systematic diffusion of ideas or standards of action of foreign political parties which are in disagreement with the constitutional principles on which the institutions of the country rest.”132
The Mexican Law of Nationality and Naturalization, issued in 1934, was a comprehensive enactment laying out carefully the requirements for ordinary and privileged naturalization and giving details of procedures to be followed. Article 47 states that naturalization obtained in violation of the law is null and void, and Article 48 that when a violation has been shown the secretary of foreign relations shall declare the naturalization nullified.133
On August 20, 1940, sweeping and unprecedented regulations were issued to implement these articles. They declared that “the will” to renounce allegiance to any foreign government and to adhere to the laws and authorities of Mexico “must be a genuine, constant, and effective will.” Any fault invalidating it, “revealed by circumstances either antecedent or subsequent to its affirmation,” annulled the naturalization. Among the “circumstances” revealing such “invalidating faults” were acts prejudicial to internal or external security of the state, “performance of acts incompatible with the status of Mexican citizenship,” “maintenance of relations of any kind with non-Mexican authorities, groups, or institutions of a political or public character, if in the judgment of the department of foreign affairs these relations imply submission to a foreign state,” and membership in associations directly or indirectly linked to a foreign state.134
The regulations set forth the procedure for annulment under these terms. Naturalized citizens had a period of thirty days from the date of issuance of the regulations to withdraw from any of the prohibited relationships; this withdrawal had to be reported in writing to the department of foreign affairs and substantially proven (Transitory Provision 2). Naturalization papers granted before the date of the regulations could be annulled at any time within seven years of the date of the regulations; papers granted after the regulations were issued could be annulled within seven years after the date of their issuance.135
The Nicaraguan Constitution of 1939 and a legislative decree of 1941 made dissemination of Communist, Nazi, or Fascist propaganda, or activity on behalf of such political parties, grounds for denaturalization. The constitution provided that “aliens naturalized in Nicaragua lose Nicaraguan nationality when they adopt and propagate political or racial doctrines that carry implicit renunciation of the Fatherland and of the sovereignty of the republic, or that tend to destroy the democratic form of government. The alien who thus loses nationality cannot recover it.”136
Decree 119 of June, 1941, was a sweeping prohibition against:
Propaganda favoring doctrines or political and social systems opposed to the constitutional principles of the State, to its republican and democratic regime, or to the established social order. Such doctrines or systems are: Communistic doctrines, Nazi and Fascist systems, and any others tending to establish dictatorships or aimed at suppressing, altering, or weakening the republican and democratic structure of the Republic, the system of separation of the Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers or [the principle of] suffrage as the foundation upon which these powers are constructed;
Creation or operation of political parties organized on an international basis, or forming part of foreign political parties, or dependent thereon;
Existence of associations which in any manner violate the provision [implicit] in Section (a); and
Use by nationals or aliens of emblems, uniforms, or insignia pertaining to foreign political groups.137
Persons violating these provisions could be fined for the first two offenses, and sentenced to thirty days in jail for the third: aliens could be deported, and naturalized citizens could be deprived of their status as nationals.
Peru, on March 22, 1943, a year after breaking relations with the Axis and two years before declaring war against Germany and Japan, acted to cancel the naturalization of former German, Italian, or Japanese nationals “who engaged in subversive activities or in propaganda favoring systems opposed to democracy.” The ministry of government and police was directed to send to the ministry of foreign affairs the names of naturalized citizens from the three states whose records showed that they have “disseminated propaganda, or participated in subversive activities, showing Nazi-Fascist trends.”138
Several states provided for denaturalization of any individual with dual nationality. Argentina, in Decree 6605, provided for annulment of citizenship for, among other “abuses,” “commission of acts implying exercise of the nationality of his origin, or dual nationality” (Art. 2 (a)).139 The Constitution of Panama [of January 2, 1941] permitted the president to deny naturalization to persons from states whose constitutions or laws allowed them to retain their nationality of origin even after acquiring that of another state.140 These measures had prewar counterparts in other states—the Cuban Constitution of October 10, 1940, for example, provided that naturalized citizens who accepted “double citizenship,”141 would lose their Cuban nationality—and were related to other prewar laws under which naturalization could be revoked if a naturalized person attempted to pass as a national of his state of origin (as he might to avoid military service). Such a rule appears in the Mexican Law of Nationality,142 and in the prewar laws of Guatemala,143 Peru,144 and Venezuela.145
D. Wartime naturalization laws.—Very few states actually amended their basic nationality and naturalization laws in the war years. None of the states in which a political test was not a requirement for naturalization in prewar days introduced one, although one state did make political belief a ground for the deprivation of nationality.146
In 1942 Costa Rica amended its basic nationality law by adding to the grounds for loss of nationality, both for natives and naturalized citizens, manifesting “adherence to the political regimes of countries with which Costa Rica is at war.”147 An executive decree of July 8, 1944, amended this to apply only to the offspring of foreign-born fathers or mothers,148 but only after it had been applied to several “native and naturalized Costa Ricans who showed adherence to the regimes of Germany, Italy, or Japan.”149
* * *
The security that the status of citizenship had traditionally conferred on the individual was drastically undermined in every Latin American country during World War II. Governmental actions during the war years were taken with some concern for the rights of the native-born but scarcely any at all for those of the naturalized. The citizenship which the naturalized citizens had sought became a privilege granted by the government and held at its pleasure—a privilege which the government had the “right” to revoke or annul at any time. None of the republics went as far as did the Nazis in their nationality laws directed against the Jews, yet a common notion was present: the rights of nationality and citizenship are subordinate to the rights of the state and can be swept aside by governmental declarations in the name of national security.150
Research for this article was aided by a grant from the Center for Latin American Studies, Institute of International Studies, University of California, where the author is professor of Speech.
Resolutions of First and Second Meetings. “International Conferences of American States; First Supplement 1933-1940” (Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1940), pp. 322-370.
Resolution XV, Prevention of Abuses of Nationality. “Annual Report Submitted to the Governments of the American Republics, July 1943” (Washington: Pan American Union, November 15, 1943), pp. 141-143. For Advisory Committee activities, organizations and resolutions, see also “Second Annual Report . . . July 15, 1943-October 15, 1944” (Washington: Pan American Union, April 15, 1945); “Tercer Informe Anual. Primer Capítulo: Estudio sobre las condiciones necesarias para asegurar la defensa política” (Montevideo: January 2, 1947), 29 p.; “Legislación para la Defensa Política en las Repúblicas Americanas” (2 vols.: Montevideo, 1947).
Art. 4, Constitution of March 28, 1933. Lazcano y Mazón, A.M., “Constituciones Políticas de América” (Havana, 1942), 2, p. 333.
Supreme Decree of June 26, 1936. El Peruano, October 31, 1936, pp. 1025-1026.
Art. 33. Civil Code of June 2, 1933. Compil. de Legis. Peru. (Chamber of Deputies, 1955), 3, p. 954.
Arts. 1321-1326. Code of Civil Procedure (Chiclayo, Peru, 1933) 2, pp. 1005-1019.
Arts. 1083, 1084. Ibid., pp. 731-734.
Law 8526 of April 20, 1937, Compil. de Legis. Peru., 3, pp. 1092-1093.
Art. 14, Regulatory Decree of December 19, 1931. Andies de Legis. Arg., 1920-1940, Sect. 11,008-11, 672, pp. 934-935.
Law 1083 of April 1, 1936. Colee. de Leyes, 1936, pp. 39-42.
Constitution of March 24, 1934. Lazcano y Mazón, 2, pp. 423-478. Art. 66 lists the requirements for the acquisition of legal citizenship which would not be granted to any person whose behavior brought him within the provisions for suspension of citizenship. The seventh of these was “participation in social or political organizations that tend, by means of violence, to destroy the fundamental bases of nationality. The matters referred to in Sections I and II of the present Constitution shall be considered such, for the purposes of this provision.” (Art. 70). These sections detail the proclaimed rights, duties, and guarantees of citizen and government.
Law 9604 of October 13, 1936. Reg. Nac. de Leyes y Deer., 1936, 59, Sects. 9,544-9,641, pp. 749-753.
Executive Decree No. 1 of February 18, 1931. Colección de Leyes y Decr., 1931, 1, pp. 132-138. Amended by Decree 5 of August 5, 1932. Colección de Leyes y Decr., Seg. Sem, 1932, p. 76.
The Constitution of 1891 provided that among Brazilian citizens were “aliens who, being in Brazil on the fifteenth of November, 1889, did not declare, within six months from the time the Constitution began to be in force, their desire to preserve their original nationality.” (Art. 69 (4)). Flournoy, R. W., and Hydson, M. O., A Collection of Nationality Laws (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1929), p. 48. The same provision was maintained in Decree 904 of November 12, 1902, which describes such persons as “tacitly naturalized.” (Art. 12 (2)). Flournoy, p. 52. The Constitution of 1934 included them among those classed as Brazilian. (Art. 155 (c)), Lazcano y Mazón, 1, p. 309.
Law No. 38 of April 4, 1935. Leis de Brasil, 1935, 4, pp. 36-45. A detailed judicial procedure for annulment was provided in the statute (Art. 38).
Article III (a) Constitution of November 10, 1937. Lazcano y Mazón, 1, p. 309. Also provided in Art. 2 (c), Decree Law 389 of April 25, 1938. Leis de Brasil, 1938, 2, pp. 59-65.
Arts. 1, 16. Decree Law 431 of May 18, 1938. Leis de Brasil, 1938, 2, pp. 147-152.
Law 6026 of February 11, 1937. Diario Of., No. 17, 692 (February 12, 1937).
Supreme Decree, March 27, 1938. Anuario Admin., 19S8, 1, pp. 666-671.
Executive Decree 2391 of June 14, 1940. Diario de Centro Amér., June 13, 1940, No. 94, p. 877; Recopil. de Leyes, 59, 1940, pp. 115-117.
Executive Decree 1781, Law of Aliens of January 25, 1936. Diario de Centro Amér., January 30, 1936, No. 73, pp. 469-475.
Executive Decree 2153, of October 7, 1938. Diario de Centro Amér., October 17, 1938, No. 94, p. 705; Recop. de Leyes, 57, 1938, pp. 215-217. Art. 5 of the Constitution of 1935 held that “Natives are (1) Every person born or who will be born in the territory of the Republic, whatever the nationality of their parents.” Lazcano y Mazón, 2, p. 57.
Ait. 10, Treaty signed September 20, 1887. Flournoy, p. 676. Guatemala denounced the treaty on September 4, 1901, but extended its application until March 15, 1915, when nullified.
Law No. 79 of July 9, 1942. La Gaceta, July 10, 1942.
The provision of the Constitution of December 7, 1871, that “The Children of an alien father or mother, born in the territory of the Republic, who after completing twenty-one years of age are inscribed in the civic register at their own desire, or at the desire of their parents, before said age” (Art. 5 (2); Flournoy, p. 184) are native-born Costa Ricans was not essentially altered by Decree 25 of 1889 or subsequent laws.
Executive Decree No. 2 of July 8, 1944 amending Art. 8 of Decree 1, February 18, 1931. Leyes. Seg. Sem., 1944, p. 30.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Decree No. 4 of July 8, 1944, Leyes Seg. Sem., 1944, p. 31.
Art. 163 (3), Constitution of March 22, 1939. Fitzgibbon, R. H., The Constitutions of the Americas (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 572.
Art. 2 (d), Executive Decree 77 of February 17, 1942, La Gaceta, No. 38, February 20, 1942.
Arts. 47, 48. Ibid.
Art. X, Treaty with Germany of February 4, 1896. Flournoy, p. 679.
Art. 2, Treaty with Italy of September 20, 1917. Flournoy, p. 687.
Diario Of., June 2, 1942, 132, No. 26, p. 2.
Diario Of., June 13, 1942, 132, No. 36, pp. 2-5.
