 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Alexander also said he would introduce legislation to make the current oath, which is recited by immigrants at naturalization ceremonies, the law of the land. "Doing so will give the Oath of Allegiance the same status enjoyed by other key symbols and statements of being American: the American flag, the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Anthem, and our National Motto," he said. Federal law requires that any Oath of Allegiance abide by five principles, but it doesn't mandate specific language. Critics complain that the existing oath uses uncommon words such as "abjure" and "potentate." The revised oath, as proposed by BCIS, would read:
BCIS had intended to announce the new oath in the Federal Register on September 17 and start using it the same day, giving the public no time to comment on the changes before making them official. When NRO published the new oath on September 5, however, readers quickly identified several problems. For starters, there's a grammatical error in the second sentence: The subject ("fidelity and allegiance") is plural but the verb ("is") is singular. Perhaps it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is. Then again, an oath that's being revised because of perceived problems with its language shouldn't introduce new mistakes. This is especially important when most immigrants are required to demonstrate a rudimentary ability to speak, read, and write English as a part of earning citizenship. Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III of the Heritage Foundation raised other concerns in a September 10 letter to homeland-security chief Tom Ridge, whose department contains the BCIS: "I note that the proposed language only asks new citizens to renounce their allegiance to a 'foreign state.' In an era of international but non-state specific terrorism, this singular reference is not sufficient. At the very least, an additional reference to 'sovereignty' or other appropriate term should be maintained." Another letter from the Citizenship Roundtable — a joint project of the American Legion and the Hudson Institute — highlighted additional problems on September 9:
The good news is that somebody listened to these comments and decided to put off changing the oath. The hope is that if the administration moves forward, it will incorporate these observations into its revisions. The Citizenship Roundtable actually proposed new language long before the Bush administration's plans started making news:
Whatever happens, everybody involved would do well to heed the advice of Lamar Alexander: "The Oath of Allegiance should not be altered lightly," he said. "If it should ever be revised, it should be done in an open and democratic manner. The people should have a chance to make their views known. Congress should vote. That's the American way." |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
he
Bush administration will delay plans to revise the Oath of Allegiance,
following criticism that emerged after NRO 
