{"newspaper_name": "The Arkansas banner.", "edition": "01", "page": "p1", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 5787, "word_count": 1027, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9587000012397766], "ccnet_perplexity": [767.7999877929688], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}


 ished by imprisonment, or disqualification ever to become citizen, on conviction of not obeying the order of removal, he cannot be discharged from the proceedings against him, and restored to the benefits of lis for ner situation, although the Hghesi jaditia1 asaa0rity should see the most sufficient cause foril

 But, ia the last place, il can never be ad- mitted that the removal of aliens, authorised by the Act, is to be considered, not as pun isment for an offence, bull as a measure of precaution and prevention. If the banisment of an alien from T country into which he las been invited as the asylum most suspicious 10 his happiness, 6 country where he may have formed the most tender connections, where he may have invested his entire proper ty, and acquired property of the real and per manent, as well as the moTeable and tempo fary kiad-where he enjoys, undcr the laws, greater share of the blessings of personal security and parsonai liberty, than he can elsewhere hope fer, and where he may have nearly completed hts probationary tile 10 citizenship: if, moreover, in the execution of the sentence against him, he is to be exposed, not only to ordinary dangers of the sea, but 10 the peculiar casualties incident 10 crisis of war, and of unusual hcentousness on that element, and possibly to Nindicate purposes which his emigration itself may have pro- yolled if a banisment of this sort be not q punishment, it will be difficult 10 imagine doom 10 which the name can be applied.- And If 1t be punishmeet, 1t will remain to hpI I, iy inflicted, on mere suspicion, by the single will of the Executive Magistrate, on persons convicted of no personal offence against the laws of the land, nor inyolyod in any offence against the law of nations, charged on the foreign state of which they are members.

 0ne argument offered in justification of this power exercised over aliens, is, that the admission of them into the country being of favor, not of right, the favor is at all times fevocable.

 To this arrangement it might be answered, that, allowing the truth of the inference. 1t would be no proof of what is required 4 question would still occur, whether the Con- stitulion had vested the discretionary power ol admitting aliens ia the Federal Govern ment or in the State Governments.

 But 1t cannot be a true inference, that, be- cause the admission Of all alien is a favor, the favor may be revoked at pleasure 4 grant of land to an individual may be of fa- vor, but not of right, but the moment the grant is made, the favor becomes a right, and must be forfeited before il can be taken away. To pardon maleiactor, may be favor, but the pardon is not OH that account the less ifreYocable. To admit an alien to natarali- zation, IS as much favor as to admit him to reside in the country, yet it cannot be pre- tended that person naturalized can be de- prived of the benefits, any more than na- tive citizen can be disfr4nchised

 Again, it is said that aliens not being par- ties 10 the Constitution, the rights and priv i!eges which itseeures cannot bc at all claimed by them.

 To this reasoning, also, it might be an- swered that, although aliens are not parties to the Constitution, il does not follow that the Constitution has vested in Congress all absolute power over them. The parties to the Constitution may have granted, or re- tained, or modified the power over aliens, without regard to that particular considera, tion.

 Buta more direct reply is, that it does not follow, because aliens are parties to the constitution, as citizens are parties to it that, whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to it's protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws than they are not parties to the Constitution; yet il will pot be disputed that, as they owe, on one hand, temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their protection and advantage.

 Il aliens had no right under the Constitu- ton, they might not only be bauished, but even capitally punished, without jury or the other incidents to fair trial. But so far has contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that, except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides al the common privileges, the special one ol being tried by a jary, of which one half may be also aliens

 1t is said, further, that by the law and prae- tice of nations, aliens may be removed at discretion for offences against the law of na- nations; that Congress are authorized to de- fine and punish such offences: and that to be dangerous to the peace of society, is, in aliens, one of those offences

 The distinction between alien enemies ant alien friends, Ii clear and conclusive an swer to this argument. Alien enemies are under the law of nations, and liable to b, punishedlior offences against it. Alien friends except in the single case of public ministers are under the municipal law, and must b( tried 9:d punished according to that law on ly

 This argument ais3, by referring the aier Act to the power of Congress to define ant punish offences against the law of nations yields the point that the Act is of a penal not merely of preventive, operation. l must, in truth, be so considered. And if i be penal Act, the punishment it inhicts must be justified by some offence that de serves it.

 Offences for which aliens, within the ju risdiclion of a country, arc punishable, are 1 first, offences committed by the nation o which they make part, and in whose often ces they are involved: Secondly, offences committed by themselves alone, without any charge against the nation to which they be long. The first is the case of alien enemies the second, the case af alien friends. In tn first case, the offending nation can no other wise be punished than by war, one of tn