Exec. Decree of July 25, 1942, Arts. 3, 4. Diario Of., August 20, 1942, 133, #44, pp. 2-3.
Report of Mexican Liaison Officer to the Committee, as quoted in “Legislación,” 1, p. 480.
Regulations of August 20, 1940. Diario Of., 122:1, No. 5, September 6, 1940, pp. 1-3.
“Legislación,” p. 532. The Constitution of 1917 provided for loss of nationality by natives only for naturalization abroad or by officially serving a foreign government or accepting its decorations, titles, or employment without approval of the Mexican government. Arts. 37 (1, 2); Flournoy, p. 427.
Art. 3 (c), Decree of July 25, 1942. See Note 35.
Law of 1934, Art. 4. Diario Of., January 20, 1934, 82, #17.
Law of May 28, 1886, Art. 2 (4). Flournoy, p. 429.
Law of 1934, Transitory Provision Art. 4. See note 40.
Decree of December 29, 1935, Diario Of., 87, #49, December 31, 1934, p. 1204; Decree of February 3, 1936. Diario Of., 107, #9, March 10, 1938, p. 1.
See note 40.
Decree of July 25, 1942, Article 3 (f): “Children born in Mexico of aliens who came of age before May 1, 1917, and did not opt the nationality of their parents within one year following their coming of age and those referred to in Article 2, Section II of the Law of Aliens and Naturalizations of May 29, 1886.” The Constitution of May 1, 1917, provided that offspring born in Mexico of aliens would be considered Mexican by birth if within one year of reaching their majority they elected Mexican nationality and had resided six years in Mexico. Article 30 (1). Flournoy, p. 426.
The Law of May 28, 1886, provided that offspring born in Mexico of an alien father or of an alien mother and unknown father were aliens until they came of age but within one year thereafter they would be regarded as Mexican unless they declared for the nationality of their parents. Art. 2 (2). Flournoy, p. 429.
Article 3 (g): “Children of alien parents, who became of age after January 5, 1934, without opting the nationality of their parents within three months after coming of age, and those referred to in Transitory Article 2 of the present Naturalization Law.”
Decree of November 27, 1939, Transitory Article 3: “All persons born in Mexico of alien parents may acquire Mexican nationality by birth by declaring before the Ministry their desire to acquire it, provided they achieved their majority before January 5, 1934, and after May 1, 1917,” Diario Of., 118, #19, January 23, 1940, pp. 2-3. Law of Nationality, 1934, Transitory Article 2: “All persons born in Mexico of alien parents, who are minors when this law is promulgated, are Mexicans by birth, but have the right to choose . . . their parent’s nationality within the three months following their reaching legal age.”
Article 3 (h): “Children born in the national territory of Italian parents, who did not choose the nationality of their parents within one year after coming of age in conformity with the agreement of August 20, 1888, between the governments of Mexico and Italy regarding nationality, during the time that agreement was in effect.”
The Italian-Mexican Convention of 1888 provided that offspring born in Mexico of Italians would be considered Mexican unless within one year of their reaching their majority they would declare for Italian nationality. Art. 1. Flournoy, p. 677.
Resolution of the Min. of For. Rels. of July 31, 1940. El Peruano, November 29, 1940, p. 1086.
Art. 7 (2), Constitution of 1933. Peaslee, Amos J., Constitutions of Nations (Concord, N. H., 1950), 2, p. 765.
“Memorandum Prepared by the Chief of the Section of Congresses and International Organizations of the Ministry of Foreign Relation and Culture of Peru for the Emergency Advisory Committee,” as quoted in “Legislación,” 1, p. 537.
“Legislación,” 1, pp. 535-536.
Supreme Decree of January 23, 1942. El Peruano, April 25, 1942, p. 1.
“Legislación,” 1, p. 526.
Ibid., p. 529.
Ibid., p. 530.
Law of August 22, 1907. Flournoy, p. 330.
“Legislación,” 1, p. 532.
