Definition
The act of removing from one country or state to another with the intention of taking up residence there. Emigration describes the physical relocation of a person — and typically their property — away from their place of origin. It is assessed from the perspective of the place of departure: the person leaves. The corresponding term for arrival is immigration.
Emigration does not, by itself, imply any legal change in citizenship or political allegiance. A person may emigrate while retaining full citizenship in their country of origin. This distinguishes emigration from the stronger concept of expatriation, which involves the deliberate renunciation of citizenship and political ties. The two often occur together, but they are legally distinct acts.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "The act of emigrating; movement of a person or persons out of a country or national region, for the purpose of permanent relocation of residence."
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "The act of emigrating; removal from one country or state to another, for the purpose of residence, as from Europe to America, or, in America, from the Atlantic States to the Western."
The common and legal meanings are close, but the legal definition is more precise on one point: ordinary usage treats emigration as self-evidently involving a foreign destination, while legal sources have applied the word to internal migration — removal from one state to another within the same country, or even from one part of a country to another. Researchers reading historical legal texts should not assume emigration implies crossing a national border.
---
Common Confusion
EMIGRATION vs. EXPATRIATION: The most important distinction in the historical sources. Emigration is the act of physical removal; expatriation is the act of renouncing one's country and citizenship. Emigration may occur without expatriation (a French national relocates to Canada but keeps French citizenship), and expatriation may conceptually occur without emigration (though this is rare in practice). Black's states the relationship directly: expatriation is "usually the consequence" of emigration, not its equivalent. Conflating the two in historical legal documents can misread the legal status of an individual.
EMIGRATION vs. IMMIGRATION: Perspectival counterparts. Emigration is departure from the origin jurisdiction; immigration is arrival in the destination jurisdiction. The same physical act is emigration when viewed from the sending country and immigration when viewed from the receiving country. Legal consequences differ sharply: emigration law historically governed who could leave; immigration law governs who may enter and remain.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The term carries shifting scope across historical sources. Bouvier and Rapalje apply emigration loosely to internal removal — movement from one part of a country to another — while Black's (both editions) anchors it to cross-national domicile change. A researcher reading an 1850s legal opinion that discusses emigration must determine whether the author meant international relocation or interstate movement within the United States, both of which were live issues during westward expansion.
The emigration/expatriation boundary is critical in nationality and citizenship research. Pre-twentieth-century doctrine in many jurisdictions did not recognize a general right of expatriation — a subject could emigrate physically but remain legally bound to their sovereign. Cases and treatises that treat emigration as legally consequential on questions of allegiance may be operating under this older framework, where the act of removal carried more legal weight than it does in modern nationality law.
Anderson's entry is a redirect rather than a definition, pointing researchers to immigration, commerce, and the writ ne exeat. This is useful navigational intelligence: in the American legal tradition, emigration's legal significance was often addressed indirectly through commerce power doctrine (control of persons crossing borders) and through ne exeat proceedings (which could prevent a person from leaving the jurisdiction entirely). Researchers pursuing the legal regulation of emigration should follow these cross-references rather than expecting a unified body of emigration law comparable to immigration law.
In constitutional contexts, note that the United States has never enacted a comprehensive federal emigration statute. The regulatory asymmetry — dense statutory immigration law, almost no emigration law — means that historical legal dictionary discussions of emigration often describe the concept more than any specific legal framework.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's (1st and 2nd editions) are in close agreement, offering the most precise definition of the set: emigration as domicile change across country or state lines, explicitly distinguished from expatriation. Both editions note that the former is "usually the consequence of the latter," a formulation suggesting a causal sequence rather than synonymy.
Bouvier and Rapalje align with each other (Rapalje citing Bouvier directly) and diverge from Black's on scope, applying the term to internal as well as international removal. Bouvier also notes the partial overlap with expatriation while acknowledging the distinction — though less crisply than Black's.
Anderson's entry is practically a stub, redirecting to related terms. It adds little independent definitional content but usefully signals which adjacent legal concepts carry the real doctrinal weight.
None of the historical sources fully addresses what was, by the mid-twentieth century, the central legal question around emigration: whether individuals possess an affirmative legal right to leave a country. This gap reflects the era of the sources. The right to emigrate as a matter of international human rights law postdates all five dictionaries.
---
Jurisdictional Note
In U.S. law, the right to travel — including the right to leave the country — has been treated as a liberty interest with constitutional dimensions, but its precise doctrinal basis remains unsettled. In international law, the right to emigrate is recognized under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Researchers working in comparative or international contexts should not import U.S. domestic assumptions about this right, or its absence, into foreign legal systems.
---