E-mail Author Author Archive Send to a Friend <% dim printurl printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%> Version

September 15, 2003, 10:00 a.m. Oath on Ice Criticism delays changes to Oath of Allegiance.

he Bush administration will delay plans to revise the Oath of Allegiance, following criticism that emerged after NRO first reported on an effort inside the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services to simplify the oath's language.

"I've read the new oath that the BCIS may make public next week, and I prefer the traditional one," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) on Thursday. "The Oath of Allegiance is a fundamental statement on the commitment of becoming a United States citizen. It should not be altered by a government agency, no matter how well intentioned."

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:

Solemnly, freely, and without 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 its 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.

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:

First, placing the conditional phrase, "Where and if lawfully required" in front of the responsibility to defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies, weakens the force of this powerful language. Why not put the phrase after the obligation, instead of in front of it? In addition, the wording of this section could be construed by some to mean that this obligation applies only to citizens in particular military and civilian services instead of all citizens, as is made clear in the current oath.

Second, the term "either" in the phrase "either by military, noncombatant, or civilian service" suggests that the three possibilities are of equal weight and importance. It could suggest that not serving in the military when required to do so, is an easily available option, instead of a rarely used exception for a very small number of conscientious objectors.

Third, we don't think there is any strong reason to drop the solemn promise and stirring phrase, "I will bear arms on behalf of the United States," which should be clearly understandable to anyone who wishes to become an American citizen.

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:

I hereby declare under Oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce all allegiance to any foreign state or sovereignty; that I will support and defend the Constitution 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 non-combatant service in the Armed Forces of the 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.

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."