Art. 116 (b), Constitution of November 10, 1937. Lazcano y Mazón, 1, p. 309. Same provisions in Art. 2 (b), Decree Law 389 of April 25, 1938, Leis de Brasil, 1938, 2, pp. 59-65, and Law 1317 of June 2, 1939, Colec. de Leis, 1939, Actos Poder Ex. 4, p. 222. Wording of these provisions represents slight change from that of Art. 71 (Para. 2) of the Constitution of 1891, Flournoy, p. 49.
“Legislación,” 1, p. 531.
Ibid., p. 467.
Decree 6605, Boletín Of., September 2, 1943, Anales de Legis. Arg., Decretos, 3, 1942, pp. 317-319.
Decree 3521 of July 7, 1941, Diario Of., 64, September 6, 1941, p. 2857. Decree 4377 of August 26, 1941, Diario Of., 64, p. 2857, provided that the earlier decree affected only petitions presented after the date of that decree, or July 7, 1941.
Decree 2712 of May 15, 1942. Diario Of., 65, June 6, 1942, p. 1601.
“Legislación,” 1, p. 469, Note 135.
President A. Somoza to Dr. Leonardo Argüello, Minister of Government, October 1, 1943. Advisory Committee files.
Decree of November 8, 1943, El Peruano, February 4, 1944, p. 1.
Executive Resolution 2400. Diario Of., 130, January 15, 1942, p. 3.
Executive Resolution of January 2, 1942, Diario Of., January 24, 1942, 130, p. 1. The prohibition against Italian national naturalization was lifted by Decree of January 13, 1944. Diario Of., No. 33, February 10, 1944, p. 3.
Report to Advisory Committee by Mexican officials. “Legislación,” 1, p. 471.
Decree 2349 of August 21, 1942. La Jurisp. al Dia. Legis., 1942, 2, pp. 1114-1116.
Art. 13 (A) Constitution of October 10, 1940. Fitzgibbon, p. 229.
Art. 13 (B). Ibid.
Decree 1468 of April 21, 1943. Gac. Of., May 14, 1943, pp. 8097-8099.
Costa Rica: Art. 9, Law 25 of May 13, 1889. Flournoy, p. 187. Aviso of Ministry of For. Relations, January 20, 1942. La Gao., Jan. 23, 1942;
El Salvador: Art. 13, Law of April 3, 1900. Flournoy, p. 520;
Guatemala: Art. 92, Decree 491 of February 21, 1894. Flournoy, p. 324; Art. 64, Law of Citizenship of January 25, 1936. Diario de Centro Amér., January 30, 1936, No. 73, pp. 469-475, as modified by Art. 65, Decree 2153 of October 7, 1938, Diario de Centro Amer., October 17, 1938, No. 94, pp. 705-706.
Honduras: Art. 14 of Law 31 of February 4, 1926. Flournoy, p. 336.
Art. 66, Law of October 18, 1921, as amended September 17, 1925. Flournoy, p. 223.
Supreme Decree of January 30, 1942. Estrada y Perales, Inmigración y Extranjería: Disposiciones Vigentes 1938-1942 (La Paz, n.d.), p. 55. The prohibition against Italian national naturalization was lifted on January 20, 1945. Supreme Decree of January 10, 1945, Anuario Admin., 1945, pp. 444-446.
Decree Law 11,061 of February 16, 1942. Gac. Of., February 17, 1942, pp. 1-4.
Report of Liaison Officer, February 9, 1943, to Emergency Advisory Committee. “Legislación,” 1, p. 470, Note 141.
“Normas especiales adoptadas por el Gobierno Colombiana en las presentes circunstancias.” Advisory Committee files.
Law 22bis of February 29, 1936. Leyes Expedidos por el Cong., Nac., Enero-Abril, 1936, pp. 48-61.
Uruguay grants “legal citizenship,” roughly equivalent to naturalization status in other states, to resident aliens meeting specified constitutional requirements. Art. 66, Constitution of April 19, 1934; Lazcano y Mazón, 2 p. 431. Determination of eligibility of applicants, processing of their petitions, and the granting of legal citizenship is, along with supervision of elections and related matters, in the jurisdiction of the Electoral Court as provided for by the Constitution. Arts. 278-281, op. cit., p. 474.
Electoral Court Circular No. 1110 of September 12, 1934. Advisory Committee files.
Electoral Court, Official Dispatch 750/45. Diario Of., May 4, 1945, p. 197.
Decree 577 of January 28, 1943, Diario Of., 66, February 6, 1943, p. 322.
Decree 2695 of May 28, 1943. Diario Of., 66, June 10, 1943, p. 1439.
Decree 1778 of November 13, 1942. Reg. Of., Oct.-Dec., 1942, pp. 4223-4224. Art. 8 inserts an article to follow Art. 82 of Decree 111 of January 29, 1941. Reg. Of., Enero-Marzo, 1941, pp. 631-643, which provides regulations for the Law on Alien Affairs of November 26, 1940, Reg. Of., Oct.-Dic., 1940, pp. 383-385.
Aviso-Circular, N.G.S., 1,514 of August 24, 1942: Ministry of Justice and Interior: “Exposición de Motivos al Pres. de la Rep. de 9 de Abril de 1942,” G.S. 602 (“Legislación,” 1, p. 476, Notes 158-159).
“Exposición de Motivos al Presidente de la República de 9 de abril de 1943,” G.S. 602, as quoted in “Legislación,” 1, 476.
Bolivia: Art. 1, Supreme Decree of Dee. 1, 1938. Estrada y Perales, p. 10.
Brazil: Art. 6, Law 389 of April 25, 1938, Leis de Brasil, 1938, 2, pp. 59-65.
Chile: Art. 7, Law 747 of December 15, 1935, Flournoy, p. 172.
Colombia: Art. 2, Law 22 of February 28, 1936. Leyes Expedidos por el Congreso Nac. Enero-Abril, 1936, pp. 48-61.
Costa Rica: Art. 6, Decree 1 of February 18, 1931. Leyes, 1931, 1, pp. 132-138.
Dominican Republic: Art. 5 (3), Law 1227 of December 4, 1929. Flournoy, p. 219.
Ecuador: Art. 13, Law of November 26, 1940. Registro Of., Oct.-Dec., 1940, pp. 383-385; and Art. 66, Decree 111 of January 29, 1941, Registro Of., Enero-Marzo, 1941, pp. 631-643.
Guatemala: Art. 60, Executive Decree 1781 of January 25, 1936. Diario de Centro Amér., No. 73, January 30, 1936, pp. 469-475.
Mexico: Art. 19, Law of January 19, 1934. Diario Of., 82, #17, January 20, 1934.
Peru: Art. 2, Law 9148 of June 14, 1940. Compilación de la Legis. Peru., 3, pp. 1319-1320.
Venezuela: Art. 15, Law of May 29, 1940. Gaceta Of., May 30, 1940, No. 20, 196, pp. 127, 765-127, 768.
Art. 15, Constitution of January 2, 1941, Lazcano y Mazón, p. 272.
“Legislación,” 1, p. 429, Note 20.
“Memorandum of the Ministry of State regarding the points of view of the Cuban Government on Resolution XV of the Emergency Advisory Committee” stated that “The Cuban government considers naturalization as an honor that may or may not be granted to the petitioning alien, that is, that it is not enough to fulfill the minimum requirements demanded by law, but the state reserves the power to ascertain if the applicant is desirable in every way as a citizen.” “Legislación,” 1, p. 429, Note 20.
Honduras: Art. 5, Law 31 of February 4, 1936: “Aliens may acquire Honduran citizenship in conformity with laws.” Flournoy, p. 335.
El Salvador: Art. 11, Law of April 3, 1900: “Any alien who complies with the requirements established . . . in the Constitution may be naturalized.” Flournoy, p. 520.
Uruguay: Art. 66, Constitution of April 19, 1934: Aliens meeting the prescribed requirements “have a right to legal citizenship.” Lazcano y Mazón, 2, p. 431.
“Legislación,” 1, p. 431.
Electoral Court Circular 2016 of December 12, 1942. Advisory Committee files.
“Legislación,” 1, pp. 450-451.
Ibid., p. 493.
