IMMUNITIES.
The 14th Amendment, was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the Unit ed States, who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing.before its adoption. It is declaratory in form and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of free negroes and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks as well as whites born or natural ized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens thereof; U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 Sup. Ct 456, 42 L Ed. 890; Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 25 L. Ed. 664 ; In re Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 25 L. Ed. 676; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 26 L. Ed. 567 ; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 5 Sup. Ct. 41, 28 L. Ed. 643; Benny v. O'Brien, 58 N. J. L. 36, 32 AU. 696 ; Van Valkenburg v. Brown. 43 CaL 43, 13 Am. Rep. 136.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 used lan guage very similar to that of the 14th Amendment, and Harlan, J., in a dissenting opinion quoted from the veto message of President Johnson his interpretation of its meaning: It "comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific states, Indians subject to taxa tion, the people called gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, persons of color, negroes, mulattoes, and persons of African blood. Every individual of those races born in the United States is made a citizen thereof ;" Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 114, 5 Sup. Ct. 41, 28 L. Ed. 643; see also In re Gee Hop, 71 Fed. 274.
"No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their ju risdiction, or born without those limits and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the federal constitution ;" Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43, 13 Am. Rep. 136.
The amendment does not give to congress power to protect by legislation the rights of state and national citizenship; Smoot v. Ry. Co., 13 Fed. 337 ; but it distinguishes be tween the two ; Frasher v. State, 3 Tex. App. 263, 30 Am. Rep. 131. A person may be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of any state ; Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 74, 21 L. Ed. 394;
U. S. v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods, 308, Fed. Cas. No. 14,897 ; Cully v: R. Co., 1 Hughes, 536, Fed. Cas. No. 3,466. The term citizen is analogous to subject at common law ; U. S.
V. Rhodes, 1 Abb. U. S. 39, Fed. Cas. No. 16, 151; Sampson v. Burgwin, 20 N. C. 21; Mc Kay v. Campbell, 2' Sawy. 129, Fed. Cas. No. 8,840. The amendment does not confer citi zenship on persons of foreign birth ; Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43, 13 AM. Rep. 136. Neither Chinese nor Japanese can be come citizens ; In re Ah Yup, 5 Sawy. 155, Fed. Cas. No. 104; In re Look Tin Sing, 21 Fed. 905; In re Saito, 62 Fed. 126; In re Gee Hop, 71 Fed. 274 ; State v. Ah Chew, 16 Nev. 51, 40 Am. Rep. 488; unless born in this country of resident parents not engaged in the diplomatic service ; In re Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawy. 353, 21 Fed. 905 ; U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 Sup. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890.
Indians are not citizens; McKay v. bell, 2 Sawy. 129, Fed. Cas. No. 8,840 ; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 5 Sup. Ct. 41, 28 L. Ed. 643 ; but an Indian if taxed, after tribal relations are dissolved, is a citizen ; U. S. v. Elm, 23 Int. Rev. Rec. 419, Fed. Cas. No. 15, 048 ; and the child of a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States is not a citizen, though born in the United States ; McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawy. 118, Fed. Cas. No. 8,840; and although the parents have given up their tribal relations they cannot become citizens until they are first natu ralized; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 103, 5 Sup. Ct. 41, 28 L. Ed. 643.
Free persons of color, born in the United States, were always entitled to be regarded as citizens ; U. S. v. Rhodes, 1 Abb. U. S. 28, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151; but see Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. (U. S.) 393, 15 L. Ed. 691. Negroes born within the United States are citizens; U. S. v. Canter, 2 Bond 389, Fed. Cas. No. 14,719; In re Turner, Chase's Dec. 157, Fed. Cas. No. 14,247 (but not before the 14th Amendment; Fired Scott v. Sand ford, 9 How. (U. S.) 393, 15 L. Ed. 691; Mar shall v. Donovan, 10 Bush (Ky.) 681) ; but not an escaped slave residing in Canada or his children ; People v. Board, 26 Mich. 51, 12 Am. Rep. 297.