Liberal Thought in Argentina, 1837-1940

Speech on the Residence Act (1904)

336 . . . But it is sufficient to open the preambles to the constitutions of the United States and the Argentine Republic, and place them side by side to see they have one fundamental difference. They are both intended to safeguard liberty. What liberty can they be referring to when both constitutions refer to it? Might it be political freedom or civil freedom? There is not one North American, English, or South American writer who does not say that the preambles of the constitutions I am alluding to refer solely and exclusively to civil liberty. And it cannot be otherwise. Political organizations are designed to maintain civil liberty. And the Argentine nationality, in organizing itself, has had necessarily to refer to this civil liberty. Mr. Gutiérrez, speaking as a reporting member of the Convention of ’53, stated perfectly the Argentine Constitution’s uniformity of ideas with thoseof the North American Constitution. If therewere anydoubt, the solution ought, then, to have been sought in the source, namely, the American Constitution, which states clearly and incontrovertibly that the liberty enshrined in the Constitution is civil liberty. Mr. Sarmiento, whose authority has been brought to this Chamber, says on the subject, referring to the declarations I have mentioned, the following: Such a declaration amounts to an invitation to all the men in the world to come and share in the liberties that are assured them, a promise to make those freedoms effective, and an indication that there is land available for those who wish to join the Argentine family of the future. In a word, the Argentine Republic declares 11 pEdRo CoRoNado Speech on the Residence Act (1904) Original title: “Discurso sobre la Ley de Residencia.” Source: Cámara de Diputados , Diario de Sesiones [Chamber of Deputies, Congressional Record] (Buenos Aires, July 25, 1904). SPeech on the reSIdence act (1904) : 337 itself to be in a state of colonization and incorporates in its institutions the expression of this feeling, the desire to see it satisfied, and the sure means of verifying it. Spain closed its colonies to all men of a stock, a language, or a belief different to her own, whence there resulted an exclusive and prohibitive system of institutions that violated all the principles of freedom of action and thought, without which the population of the territory is impossible and government becomes tutelage or a tyranny. As the honorable deputies can see, I have made every effort to provide the evidence that the liberty enshrined in our Constitution is civil liberty. . . . Political rights change, Mr. President, with the spirit and regulations of each nation. But what nobody has been able to change is this generally accepted and uniformly acknowledged principle that the right to residence is a civil right, just as the freedom to reside is a freedom that emerges from this civil right, and freedom of residence is expressly enshrined in the National Constitution. If the right to reside were not a civil right, there would be people within the territory of the Republic who, not having political rights, would not be able to reside in our country. Women who are Argentine, who are of age, who are unmarried and do not therefore have to follow their husbands in their abode, without political rights would not have the right to reside. Can we deny Argentine women without political rights the right to reside in any part of the Republic’s territory? Clearly not. Therefore, the right to reside is not a political right. To have the right to reside, then, it is necessary to be able to enjoy such rights, and to maintain them, all individual guarantees must be maintained, and it is wholly unacceptable for the Argentine Constitution to establish differences between nationals and foreigners in this matter. I enumerate all this because I understand that, if the right to reside is a civil right and is enshrined in civil liberty, acknowledged by all the inhabitants wishing to come to our land, any foreigners given this civil status have the right to reside in our country wherever and however they like without anyone having to expel them, save by means we shall see later on. But if by establishing coercive laws we were to abolish civil freedom, if by establishing these laws we were to cease to acknowledge 338 : Pedro coronado that the right to reside is a civil right, we would have created an empty wordplay that...