Исторический режим натурализации 1790->1952 (свободно-белый -> 1870 -> 1906 -> 1940 -> INA)

Примеры сценариев

Примеры сценариев приведены на английском языке.

• Was statutorily barred from naturalization in 1910; eligibility opened only after 1943 (Magnuson Act) and fully under INA 1952 section 311.

  The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 section 14 (22 Stat. 58) forbade any state or federal court from admitting Chinese persons to citizenship; the 1870 Act's expansion reached only African descent, not Asian descent. The bar was repealed by the Magnuson Act 1943 (57 Stat. 600), and all racial bars were comprehensively removed by INA 1952 section 311.

• The ancestor's 1898 naturalization is valid under the then-governing 5-year-residence free-white regime; documented via the court/NARA naturalization file.

  Under the regime in force in 1898 (the 1795/1802 5-year-residence baseline carried forward, plus the free-white qualification then applicable), a qualifying European immigrant could be naturalized by a court of record. The naturalization is proved by the Declaration of Intention, Petition, and Certificate held by the court/NARA; the historical statute is the adjudicative anchor (1 Stat. 414 baseline; 2 Stat. 153 restoration).

• Lost citizenship by marriage under the pre-Cable rule (Mackenzie v. Hare); may resume under INA 324(a) = 8 USC 1435(a) (or the pre-1922-cohort repatriation track now at section 324(c)).

  Under the Expatriation Act 1907 section 3, upheld in Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299 (1915), a U.S.-citizen woman marrying a foreigner lost her citizenship. The Cable Act 1922 reformed this only partially (VC-12). A woman in the pre-1922 marital-loss cohort can resume citizenship by oath under INA 324 = 8 USC 1435 (US-RST-01); the dedicated pre-1922 repatriation relief originated in the Act of 25 Jun 1936 (49 Stat. 1917), now carried at section 324(c).

• Still lost her citizenship at the 1925 marriage despite the 1922 Cable Act, due to the section 3 racial coverture vestige - which was removed only by the Act of 3 Mar 1931 (46 Stat. 1511), not 1934.

  The Cable Act 1922 ended automatic marital expatriation only PARTIALLY (VC-12): section 3 preserved loss for a woman who married a man 'ineligible to citizenship.' Because the husband was within the era's Asian-descent ineligibility, she lost citizenship at the 1925 marriage. The racial vestige was removed by the Act of 3 Mar 1931, ch. 442, section 4(a), 46 Stat. 1511 (confirmed at govinfo STATUTE-46-Pg1511), which is distinct from the 1934 Equal Nationality Act (48 Stat. 797) that addressed transmission to children.

• Neither historical figure applies; the modern 5-year residence requirement under INA 316 governs, tracing to the 1802 Act.

  The 14-year rule (1798 Act) and 2-year rule (1790 Act) are closed historical figures. The Naturalization Law of 1802 (2 Stat. 153, 14 Apr 1802) restored the 5-year baseline, which endures in INA 316(a) = 8 USC 1427(a). A 2026 applicant naturalizes under the modern INA framework, not any historical statute.

• Was lawfully refused under the era's race-prerequisite doctrine; eligibility opened only with INA 1952 section 311.

  Under United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923), a high-caste Asian Indian was held not 'white' in the common understanding for the 'free white person' naturalization prerequisite, so the 1924 denial conformed to then-binding doctrine. The 1870 Act extended eligibility only to African descent, and the comprehensive removal of racial bars came with INA 1952 section 311; a present-day descendant claim is adjudicated against the era rule plus modern vehicles (N-600 / declaratory judgment).