E.G., Argentina: Art. 6, Decree 6605 of August 27, 1943; Peru: Art. 1, Decree 9810 of March 22, 1943.
“Legislación,” 1, pp. 507-521.
Art. 4, Supreme Decree of January 30, 1942. Estrada y Perales, p. 10.
Constitution of January 2, 1941. Lazcano y Mazón, 2, 272.
Law 8 of February 11, 1941. Gac. Of., No. 8,453, February 14, 1941.
Executive Resolution 105 of March 31, 1942. “Report of Minister of Foreign Affairs Presented to National Assembly in 1943 (1940-1942),” p. 104. Advisory Committee files.
“Legislación,” 1, pp. 509-510. For constitutional provisions, see below.
Art. 11, Constitution of January 20, 1939. Lazcano y Mazón, 2, p. 379.
Art. 37 (III, IV) of Constitution of 1917. Flournoy, p. 427; Art. 3 (III, IV) of Law of January 19, 1934.
“Legislación,” 1, p. 502.
Art. 4, Regulations of August 20, 1940, for Arts. 47 and 48 of Law of Nationality. Diario Of., 122:1, #5, September 6, 1940, pp. 1-3.
Art. 1, Decree of July 25, 1942. Diario Of., 133, #44, August 20, 1942, pp. 1-2.
Art. 1, Decree of January 25, 1945, Diario Of., 149, #11, March 13, 1945, p. 2.
“Legislación,” 1, pp. 503-505.
Art. 14, Law of September 30, 1886, as modified by Law of April 3, 1900. Flournoy, p. 520.
“Legislación,” 1, p. 506.
Ibid., p. 507.
Art. 3 (f), Decree 6605 of August 27, 1943. Anales de Legis. Arg., Decretos, 5, 1945, pp. 190-191.
Art. 2 (e), Executive Decree 77 of February 11, 1942. La Gaceta, No. 38, February 20, 1942.
Somoza to Arguello, October 1, 1943. Advisory Committee files.
Art. 3 (a,b,c), Decree of July 25, 1942. Diario Of., 133, August 20, 1942, No. 44, pp. 1-2.
Art. 20, Law of Nationality of January 19, 1934.
Art. 20, Decree of November 27, 1939. Diario Of., 118, #19, January 23, 1940, pp. 2-3.
Art. 43, Decree of November 27, 1939. Ibid. Measures applying to former Italian nationals in these categories were revoked in a resolution of April 26, 1944. Diario Of., 143, #52, April 29, 1944, p. 2.
Art. 2(d) of 6605. Anales de Legis. Arg., Decretos, 1943, 3, pp. 317-319. Other “abuses” were exercise of political rights in a foreign country (Art. 2 (b)); accepting employment, commissions, or honors of a foreign government without Argentine authorization (c); failing to enlist at the proper time (g); falsehood, malice, or concealment of facts in acquiring citizenship (h); residence abroad without intent to return to Argentina, shown by two years absence (i).
Art. 16, Decree 11,417 of May 23, 1945. Andies de Legis. Arg., Decretos, 5, 1945, pp. 190-191.
Supreme Decree of January 30, 1942. Estrada y Perales, p. 55.
Decree 181 of January 29, 1942. Diario Of., 77, No. 24,876, February 3, 1942.
Art. 9, Decree 1468 of April 21, 1943. Gac. Of., May 14, 1943, pp. 8097-8099.
Decree of July 25, 1942. Diario Of., 133, #44, August 20, 1942, pp. 2-3.
“Legislación,” 1, p. 504.
Decree of January 25, 1945, Diario Of., 149, No. 11, March 13, 1945, p. 2.
Art. 15, Decree 11,061 of February 16, 1942. Gaceta Of., February 17, 1942.
Decree 6605 of Ministry of Interior, of August 27, 1943. Anales de Legis. Arg., Decretos, 1943, 3, pp. 317-319.
Law of November 26, 1940. Registro Of., Oct.-Dec., 1940, pp. 383-385. This measure abrogated the Law of Aliens, Extradition and Naturalization of February 16, 1938.
