Immigration Bureaucrats Try to Weaken the Oath of Citizenship

Conservatives have stalled an attempt by immigration bureaucrats to water down the oath of citizenship.

The scheme, "crafted within the darkest corners of the Department of Homeland Security," according to UPI, would soften the oath's commitment to defend the Constitution and eliminate a promise to bear arms.

Thank Edwin Meese and Sen. Lamar Alexander for stopping the nonsense, at least for now. Former U.S. Attorney General Meese, a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation, fired off a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Alexander, R-Tenn., led efforts in the U.S. Senate to codify the oath as is.

The revision would remove a line pledging to "renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty." It would eliminate a vow to "bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law" and rewrite a section pledging to serve in the armed forces when required by law.

The P.C. new version: "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."

Bureaucrats claimed they merely wanted the oath's language to make "more sense to the brain." More sense to the brain of a politically correct pencil pusher, perhaps.

"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 the Associated Press.

"We don't think that should be an option," said Marty Justis, director of the American Legion's Americanism division. "We believe everyone has the obligation to serve their country. Not everyone will, but we believe everyone does have the obligation."

American Civil Liberties Union, of course, disagreed.

"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," said Tim Edger, legal counsel for ACLU.

Tamar Jacoby of the Manhattan Institute fretted: "The question to be asked here is what are these people trying to signal? Are they upset about the wording of the oath, or do they not want the oath to be more inviting? Is it that they want citizenship to be less inviting? Do they want the country to be less inviting?"

Inviting? We don't have to worry about inviting anyone; they're hijacking ships and illegally swimming the Rio Grande in mobs to escape to America.

Perhaps the bureaucrats' "reasoning" went like this: If presidents don't follow their oath to defend the Constitution, why should immigrants?

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Bush Administration
Homeland/Civil Defense
Immigration/Borders

Editor's note:
"Treason" - Ann Coulter exposes the anti-American left: Click here now for special offer