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

Skip to comments.

New citizenship oath under fire
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, September 19, 2003

Posted on 09/19/2003 1:46:36 AM PDT by JohnHuang2

Protests over the recently unveiled revised oath to be taken by new U.S. citizens has immigration officials working on yet another rewrite.

Complaints from those who criticized the weakening of the portion pledging to serve in the military, as well as the elimination of a promise to bear arms, apparently has not fallen on deaf ears, the Associated Press reported.

According to the report, immigration officials announced the new oath earlier this month, saying they were revising the language for the first time in 50 years. Officials hoped to remove such archaic language as the promise to "renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty."

At the same time however, the bureaucrats eliminated a vow to "bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law."

AP reports the section promising to serve in the military if mandated by law was softened to say: "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."

Critics slammed the new oath language.

"The real shift is the old oath was an absolute commitment. You took an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. That's an absolute commitment," Matthew Spalding, director of the Hudson Institute's Center for American Studies, told AP.

A lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union praised the new pledge.

"I think some are confused about this new oath, maybe trying to invent controversy for the purpose of casting doubt on the loyalty of new Americans and on the dedication of the immigration service, and I think that's a shame," the news service quotes attorney Tim Edger as saying.

Here are the two oaths in question:

Current citizenship 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, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or 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 the law; that I will perform non-combatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law, and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, so help me God.

The rewritten 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, non-combatant or civilian service. This I do solemnly swear, so help me God.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aclu; citizenship; citizenshipoath; lefties; militaryservice; oath; pc; unfreakingbelievable; watereddown
Friday, September 19, 2003

Quote of the Day by bootyist-monk

1 posted on 09/19/2003 1:46:36 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I'm speechless.
2 posted on 09/19/2003 1:51:15 AM PDT by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piasa
"......where and if LAWFULLY required....."

Hmmmm, sounds to me that they might be a little worried about something.
3 posted on 09/19/2003 4:19:25 AM PDT by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: piasa; Luis Gonzalez
>>> I'm speechless.

I am, too.
4 posted on 09/19/2003 4:19:35 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
"The real shift is the old oath was an absolute commitment. You took an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. That's an absolute commitment," Matthew Spalding, director of the Hudson Institute's Center for American Studies, told AP.

Matthew Spalding is with the Heritage Foundation, not the Hudson Institute.

5 posted on 09/19/2003 4:47:49 AM PDT by Pyro7480 (“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid" - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
....an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Citizenship aside... a LOT of people take THIS oath, when THEY, in fact, ARE the enemy!!!
6 posted on 09/19/2003 5:42:38 AM PDT by Elsie (Don't believe every prophecy you hear: especially *** ones........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
ahhh...The transparency of the ACLU reigns supreme here....both versions contain the words "so help me GOD".

7 posted on 09/19/2003 5:48:19 AM PDT by grumple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piasa
"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, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or 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 the law; that I will perform non-combatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law, and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, so help me God."

The oath should be taken, exactly as written, by every citizen...foreign born or native.

I will say this however, the government owes citizens its allegiance, not the other way around.

8 posted on 09/19/2003 5:58:08 AM PDT by Luis Gonzalez ("As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." - Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
The ACLU again,good lord! It's like a long-running nightmare.
9 posted on 09/19/2003 6:04:06 AM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I think that all native born citizens should have to take the current oath as well.

Perhaps we could make the ACLU happy by requiring an oath of allegience to the UN.
10 posted on 09/19/2003 6:47:25 AM PDT by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
It's subtle but I don't have a problem with the things the author has pointed out. I think he missed the larger picture. The new oath says essentially the same as the old regarding defending the country and renouncing foreign allegiance.

The significant change is this:

Old: "...that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

New: "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."

The old recognized the supremacy of law over government, the second requires allegiance to the government and its laws. God help us that this is what we are teaching our new citizens.

11 posted on 09/19/2003 7:19:48 AM PDT by pgyanke (This tagline is irrelevant and should be ignored)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Thanks for the post John.

"fidelity to any foreign prince"

This line is very important.

Is the King or Queen of England on the way back?

12 posted on 09/19/2003 7:33:21 AM PDT by Major_Risktaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Major_Risktaker
You're welcome; thanks for bumping the thread.
13 posted on 09/19/2003 7:49:54 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
We need to keep the citizenship (without the changes)! It needs to remain strong and definite in these times of terrorism!
14 posted on 09/19/2003 10:10:43 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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