Art. 84, Decree No. 111 of January 29, 1941. Registro Of., Enero-Marzo, 1941, pp. 631-643.
Art. 4, Exec. Decree No. 2391 of June 11, 1940. Diario de Centro Amér., June 13, 1940, No. 94, p. 877.
Law of Nationality of January 19, 1934. Diario Of., 82, No. 17, January 20, 1934.
Art. 4, “Regulation of August 20, 1940 for Articles 47 and 48 of the Law on Nationality,” Diario Of., 122:1, No. 5, September 6, 1940, pp. 1-3. See above. Industrial and mercantile firms or mercantile associations of a civil, sporting or cultural character were excepted from prescribed associations.
This period was two years if papers were obtained “in contravention of the law” (Art. 1, Para. 1), i.e., by false documents, etc.
Art. 19, Constitution of March 22, 1939. Fitzgibbon, p. 558.
Arts. 2, 4, Decree 119 of June 25, 1941. La Gaceta, No. 138, June 30, 1941.
Art. 1, Law 9810 of March 22, 1943. El Peruano, May 12, 1943, p. 1.
See note 120.
Art. 15, Constitution of January 2, 1941. Lazcano y Mazón, 2, p. 272.
Art. 14 (4), Constitution of October 10, 1940. Fitzgibbon, p. 229.
Art. 3 (IV): “By a naturalized Mexican passing himself as an alien in any public instrument or for obtaining and using a foreign passport.” Law of Nationality of January 19, 1934.
Art. 4, Decree 2391 of June 11, 1940. Diario Of., No. 94, June 13, 1940, p. 877.
Art. 7, Law 9148 of June 14, 1940. Compil. de la Legis. Peru., 3, p. 1319-1320.
Art. 22 of Law 20,196 of May 22, 1940. Gac. Of., No. 20,196, May 30, 1940, pp. 127, 765-127, 768.
Law 25 of May 13, 1889. Flournoy, pp. 185-189.
Legislative Decree 79 of July 9, 1942. La Gaceta, July 10, 1942.
Executive Decree 2 of July 8, 1944. Leyes. Seg. Sem., 1944, p. 30. Other changes were made in the Law of 1899 by Decree Law 207 of August 27, 1944. Diario Of., August 27, 1944, p. 191.
“Legislación,” 1, p. 530.
During the war, sixteen Latin American republics interned at least 8,500 persons. Advisory Committee, “Second Annual Report,” p. 51. While many were legally alien enemies, many had been stripped of citizenship by wartime measures described above. Twelve of these states, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, and Peru turned over some or all of their internees to the U. S. Army which transported them to the United States for internment as enemy aliens. Department of State Bulletin 14, January 6 and 13, 1946, p. 13. Peru sent over one thousand men of Japanese ancestry, accompanied voluntarily by an equal number of family members. U. S. Immig. and Nat. Service, “Annual Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1945,” p. 26. In 1944 the Department of Justice learned that many internees were nationals of states deporting them, notably the case of the Japanese from Peru, and the program was sharply curtailed. The Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace (Mexico City, 1945) passed a resolution to remove from the Western Hemisphere “any person whose deportation was necessary for the security of the continent.” “Final Act” (Washington: Pan American Union, 1945, pp. 38-40). Presidential Proclamation No. 2662 of September 12, 1945, authorized the Secretary of State “to remove [the internees] to destinations outside the limits of the Western Hemisphere in the territory of the enemy governments to which or to the principles of which they have adhered (10 Fed. Reg. 11635), and their transportation was begun to Germany, Italy, or Japan. Many of the internees, born in South America, had never resided in or even visited these countries. In 1946 the program was modified, and while some of the German nationals were returned to South America, many were deported to Germany. Seventeen hundred Japanese from Peru were sent to Japan, fewer than one hundred returned to Peru, and some three hundred remained in the United States to become naturalized American citizens under provisions of the nationality laws of 1952 and 1953. See my article, “Deportation and Internment in the United States of Peruvian Japanese in World War II” in Pacific Historical Review, 31, No. 2, May, 1962, pp. 169-178.