Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Swearing Oaths - Damaging the oath of allegiance
NRO ^ | September 5, 2003 | John J Miller

Posted on 09/05/2003 12:14:58 PM PDT by gubamyster

September 5, 2003, 9:00 a.m.

The federal government is about to change the Oath of Allegiance that immigrants take at citizenship ceremonies — and make it worse.

NRO has obtained a copy of the new oath, which the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services plans to unveil on September 17 at an event in Washington, D.C. It will be published in the Federal Register that day and be made effective immediately, according to BCIS spokesman Russ Knocke. The public won't have a chance to comment on the changes until after the fact.

Let's be clear about something up front: The new oath is not a disaster. One of its well-meaning goals is to revise the outdated language of the current oath, which includes words that ordinary Americans almost never use, such as "abjure" and "potentate." Yet it also sheds a worthy martial flavor and introduces a clause that one day may give some clever ACLU lawyer enough leeway to make mischief with the meaning of American citizenship.

Here is the new Oath of Allegiance, as it appears in an internal document from BCIS (an agency within the Department of Homeland Security):

Solemnly, freely, and without mental reservation, I hereby renounce under oath all allegiance to any foreign state. My fidelity and allegiance from this day forward is to the United States of America. I pledge to support, honor, and be loyal to the United States, its Constitution, and its laws. Where and if lawfully required, I further commit myself to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, either by military, noncombatant, or civilian service. This I do solemnly swear, so help me God.

Immigration policy junkies will note that this tracks pretty closely to the language proposed by the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform in 1997. It also meets the basic criteria for an oath, as described in federal law.

On the rhetorical side of things, the new oath drops a very nice phrase that's in the current one: "I will bear arms on behalf of the United States." To be sure, the new oath mentions "military service," but not by employing that wonderfully patriotic and resonant phrase "bear arms." Did it remind somebody too much of the Second Amendment?

There's a substantive problem as well. It's the clause at the start of the fourth sentence: "Where and if lawfully required." What possible purpose do these words serve? It's not unreasonable to interpret them as meaning that people in "military, noncombatant, or civilian service" — i.e., working for the government — sometimes are not legally bound to defend the Constitution and U.S. laws. Several BCIS personnel have in fact raised alarms over this, but without effect.

There has been talk for years that the Oath of Allegiance was going to undergo some judicious editing, but most people assumed the changes at least would be discussed before they were imposed. The BCIS plan, however, is to make the new oath official less than two weeks from now — and to keep it under wraps until then. Why the rush? Apparently because September 17 is Citizenship Day, the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. This is also a date on which many immigrants are traditionally sworn-in as citizens. Why the secrecy? Somebody must want to give a speech that makes news about how the Bush administration is helping immigrants. Knocke of BCIS says Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge will be at the September 17 event.

Rather than racing forward with this new oath, here's a better idea: Tell the public that there's going to be a new oath in place by Citizenship Day 2004 — and that anybody is welcome to submit a proposal, so long as it abides by five principles encoded in law. This would generate enormous interest in the meaning of citizenship and might inspire some of our finest writers to give it a try. Wouldn't you like to see what talents like David McCullough, Peggy Noonan, and Tom Wolfe might invent? Or would you rather have the Oath of Allegiance placed in the hands of a faceless bureaucrat who hasn't ever published anything outside the Federal Register?

If we're going to change the Oath of Allegiance, let's slow down and do it the right way.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: citizenship; immigrantlist; immigration; oath

