File No. 17450/2.
Minister Dawson to the Secretary of State.
Bogota, March 22, 1909.
Sir: As inclosure No. 2 with this legation’s No. 205, of December 5, 1908,1 there was sent to the department a translation of the recent immigration law of Colombia.
The department will observe that by articles 2 and 14 the Colombian consuls abroad are constituted immigration agents and their duties as such defined;
That by articles 5 and 6 immigrants will not be allowed to come to Colombia unless they sign a declaration expressly subjecting themselves to Colombian laws and Colombian courts, and renouncing the right to protection through the diplomatic channel;
That by articles 9 and 10 immigrants and their sons shall be subject to Colombian military service in case of international war; and
That by article 11 immigrants who may participate in any strike shall be deported as pernicious foreigners.
I can find nothing in our treaty or consular convention with Colombia which expressly or impliedly authorizes Colombian consuls to exercise jurisdiction as immigration agents within the territory of [Page 222] the United States, or any authority for the general proposition that the functions of immigration agents can be considered as included in those of consuls. Whether in fact or in practice their exercising such functions in the United States could result harmfully is a matter upon which, in my judgment, it is not necessary for this legation to offer an opinion.
It seems that the Department of State has never found it necessary to pronounce either directly in favor of or against the doctrine that a domiciled immigrant is subject to general military service in case of international war. That he is subject to police duty, can be required to take part in defending the city of his residence against siege, etc., would seem clear, but the existence of an unqualified obligation to defend the general political interests of the country to which he has emigrated in case it engages in international war is perhaps still an open question. (See Moore’s International Law Digest, Vol. IV, sec. 548.)
I have, etc.,
- Not printed.↩