Ex Parte Mohriez
54 F. Supp. 941 (1944)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual of Arabian descent is eligible for naturalization as a "white person" under § 303 of the Nationality Act of 1940. This determination is based on the "understanding of the common man" test, which considers historical, cultural, and geographical connections to Europe and the Mediterranean rather than a scientific or ethnological definition of race.
Facts:
- Mohamed Mohriez was born in Sanhy, Badan, Arabia, and his parents and grandparents were also Arabs from that region.
- On January 15, 1921, Mohriez was lawfully admitted to the United States as an immigrant for permanent residence.
- The part of Asia from which Mohriez came was not within the 'barred zone' established by immigration laws, making natives from his region admissible as immigrants.
- Mohriez regarded himself and his immediate ancestors as being white persons belonging to the white race.
- His native language was Arabian.
Procedural Posture:
- Mohamed Mohriez filed a petition for naturalization in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) representative, with approval from the Commissioner, recommended that the petition be granted.
- The INS representative informed the court of its current practice to regard Arabs as white persons eligible for citizenship.
- The INS representative also noted for the court that other federal district courts in New York and Michigan had previously issued rulings denying naturalization to Arabian applicants.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an Arab qualify as a 'white person' eligible for naturalization under § 303 of the Nationality Act of 1940?
Opinions:
Majority - Wyzanski, District Judge
Yes. An Arab qualifies as a 'white person' for naturalization purposes under the 'understanding of the common man' test. The court reasoned that previous Supreme Court cases like Ozawa and Thind rejected scientific definitions of 'white' in favor of how the term was commonly understood. Applying this test, the court found that in the common understanding, Arabs are part of the white race, often compared to Jewish people, who were always considered eligible for naturalization. The court emphasized the deep historical and cultural interconnections between the Arab world and Europe, citing Arab presence in Spain and Sicily, contributions to science like algebra, and the role of Arab scholars in preserving Greek traditions. Additionally, the court made a policy argument that immigration and naturalization acts should be read together ('in pari materia'), suggesting that a person legally admitted for permanent residence should be eligible for citizenship to avoid creating a permanent underclass. Finally, the court noted that an inclusive interpretation of the Nationality Act promotes friendlier foreign relations and aligns with American democratic ideals.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for its application of the Supreme Court's vague 'understanding of the common man' test to a specific group, Arabs, thereby expanding the legal definition of 'white' for naturalization purposes. By focusing on cultural and historical assimilation with Europe rather than just skin color or ethnography, the court carved out a path for certain non-European peoples to gain citizenship under racially restrictive laws. The opinion also reflects a broader policy shift, arguing that immigration admissibility should logically lead to naturalization eligibility to prevent a permanent resident caste system, a principle that would influence later immigration and nationality law debates.
