ASHINGTON, Sept. 13 — Government officials who had planned to unveil a more modern citizenship oath next week are going back to the drawing board.Posted on 09/13/2003 7:42:51 PM PDT by sarcasm
ASHINGTON, Sept. 13 — Government officials who had planned to unveil a more modern citizenship oath next week are going back to the drawing board.
The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services has canceled plans to use the oath for the first time at a swearing-in ceremony in Washington on Wednesday, a spokesman for the agency, Russ Knocke, said on Friday.
Eduardo Aguirre Jr., director of bureau said last week that his agency, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, wanted the language of the oath to be less arcane so it would be more meaningful to immigrants.
In the current oath, immigrants swear to "renounce and abjure" allegiance to princes and potentates. The new oath would have had them say, "Solemnly, freely and without any mental reservation, I hereby renounce all allegiance to any foreign state."
Domestic security and immigration officials decided to rewrite the oath again after receiving numerous letters and calls about the replacement, Mr. Knocke said. Though Mr. Knocke called it "positive feedback," some criticized the new oath and others insisted on more public comment.
The proposed changes led Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, to announce on Thursday that he would introduce legislation to put the current oath into law. Although Congress dictates what should be contained in the oath, the actual words are not in the law.
"The oath of allegiance is a fundamental statement on the commitment of becoming a United States citizen," Mr. Alexander said. "It should not be altered by a government agency, no matter how well intentioned."
The American Legion also weighed in. Language in the new oath appeared to make defending the country an option for naturalized citizens, said Marty Justis, the legion's Americanism division director. It drops the words "I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law."
"We are emphatic they be in there," Mr. Justis said.
Edwin A. Meese III, the attorney general in the Reagan administration, said in a letter that simplifying the oath would "weaken the powerful language and change the substantive meaning."
Some groups supported the simpler language, saying it would encourage citizenship. But several were unhappy that the public had not been given more opportunity to comment.
Mr. Knocke, the immigration spokesman, said the agency was pleased with the responses to changing the oath and wants to have a more formal comment period.
He said a timetable and details on the process would be released later.
Somehow, I think Peter Jennings opted out of that clause...
Hmmmm! Why not, 'I will bear arms to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution of the united States of America against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, regardless of the law'?
The current oath is not meaningless, but it's language is archaic and not easily understood by most people including college graduates. The new oath as currently worse than meaningess. Lamar Alexander is correct to want revisions in the proposed new oath. I only wish that more members of Congress took their own oaths of office seriously.
The majority Serbs in Kosovo used to think "cheap Albanian labor was a good idea. Look where that got them.
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.