1 posted on 09/05/2003 12:14:59 PM PDT by gubamyster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *immigrant_list; A Navy Vet; Lion Den Dan; Free the USA; Libertarianize the GOP; madfly; B4Ranch; ..
ping
2 posted on 09/05/2003 12:16:24 PM PDT by gubamyster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster
Thanks for the Ping...Interesting. So much is going on!
3 posted on 09/05/2003 12:42:29 PM PDT by abigail2 (Refuse to do business with companies that are bilingual...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster
Bump. Thanks for the info. Wonder if it would help if they began getting calls?
4 posted on 09/05/2003 1:50:19 PM PDT by 4integrity (AJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster
Amazing subversion being carried out. I don't know who will carry the banner here, to many sold out in govt. Tancredo?
5 posted on 09/05/2003 5:15:10 PM PDT by flamefront (To the victor go the oils. No oil or oil-money for islamofascist weapons of mass annihilation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster
There's a substantive problem as well. It's the clause at the start of the fourth sentence: "Where and if lawfully required." What possible purpose do these words serve? It's not unreasonable to interpret them as meaning that people in "military, noncombatant, or civilian service" — i.e., working for the government — sometimes are not legally bound to defend the Constitution and U.S. laws. Several BCIS personnel have in fact raised alarms over this, but without effect.

Isn't it obvious? Some far-thinking Globalist scum have designed it to limit the duties of citizenship to this sovereign, the United States. It facilitates dual citizenship. It provides for a higher law than U.S. law and the Constitution, as, for example, UN Treaties. This, of course, dovetails nicely with what the Ginsberg/Breyer minority on the Supreme Court has been flirting with. But will a single one of our craven politicians raise a word in protest?

6 posted on 09/06/2003 12:34:00 AM PDT by Iconoclast2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster; Miss Marple; Howlin; TexasNative2000; rintense; lawgirl; RummyChick; JohnHuang2; ...
Dear Friend,

I thought "political correctness" had gone too far when the Pledge of Allegiance was banned from schools. But today I've got a whopper for you.

The Oath of Allegiance - the pledge taken by immigrants in becoming U.S. citizens - will be changed on September 17 by the Department of Homeland Security. In an attempt to "simplify" language, the meaning of the oath is being altered. Our analysts are working right now with congressional leaders and the White House to preserve the oath and prevent its being watered down.

The new "oath" drops much of the great, old language about unconditionally supporting and defending the Constitution and the laws of the United States and instead commits our new citizens to defending the Constitution only "where and if lawfully required." This change undermines the absolute "true faith and allegiance" (deleted language) necessary to foster a new citizens' attachment to this country-a prerequisite for republican government.

So at a time when our national security AND our core beliefs as Americans are under attack around the world, the very department that is supposed to help protect us from these threats wants to dilute the requirement that new immigrants pledge to defend our nation and its beliefs before we grant them citizenship!

I don't blame you if you don't believe me. I didn't believe it myself at first. So take a look yourself ...

*The old Oath of Allegiance
http://www.immigration.gov/graphics/services/natz/oath.htm

*The new Oath of Allegiance - cited in National Review Online
http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller090503.asp

The Department of Homeland Security is in a big rush to implement the new oath as part of a ceremony on Citizenship Day, September 17. So they've used a bureaucratic procedure to avoid releasing the text of the oath for the standard 60-day comment period.

As always, The Heritage Foundation is pledged to defend our nation's principles and our foundation as a civil society against all enemies - foreign, domestic and bureaucratic. So help us get the word out on the Department of Homeland Security's misguided attempts to make U.S. citizenship more "user-friendly" for those who want the benefits of our country, but don't care to accept the responsibility.

Forward this email to everyone you know, and check in at www.heritage.org for new updates. As always, thank you for your support that makes our work possible.

God Bless America,


Ed Feulner
President
7 posted on 09/12/2003 1:23:14 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
You can go here to submit comment.
8 posted on 09/12/2003 1:43:02 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl; ladyinred; truthandlife; cake_crumb; TXLady; xzins; diotima; Jeff Head; Dave S; ...
Ping to 7 & 8 above.
9 posted on 09/12/2003 1:47:14 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
Sent a message. Thanks for the heads up.
10 posted on 09/12/2003 6:54:15 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl ("Let's Roll" -Todd Beamer, 9-11-01. "I see happy!" free Iraqi man in Baghdad, 4-09-03)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson