http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34680
Is it me, or is there a substantive difference between "I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America" and the new version "I pledge to support, honor and be loyal to the United States, its Constitution and laws"?
I think I prefer citizens willing to do the former rather than the latter.
New citizenship oath under fire
Protests over weakened vow bring feds back to drawing board
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 19, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
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.
Is it me, or is there a substantive difference between "I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America" and the new version "I pledge to support, honor and be loyal to the United States, its Constitution and laws"?
I think I prefer citizens willing to do the former rather than the latter.
New citizenship oath under fire
Protests over weakened vow bring feds back to drawing board
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 19, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
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.
