Traditionally, oath-taking has a tremendous impact on a citizen and his behavior. It is a moment of instruction and commitment whose memories last. For centuries, this has been a nation of immigrants whose hard work, perseverance and vision of the “American dream” — combined with the democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution — have enabled this country to distinguish itself among the nations. The Oath of Allegiance that new immigrants must take is a solemn and proper reflection on what these ideals represent. Citizenship ceremonies began including such an oath in 1790, federal law mandated its recital in 1929, and its current wording was adopted in the 1950s. The exact wording of such an oath matters.
In September, however, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS) hastily moved to adapt the wording of the current oath. Their motive was honorable — to update the language and make it more meaningful for citizens reciting the oath — but the proposed language changes would have in fact weakened this very important pledge. The current oath states: “I hereby declare … that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic … that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law.” The proposed adapted oath read: “I hereby renounce under oath all allegiance to any foreign state … I pledge to support, honor, and be loyal to the United States, its Constitutions and its laws.”
Advocates of the new oath may say that the differences are minor, but they are not. The new oath merely renounced allegiance to foreign states, but this country’s current greatest adversary, terrorism, does not hold allegiance to a foreign state, but to a set of dangerous ideals and men. The new oath also no longer required oath-takers to defend the Constitution or to bear arms. Public protest prevented BCIS from following through with the suggested changes. But even the possibility that the oath would be adapted by a handful of bureaucrats is disturbing.
Yesterday, the immigration subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on H.R. 3191, a resolution that codifies the current Oath of Allegiance until Congress would see fit to amend it, introduced by Rep. Jim Ryun, Kansas Republican. We recommend that the bill proceed to mark-up as soon as possible. Sen. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee Republican, introduced a similar piece of legislation in the fall, but unfortunately his Oath of Allegiance Bill has yet to even receive a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The tragedy of September 11 made many Americans ponder what, in fact, it did mean to be an American citizen. In an effort to strengthen and preserve these distinctly American ideals, we recommend that the Oath of Allegiance join the U.S. flag, the Pledge of Allegiance, the national anthem and the national motto as the law of the land, subject to change only by the will of the people.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.