Article I, Section 8, Clause 4:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; . . .

The Supreme Court repeatedly affirmed Congress’s broad and exclusive power over naturalization into the twentieth century and the modern era. In United States v. Ginsberg, the Court in 1917 declared that “[a]n alien who seeks political rights as a member of this nation can rightfully obtain them only upon terms and conditions specified by Congress,” and that “[c]ourts are without authority to sanction changes or modifications; their duty is rigidly to enforce the legislative will in respect of a matter so vital to the public welfare.” 1 Similarly, in Schneiderman v. United States, the Court in 1943 recognized that “[t]he Constitution authorizes Congress ‘to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,’ and we may assume that naturalization is a privilege, to be given or withheld on such conditions as Congress sees fit.” 2 Decades later, in Fedorenko v. United States, the Court in 1981 maintained that “[t]his judicial insistence on strict compliance with the statutory conditions precedent to naturalization is simply an acknowledgment of the fact that Congress alone has the constitutional authority to prescribe rules for naturalization.” 3 In its 2001 decision in Nguyen v. INS, the Court acknowledged “the wide deference afforded to Congress in the exercise of its immigration and naturalization power.” 4

Exercising this broad power, Congress continued to enact legislation governing the naturalization of aliens. Like early U.S. naturalization laws, these laws similarly required naturalization applicants to establish continuous residence in the United States and good moral character during specified periods, among other requirements.5

, § 402, 104 Stat. 4978, 5038. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952, as amended, establishes the modern framework governing the naturalization of aliens in the United States.6

Footnotes

1

243 U.S. 472, 474 (1917).

2

320 U.S. 118, 131 (1943).

3

449 U.S. 490, 506–07 (1981) (quoting Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 791 (1950) (Black, J., dissenting)).

4

533 U.S. 53, 72–73 (2001); see also Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420, 455 (1998) ( “Judicial power over immigration and naturalization is extremely limited.” ).

5

See e.g., Naturalization Act of 1906, ch. 3592, § 4, 34 Stat. 596, 596–98; Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, §§ 316–319, 66 Stat. 163, 242–45 (codified at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1427–30); Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No.

101-649

, § 402, 104 Stat. 4978, 5038.

6

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, §§ 316–319, 66 Stat. 163, 244 (codified at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1427–30, 1439–40). The INA also codified a number of provisions that allowed for the collective naturalization of certain classes of aliens in U.S. territories or outlying possessions if they met specified requirements. See id. §§ 302 (persons born in Puerto Rico) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1402), 303 (persons born in the Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1403), 304 (persons born in Alaska) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1404), 305 (persons born in Hawai’i) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1405), 306 (persons born and living in the U.S. Virgin Islands) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1406), 307 (persons born and living in Guam) ( 8 U.S.C. § 1407).