Today the protection of U.S. citizens and their property abroad is settled law in Title 22 of U.S. code, but in the early days of our country this was not the case. Prior to Title 22, protection of U.S. citizens was often tied to naturalization treaties between two nations. The idea of generally protecting all U.S. citizens abroad was first advanced in 1860 when Circuit Justice Nelson (Southern District of New York) wrote a majority opinion in Durand v. Hollins that the president has the duty as commander-in-chief to protect U.S. citizens abroad. He based his opinion on the “take care” clause of Article II, Section 3 that imposes on the President the duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. Twenty-five years after this case, we find President Grover Cleveland protecting and defending a naturalized U.S. citizen living in Ecuador, despite Ecuador's vigorous attempts to dispute his American citizenship.
Julio R. Santos was born in Ecuador, then immigrated to the United States and was naturalized before moving back to Ecuador and taking part in a revolution there. Ecuador argued that Mr. Santos became a U.S. citizen solely for protection and was now abusing this protection to escape prosecution for crimes against the Ecuadorian government. This was something that Abraham Lincoln himself warned against in his 1863 State of the Union address. Lincoln suggested that there were “foreigners frequently become citizens of the United States for the sole purpose of evading duties imposed by the laws of their native countries, to which on becoming naturalized here they at once repair, and though never returning to the United States they still claim the interposition of this Government as citizens.” Nevertheless, by 1885 we find the Cleveland administration insisting that Julio R. Santos, was a U.S. citizen and had the right to claim the interposition of the United States despite the opposing claims of Ecuador.
In 1860 Justice Nelson wrote, “It is to him, also, the citizens abroad must look for protection of person and of property, and for the faithful execution of the laws existing and intended for their protection.” Nelson continued, “Under our system of government, the citizen abroad is as much entitled to protection as the citizen at home”. The protection applied not only to natural born citizens, but also to those who were naturalized, enticing some foreigners with the means to immigrate to America, only to return to their homeland as a U.S. citizen and under the protection of the United States. Julio Santos was just such an American citizen, who sought the protection of the United States, but Ecuador argued that he forfeited his American citizenship when he returned to Ecuador, purchased land, and participated in local politics.
Julio Santos was charged with being one of principals of a revolutionary movement against the conservative power in Ecuador. Radical Liberals were protesting the Conservative party's use of the Roman Catholic Church to control and unify Ecuadorians beyond what any politician could devise. The Conservative Party first came to power in 1860 when Gabriel García Moreno was elected president, but in 1875 Moreno was hacked to death with a machete on the steps of the presidential palace. Following this, the recently exiled José Eloy Alfaro Delgado and head of the Radical Liberals returned to seize the opportunity and start a revolt. Alfaro was defeated and once again exiled, but in 1883 he returned to take up the fight. Mr. Santos was accused by the Ecuador government of being one of the members who boarded the Alajnela at Bahia in 1884 to receive Alfaro with cries of “Long live Alfaro”. Ecuador also accused Mr. Julio Santos of paying soldiers for their supplies and providing quarters for the soldiers. They had witnesses who declared under oath seeing Mr. Santos with Alfaro and providing arms and ammunition.
There seemed to be no question that Julio Santos took part in the revolution. The only question was whether he did so as an American citizen or a citizen of Ecuador. As an American citizen, the United States was scrutinizing his arrest and trial, demanding that Ecuador be lenient on Mr. Santos. Ecuador on the other hand, argued that Mr. Santos was not an American citizen, but only a citizen of Ecuador. The United States backed up their demand by sending the USS Iroquois, a man-of-war sloop and part of the Pacific Squadron to Ecuador. “Coincidentally”, the Ecuadorian government granted Julio Santos a pardon and he was free to go. According to the Associated Press, Mr. Santos said the pardon was just a “mere pretense” and his release was wholly in consequence of the actions taken by the United States. Of course, Ecuador disagreed. On August 6, 1885 Juan José Flores y Aramburu of Ecuador sent correspondence to Secretary of State Thomas Francis Bayard to address the recent events. Flores had two purposes for his letter. First to declare that Mr. Santos was released by “virtue of a general amnesty” granted to all those who participated in the recent revolution. Second to lay out his argument that Julio Santos was not legally a citizen of the United States. Flores wrote that his only reason for doing so was to “fix the true meaning of the naturalization treaty now existing between the two Republics’. In the eyes of Ecuador, Mr. Santos was a citizen of their country and not entitled to the protection of the Unite States. Flores argued that since being naturalized in the United Sates, Santos had lived continuously in Ecuador where he and his entire family were born and therefore his government had the “perfect right to regard him as prima facie a citizen of Ecuador” until proven otherwise. Furthermore, Mr. Santos owned land and businesses in Ecuador, and was the head of a commercial house in Bahia.
Ecuador argued that Julio Santos was abusing U.S. citizenship because he obtained it merely for protection. In his letter to Secretary Bayard, argued that the U.S. was not only aware that individuals like Santos were abusing the privileges of U.S. Citizenship, but both General Ulysses S. Grant and President Abraham Lincoln had wanted to put an end to it. He even quoted President Lincoln from his 1863, State of the Union Address. Furthermore, Flores argued that in 1870, a proclamation of President Grant declared that no American citizen who violates the laws of neutrality can obtain protection form the U.S. Government. Perhaps, the Ecuadorian Government was not telling the truth, but it certainly seems possible and begs the question why the United States would go to such great lengths to protect a naturalized U.S. citizen living in Ecuador who provided aid and substance to a revolution. There are volumes documenting the correspondence between Ecuador and the United States regarding the matter of Julio Santos, yet the best answer seems to be that the President of the United States was duty bound to protect U.S. Citizens. President Grover Cleveland was upholding the “take care” clause and protecting U.S. citizens abroad. In his 1885, State of the Union address Grover Cleveland called out Julio R. Santos by name and briefly described conflict over citizenship with Ecuador.
“The arrest and imprisonment of Julio R. Santos, a citizen of the United States, by the authorities of Ecuador gave rise to a contention with that Government, in which his right to be released or to have a speedy and impartial trial on announced charges and with all guaranties of defense stipulated by treaty was insisted upon by us. After an elaborate correspondence and repeated and earnest representations on our part Mr. Santos was, after an alleged trial and conviction, eventually included in a general decree of amnesty and pardoned by the Ecuadorian Executive and released, leaving the question of his American citizenship denied by the Ecuadorian Government, but insisted upon by our own.“
References
"Grover Cleveland First Annual Message (First Term) | The American Presidency Project". Presidency.Ucsb.Edu, 2021, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/first-annual-message-first-term. Accessed 27 Feb 2021.
"Abraham Lincoln Third Annual Message | The American Presidency Project". Presidency.Ucsb.Edu, 2021, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/third-annual-message-9. Accessed 27 Feb 2021.
"Durand V. Hollins". Cite.Case.Law, 2021, https://cite.case.law/f-cas/8/111/11957418/. Accessed 27 Feb 2021.
"Papers Relating To The Foreign Relations Of The United States, Transmitted To Congress, With The Annual Message Of The President, December 6, 1886 - Office Of The Historian". History.State.Gov, 2021, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1886/d140. Accessed 27 Feb 2021.
Papers Relating To The Foreign Relations Of The United States, 1887. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1888, pp. 224 - 297.
No comments:
Post a Comment