No one but Congress can deal with it effectually according to these decisions decisions of the Supreme Court and circuit and district courts. it occurs to me. so far as the general proposition of the bill is concerned. there can be no doubt about the propriety of its passage. Are we in point of truth drawing a distinction against these people that does not already exist under the statute ? The naturalization statute excludes these people from its benefits. In this same vohtme. 5 Sawyers Reports. where a Chinese applied to be naturalized in California. Judge Sawyer makes this distinction: A native of China. of the Mongolian race. is not entitled to become a citizen of the United States under the Revised fttutes as amended in 1875. A Mongolian is not a "white person " within the meaning of the term as used in the naturalization laws of the United States. That is the statute in the Revised Stattes and that is the statute which is construed by the enrt here. There is a distinction already agaitist them. When this statute was enacted in 1874 we put in a provision that Africans could be naturalized. but we omitted to put in these people. I ant told by the Senator from California [Mr. FAALEV1 thtn sonic ulaces they evade this law and do naturalize theim notwtithstanding this statute. and notwithstanding the decision of the courtit i the case that I have just real. Hence. I think. as a matter of precautio. his amendment should be adopted prohibiting the naturalization of these people any further. That is all I care to say at Iresenb. 31r. INGAflLS.
Keywords matched
naturalized naturalization naturalize Mongolian