DHS proposing change to Oath of Allegiance that new citizens must recite.

[DealsGapRider]

From the New Republic:

The Immigration and Naturalization Service--which recently became the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, part of the sweeping bureaucratic letterhead change that is the Department of Homeland Security--is about to rewrite the Oath of Allegiance recited by naturalized U.S. citizens. The proposed change of the existing oath, which was standardized in 1929, is somewhat spooky.

Here is the current Oath of Allegiance that new American citizens must recite at naturalization ceremonies:

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.

Here is the proposed new Oath of Allegiance, written by the lawyers at the Department of Homeland Security:

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.

This language is a little cleaner, but check that weird new qualifier: A citizen will defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States "where and if lawfully required." Is Homeland Security suggesting there is some circumstance when it is not lawful to defend the Constitution? Times when the laws of the United States should be ignored? And just exactly why shouldn't the vow to defend the Constitution be absolute?

I like the old version better.

:dem:

[sangh0]

1. Silly

A citizen will defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States "where and if lawfully required." Is Homeland Security suggesting there is some circumstance when it is not lawful to defend the Constitution? Times when the laws of the United States should be ignored? And just exactly why shouldn't the vow to defend the Constitution be absolute?

It's not that defending the Constitution is sometimes "not lawful". It's that the Constitution contains no requirement for citizens to defend it. The only time when defending the Consitution is required is when it is "lawfully required" (after enlisting, or being drafted, etc)

[grasswire]

2. what is this....

..."civilian service"? Does that mean conscripting citizens as informants? As drones? As slave labor?

What?

[Snow]

5. Naaahhh, that's one of the traditional CO routes

out of combatant status. Some CO's will refuse to do anything that's even in support of soldiers or involves being under direction of soldiers. For example, there's a group of Quakers in Minneapolis who settled there after WWII, when they were conscripted there to be a part of starvation studies directed by Univ. Minn. under the Lab of Physiologic Hygiene. Poor guys; they sort of volunteered for it, but talking with them at Quaker Meeting, they still remember how hungry they were during the study. None of them were close to death or even endangered, but they were on a very low calorie diet for an extended time.

[Snow]

3. I like the update, actually,

my wife has some problems with it _many_ years ago when she took it. It wasn't clear whether they meant renouncing royal titles or not, and since she's at last look something like 6th in line for the crown of a middle-sized Asian country (which is no longer a monarchy, thank goodness - life is complicated enough), she was feeling conflicted. We decided it just meant they didn't want dual citizenship.

[mkregel]

4. Actually i like the new version better

It leaves out the "I will bear arms on behalf of the United States" which means compulsory military service and leaves it more ambiguous.