Skip to comments.
New Citizenship Oath To Get Rewrite
Associated Press ^
| 09-12-03
Posted on 09/12/2003 6:44:05 PM PDT by Brian S
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:43:43 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
Government officials who planned to unveil a more modern citizenship oath next week are going back to the drawing board.
Citizenship and Immigration Services has canceled plans to use the oath for the first time at an immigrant swearing-in ceremony in Washington on Wednesday, a spokesman for the agency, Russ Knocke, told The Associated Press Friday.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
TOPICS: Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: citizenshipoath; naturalizedcitizens
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
1
posted on
09/12/2003 6:44:06 PM PDT
by
Brian S
To: Brian S
What they have to change it to Spanish!
2
posted on
09/12/2003 6:46:30 PM PDT
by
chas1776
To: Brian S
Maybe I'm "Friday dense," but I don't see anything wrong with the change.
3
posted on
09/12/2003 6:47:23 PM PDT
by
EggsAckley
(........I believe in using the abuse button......)
To: Brian S
The new oath would have had them, "solemnly, freely and without any mental reservation ... renounce ... all allegiance to any foreign state."
How does this square with dual citizenships?
4
posted on
09/12/2003 6:52:16 PM PDT
by
HuntsvilleTxVeteran
(The difference between a taxidermist and a tax collector? The taxidermist takes only your skin!)
To: Brian S
Another case of having to constantly prove your worth in government by having to change things. If it were change for good it would be one thing but, this is change for the sake of change and for pc crap. I tire of the overwhelming expansion of the federal mastadon. 1776 was the date of the big bang from which all laws were formed.
5
posted on
09/12/2003 6:53:12 PM PDT
by
satchmodog9
(it's coming and if you don't get off the tracks it will run you down)
To: EggsAckley
Originally, the changes were not to be public knowledge until after they were in effect!
NOT the best way to foster confidence in freedom and openess in govt.
6
posted on
09/12/2003 6:53:42 PM PDT
by
steplock
(www.FOCUS.GOHOTSPRINGS.com)
To: steplock
Well, I understand that part (now), but I still don't see anything wrong with the change.
7
posted on
09/12/2003 6:55:41 PM PDT
by
EggsAckley
(........I believe in using the abuse button......)
To: Brian S
Why not have a contest to write a new oath. I'm sure there are some talented citizens who could write a much better one than a committee of civil servants.
8
posted on
09/12/2003 6:56:41 PM PDT
by
Paleo Conservative
(Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
To: Brian S
The new oath drops a reference to "I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law."
Im sure this is the real reason why certain people wanted a change.
9
posted on
09/12/2003 6:57:45 PM PDT
by
Husker24
To: Husker24
No doubt.
To: Brian S
Here is the present oath:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, or whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or a citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of United States when required by law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
And here is the new proposed oath:
Solemnly, freely, and without any 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 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.
11
posted on
09/12/2003 7:06:53 PM PDT
by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
To: Brian S
I took the oath to be an American citizen and next to my children being born it was the greatest day in my life. What the Bush administration is doing to our immigration policy is a pure political move for the Hispanic vote.
I'm of Greek origin...does anyone have any doubts that if 20 million Greeks would cross the border illegally, GW and democrats would be fighting each other to make Greek the second language of the US?
I decided long ago that this was to be my nation and I not the nation had to adjust. Who are these so called immigrants who come here thinking the US of A has to adjust to them? Only the Mexicans.
Its because they dont come here to join our society and nation
they are coming here to take it over.
12
posted on
09/12/2003 7:06:57 PM PDT
by
dinok
To: FreedomCalls
Its citizenship light.
13
posted on
09/12/2003 7:08:39 PM PDT
by
dinok
To: Brian S
"renounce ... all allegiance to any foreign state"
WHAT A JOKE!!
14
posted on
09/12/2003 7:12:29 PM PDT
by
VU4G10
(Have You Forgotten?)
To: FreedomCalls
I notice they put the phrase "Constitution and Laws" in there twice.
Considering our God-less government and its suck-up polititians and Supreme Court have done their best to gut this document of most of its meaning....
What's the point?
15
posted on
09/12/2003 7:21:29 PM PDT
by
FixitGuy
To: FixitGuy
And they changed the straightforward anywhere, anytime language of this:
that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic
to this weasel version:
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.
Notice how you are now pledging to defend the Constitution only "where and if lawfully required". And you are now choosing the means to defend the Constitution only by working in the government in some capacity. There is no provision for defense of the Constitution as a civilian not affiliated with the government in some way.
16
posted on
09/12/2003 7:38:16 PM PDT
by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
To: FreedomCalls
Good eye...
Didn't even notice that!
17
posted on
09/12/2003 7:42:36 PM PDT
by
FixitGuy
To: FreedomCalls
How about defending the Constitution "if you're feeling really patriotic and are having a really nice day"?
18
posted on
09/12/2003 7:46:38 PM PDT
by
FixitGuy
To: FixitGuy
One question will be, can you spell "MEXIMERICA"......
19
posted on
09/12/2003 7:49:20 PM PDT
by
Joe Hadenuf
(What don't you understand about the word, "illegal"?)
To: Joe Hadenuf
Er, for the new citizenship test: One question will be, can you spell "MEXIMERICA"......
20
posted on
09/12/2003 7:50:38 PM PDT
by
Joe Hadenuf
(What don't you understand about the word, "illegal"?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson