plaintiff did not acquire American citizenship by the naturalization of his mother, he is not now an American citizen, and the relief he seeks cannot be granted.
Accepting the construction of the statute contended for by the plaintiff, however, and assuming that he did acquire American citizenship by the naturalization of his mother, he then immediately ceased to have Palestinian citizenship under Palestinian law. His contention that his subsequent Palestinian naturalization was a futile and unnecessary act is obviously without basis. Such naturalization, according to the Palestinian law, constituted an act of expatriation under American law, and he ceased then to be an American citizen. It makes no difference whether, in the course of that naturalization, he was required, by the law of Palestine, to take an oath of allegiance or only to make affirmation. The American statute of expatriation is in the disjunctive.
Either naturalization in any foreign state, in conformity with its laws, or the taking of an oath of allegiance to any foreign state constitutes expatriation. The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit.
When the Congress speaks of a 'foreign State,' it means a country which is not the United States, or its possession or colony- an alien country- other than our own, bearing in mind that the average American, when he speaks of a 'foreigner,' means an alien, non- American. Uyeno v. Acheson, D.C., 96 F.Supp. 510.
Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine at that time was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce.
It is urged that American citizenship is a priceless possession and one ought not lightly to be deprived of it. That is indeed true, and it is equally true that it is such a priceless possession that one ought not to trifle with it, negate it and abjure it, as the plaintiff in this case has done. This is not the case of some one unlearned and ignorant, but one whose passion to return to his native land, and there to pursue the study of law, which led him to admission to the bar as an advocate before the civil courts of Palestine, and later to pursue his study of the law in the famous Inns of Courts in London, dominated and frustrated any rights he might have had to American citizenship.
The relief sought by the complaint must be denied.