The distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established. Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union. It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual. It is therefore decided that while a State may no longer decide the question of who shall be or become its citizens, the citizen of the United States must, before becoming a citizen of a State, take up his residence within the State. The term of residence is nowhere fixed, but a permanent residence or domicile is understood, “with intent that it shall continue until subsequent removal with the intent of abandoning such residence and acquiring another.” These momentous adjudications did not, however, address themselves to the matter of political participation. Although a state might not determine who should constitute its citizen body, there was no curtailment of its full authority to determine what political privileges should exist, or who should enjoy them. Neither Federal nor state citizenship, _per se_, entitles a man or woman to vote or to hold office; these are matters of state legislation and a number of states have accorded, and two still accord, to aliens who have merely declared their intention to seek citizenship, the right to vote. Moreover, respected authorities[38] hold the opinion that, while no state can prevent a citizen of the United States from becoming a citizen of the state, a state may grant its own citizenship to one who is not--perhaps to one who cannot become--a citizen of the United States.[39] But the Act of Congress, May 6, 1882, expressly prohibits the naturalization of any Chinese person. The courts from the beginning have recognized the existence of two concurrent, if not more or less separable, citizenships. In the Cruikshank case in 1875,[40] the Supreme Court said: