[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TO PRESCRIBE THE OATH OF RENUNCIATION AND ALLEGIANCE FOR PURPOSES OF
THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,
BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 3191
__________
APRIL 1, 2004
__________
Serial No. 81
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
92-832 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee ZOE LOFGREN, California
CHRIS CANNON, Utah SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MAXINE WATERS, California
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
RIC KELLER, Florida ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
STEVE KING, Iowa
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
TOM FEENEY, Florida
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Philip G. Kiko, Chief of Staff-General Counsel
Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana, Chairman
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
ELTON GALLEGLY, California HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
CHRIS CANNON, Utah JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
STEVE KING, Iowa
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
George Fishman, Chief Counsel
Art Arthur, Full Committee Counsel
Luke Bellocchi, Counsel
Cindy Blackston, Professional Staff
Nolan Rappaport, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
APRIL 1, 2004
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
The Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Indiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims....................... 1
The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Texas................................................. 2
The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Iowa.................................................. 2
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims....................... 23
WITNESSES
The Honorable Jim Ryun, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Kansas
Oral Testimony................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
Mr. Alfonso Aguilar, Chief of the Office of Citizenship, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security
Oral Testimony................................................. 7
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow, The Hudson Institute
Oral Testimony................................................. 12
Prepared Statement............................................. 13
Dr. Andrew Schoenholtz, Deputy Director, Institute for the Study
of International Migration, Georgetown University
Oral Testimony................................................. 17
Prepared Statement............................................. 18
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress From the State of Texas, and Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and
Claims......................................................... 31
TO PRESCRIBE THE OATH OF RENUNCIATION AND ALLEGIANCE FOR PURPOSES OF
THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 2004
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security, and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John N.
Hostettler (Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Hostettler. Good morning. Today's hearing is on H.R.
3191, legislation introduced by our colleague, Jim Ryun, to
memorialize in the Immigration and Nationality Act the current
language of the Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance.
This solemn oath, taken by applicants for naturalization,
is the final step in becoming a U.S. citizen. Recent proposals
to modify the oath have generated a large measure of
controversy and have refocused attention on the oath's meaning
and on the proper forum to consider changes.
A naturalization ceremony is one of the most stirring and
meaningful occasions in the public life of our nation, both for
the new citizens themselves and for those privileged enough to
witness the event. In reciting the oath, naturalizing citizens
are becoming true Americans, pledging their fidelity and their
hearts to a new nation. Statutorily, the oath is required to
embody five principles. The reciter promises to, one, support
the Constitution of United States; two, renounce allegiance to
any foreign ``prince, potentate, state or sovereignty;'' three,
support and defend the constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign and domestic; four, bear true
faith and allegiance to the same; and, five, bear arms on
behalf of the United States when necessary unless alternate
national service is permitted.
The language of the present oath possesses a weight and
majesty that helps focus one's mind on the implications of its
recitation. Those who would like to alter it bear a heavy
burden of proof. I do understand the motivation of those who
feel that the language needs to be modernized; in fact, George
Gekas, the former Chairman of this Subcommittee, strongly felt
that revisions were in order.
The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform worried whether
the oath, with its use of archaic language such as
``potentate'' and ``abjure,'' was sufficiently comprehensible
and thus meaningful to new citizens. The Commission recommended
a new draft of the oath, one which was largely adopted by the
Department of Homeland Security late last year in a proposed
revision.
I share the concerns of Representative Ryun and many others
that DHS' proposed oath may not fully embody the five
principles set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Most importantly, the present oath's statements that, ``I will
support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United
States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic,''
and, ``I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when
required by law,'' are conflated to read, ``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 . . . by military . . . service.''
This seems to imply that the only duty that naturalized
citizens have to defend the Constitution and laws of the United
States is by consenting to being drafted and not a lifelong
obligation to uphold the principles of our republic in
everything that they do. I know that this could have not been
the Commission's or DHS' intent, but it is an impression that
could easily be conveyed by the language.
The fact that such misunderstandings could so easily arise
reinforce why we need to be so careful in tinkering with the
oath. And this brings up my second point, that any proposed
editing should be done by Congress through the legislative
process and not by a Federal agency. Any remolding of the oath
is sufficiently momentous and the process strewn with enough
rhetorical landmines that it should be entrusted only to the
people's representatives. The other hallowed texts of our
republic, from the Pledge of Allegiance to the national anthem,
are set forth in statute. No less should be the Oath of
Naturalization.
I congratulate Representative Ryun for introducing
legislation accomplishing this needed task. I look forward to
his testimony and that of our other witnesses.
At this time, are there any opening statements by other
Members? I am glad to recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Smith, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. I
just feel that I ought to say publicly and officially that I
have a markup of the Science Committee that began at 10:00, so
I am only going to be able to stay here for a couple minutes,
and I just wanted to apologize to our witnesses for being here
for such a short time.
Finally, I just wanted to thank you for being an activist
Chairman and continuing to highlight issues that are important
to so many people.
I yield back.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, for
5 minutes for an opening statement.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will try to match
the brevity of Mr. Smith. I also appreciate you holding this
hearing today and the witnesses and your testimony. My schedule
is a little tight. I will be able to stay a little longer.
I congratulate Congressman Ryun for bringing this
legislation, of which I am a cosponsor, and I believe that the
core of who we are as a citizen needs to be preserved and
protected and promoted, and I will do all that I can within my
sphere of influence to preserve and protect those core
principles that are articulated so well by our Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentleman.
I will now introduce the members of our panel. Jim Ryun is
serving his fourth term in Congress representing the Second
Congressional District of Kansas. He is also a Member of the
Armed Services, Budget and Financial Services Committees. Prior
to serving in Congress, Jim partnered with the Resound Hearing
Aid Company, creating his own program, Sounds of Success, aimed
at helping hearing-impaired children fulfill their potential.
Mr. Ryun is the founder and president of Jim Ryun Sports,
Incorporated, a public relations company where he acted as a
product development consultant and actively promoted the
awareness of various charities. Jim participated in three
summer Olympic games, winning a silver medal in the 1,500 meter
run in 1968. Jim Ryun graduated with a B.A. from the University
of Kansas.
Mr. Alfonso Aguilar is the newly appointed Chief of the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' Office of
Citizenship. He joins the Department of Homeland Security after
working at the U.S. Agency for International Development. Mr.
Aguilar also served as the executive director of the Puerto
Rico Federal Affairs Administration. He also joined the Bush
administration as Deputy Director of Public Affairs for the
U.S. Department of Energy.
Mr. Aguilar began his career in the Department of State at
the Government of Puerto Rico in San Juan, coordinating and
facilitating Government efforts to promote international trade.
Mr. Aguilar is a member of the Puerto Rico Bar Association, the
League of United Latin American Citizens and the National
Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.
Mr. Aguilar received his bachelor of arts and letters from
the University of Notre Dame and later received his juris
doctor degree from the University of Puerto Rico.
John Fonte is the senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and
is the director of the Center for American Common Culture. He
organized the Citizenship Roundtable, a joint product of the
Hudson Institute and the American Legion to strengthen
citizenship and promote the patriotic assimilation of
immigrants into the American of life. Dr. Fonte also served as
senior researcher at the U.S. Department of Education and a
program administrator at the National Endowment for the
Humanities.
He is currently on the board of the American Council for
Trustees and Alumni. Dr. Fonte has served as a consultant for
the Texas Education Agency, the Virginia Department of
Education, the California Academic Standards Commission and the
American Federation of Teachers. Dr. Fonte received his B.A.
and M.A. in history from the University of Arizona and his
Ph.D. in world history from the University of Chicago.
Dr. Andrew Schoenholtz is the deputy director of Georgetown
University's Institute for the Study of International
Migration. He also co-directs the certificate program in
refugee and humanitarian emergencies at the university. Before
going to Georgetown, he served as the deputy director of the
U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, and prior to this, Dr.
Schoenholtz practiced immigration, asylum and international law
with the Washington, D.C. law firm Covington and Burling.
Dr. Schoenholtz has conducted fact-finding missions in
Haiti, Cuba, Germany, Croatia and Bosnia to study refugee
protection, long-term solutions to mass migration emergencies
and humanitarian relief operations. Dr. Schoenholtz holds a
J.D. from Harvard Law School and a Ph.D. from Brown University.
Gentlemen, thank you for your presence here today.
Congressman Ryun, the floor is yours, and you are
recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIM RYUN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS
Mr. Ryun. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the kind
introduction. I want to thank you and Ranking Member Jackson
Lee for holding this hearing on H.R. 3191 and inviting me to
testify before the Subcommittee on what I consider a very
important issue.
The Oath of Allegiance has served as the gateway for
American citizenship for over 200 years. When immigrants speak
its forceful words, they pledge their unfettered allegiance to
America, our Constitution and our laws. The Oath of Allegiance
was first used in 1790. A standardized Oath of Allegiance was
issued in 1929, and the current, powerful text of the Oath of
Allegiance has been in place since the 1950's.
The words of this important symbol of American citizenship
and commitment to the Constitution are not specified by law,
however, and can be changed at the whim of a Government
bureaucracy. In fact, such a change was to take place on
September 17, 2003, which is Citizenship Day, the day on which
we celebrate the signing of the Constitution. The proposed
changes intended to make the language more modern but instead
would have transformed an absolute commitment to the
Constitution into a conditional statement and thereby weaken
our citizenship.
It appears that the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services hastily drafted and proposed these changes. Seemingly,
they intended to implement the changes without going through
the standard 60-day period for public comment. Most concerning
are the substantive changes to the text that would have
eliminated several forceful words and phrases, substantially
weakening the charge to uphold and be faithful to the
Constitution and the laws of the United States.
Specifically, it eliminates the call to, ``bear true faith
and allegiance to,'' and to, ``bear arms on behalf of the
Constitution of the United States.'' The addition of the words,
``where and if lawfully required,'' before the charge to defend
the Constitution causes me to wonder when we are not required
to defend the Constitution.
In addition, the Oath of Allegiance currently calls on
Americans to, ``renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity
to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty,'' while
the proposed Oath of Allegiance renounces allegiance only to
foreign states. We should continue to welcome legal immigrants
into our country. Yet, as we continue to fight the war on
terror, we must maintain a forceful and uncompromising Oath of
Allegiance. Many of our terror threats are not from organized
geopolitical states but rather from groups like al-Qaeda, led
by the likes of Osama bin Laden.
On March 11 in Madrid, we were reminded of the very real
presence of organized, non-state-sponsored terrorism aimed at
the United States and our allies who are committed to
eliminating global terrorism. The threat of terror and the
attempts to infiltrate American society have not passed, nor
has the need for a strong renunciation against all foreign
sovereignties. Now is not the time to water down the words of
commitment necessary to become a citizen of the United States
of America.
That is why I introduced H.R. 3191, which would establish
the Oath of Allegiance as Federal law and give it the same
protection as the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem.
My bill does not prevent the language in the Oath of Allegiance
from being modernized or changed. Codifying the words of the
Oath of Allegiance is simply a logical step and necessary step
to ensure that the Oath of Allegiance is held in high regard
and protected from destructive changes.
Throughout our history, our nation has been strengthened by
immigrants who came here to pursue the American dream.
Establishing the Oath of Allegiance as the law of the land
would remind all Americans, recent immigrants and lifelong
citizens alike, that pursuing that dream also requires a full-
time commitment to citizenship; a commitment unlike what Thomas
Paine once called the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot
that shrank from the service of his country in times of crisis.
The scores of letters and phone calls I have received from
constituents indicate an overwhelming desire to preserve the
forceful language of the Oath of Allegiance. Should there ever
be a sentiment to change this great oath, however, it should
only be done after careful consideration that results in the
strengthening of the meaning of citizenship. With the passage
of H.R. 3191, such changes would occur only by an act of
Congress.
The Oath of Allegiance should continue to support freedom,
democracy and Constitutional rights. I believe that we can
ensure this for decades to come by establishing the Oath of
Allegiance as Federal law, and I urge the Judiciary Committee
to pass H.R. 3191 and send it to the full House of
Representatives.
And I thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ryun follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Jim Ryun, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Kansas
I would like to thank Chairman Hostettler and Ranking Member
Jackson Lee for holding a hearing on H.R. 3191 and inviting me to
testify before your Subcommittee on this important issue.
The Oath of Allegiance has served as the gateway to American
citizenship for over 200 years. When immigrants speak its forceful
words they pledge their unfettered allegiance to America, our
Constitution, and our laws.
The Oath of Allegiance was first used in 1790 and a standardized
Oath was issued in 1929. The current, powerful text of the Oath of
Allegiance that has been in place since the 1950s requires immigrants
to say,
``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, of 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 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.''
While the text of the Oath of Allegiance is not specified by
federal law, 8 U.S.C. 1448 provides five principles of what the Oath of
Allegiance must contain. They include,
``1) to support the Constitution of the United States; (2) to
renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and
fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or
sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject
or citizen; (3) to support and defend the Constitution and the
laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; (4) to bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
and (5)(A) to bear arms on behalf of the United States when
required by the law, or (B) to perform noncombatant service in
the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law,
or (C) to perform work of national importance under civilian
direction when required by the law.''
Since these principles are only guidelines, however, the text of
the Oath of Allegiance can be changed on the whim of the government
bureaucracy. In fact, such a change was to take place on September 17,
2003, which is Citizenship Day--the day on which we celebrate the
signing of the Constitution. The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services proposed to change the Oath of Allegiance to read,
``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.''
The proposed changes intended to make the language more modern, but
instead would transform an absolute commitment to the Constitution into
a conditional statement and thereby weaken our citizenship.
It appears that the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
hastily drafted and proposed these changes. They rushed to implement
the changes without going through the standard 60-day period for public
comment. Even more revealing were the several grammatical errors
throughout the text.
Most concerning are the substantive changes to the text that would
have eliminated several forceful words and phrases, substantially
weakening the charge to uphold and be faithful to the Constitution and
the laws of the United States. Specifically, it eliminates the call to
``bear true faith and allegiance to'' and ``bear arms on behalf of''
the Constitution. The addition of the words, ``Where and if lawfully
required,'' before the charge to defend the Constitution causes me to
wonder when we are not required to defend the Constitution. In
addition, the Oath of Allegiance currently calls on Americans to
``renounce, and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign
prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty,'' while the proposed Oath of
Allegiance renounces allegiance only to foreign states.
We should continue to welcome legal immigrants into our country.
Yet as we continue to fight the war on terror, we must maintain a
forceful and uncompromising Oath of Allegiance. Many of our terror
threats are not from organized geopolitical states, but rather from
groups like al Qaeda, led by potentates like Osama bin Laden. On March
11, 2004 in Madrid, we were reminded of the very real presence of
organized, non-state sponsored terrorism aimed at the United States and
our allies who are committed to eliminating global terrorism. The
threat of terror and the attempts to infiltrate American society have
not passed, nor has the need for a strong renunciation against all
foreign sovereignties. Now is not the time to water down the words of
commitment necessary to become a citizen of the United States of
America.
That is why I introduced H.R. 3191, which would establish the Oath
of Allegiance as federal law and give it the same protection as the
Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem. Codifying the words of
the Oath of Allegiance is a logical, necessary step to ensure that the
Oath is held in high regard and protected from destructive changes.
Throughout our history, our nation has been strengthened by
immigrants who came here to pursue the American dream. Establishing the
Oath of Allegiance as the law of the land would remind all Americans--
recent immigrants and life-long citizens alike--that pursuing that
dream also requires a full-time commitment to citizenship; a commitment
unlike what Thomas Paine once called the ``summer soldier and the
sunshine patriot'' that shrank from the service of his country in times
of crisis.
The scores of letters and phone calls I received from constituents
indicate an overwhelming desire to preserve the forceful language of
the Oath of Allegiance. Should there ever be a sentiment to change this
great Oath, however, it should only be done after careful consideration
that results in a strengthened meaning of our citizenship. With the
passage of H.R. 3191, any such change could only occur by an act of
Congress.
The Oath of Allegiance should continue to support freedom,
democracy, and our Constitutional rights. I believe that we can ensure
this for decades to come by establishing the Oath of Allegiance as
Federal law. I urge the Judiciary Committee to pass H.R. 3191 and send
it to the full House of Representatives.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Congressman Ryun.
Mr. Aguilar, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ALFONSO AGUILAR, CHIEF OF THE OFFICE OF
CITIZENSHIP, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Aguilar. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Subcommittee. I want to thank the Chairman for holding this
hearing on such an important topic to our nation.
As you have raised the issue of the Department of Homeland
Security's possible administrative revision of the Oath of
Allegiance last September, I will start my testimony by
providing some additional insight on exactly what happened last
year. In the broader context of making the naturalization
process more meaningful, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services began researching what work had already been done in
this area.
In our research, we noted the recommendations of the
bipartisan Barbara Jordan Commission, a Congressional
commission, which, in its final report to Congress in 1997
recommended that the Oath of Allegiance be revised. We
considered the language and found that it would be a good
starting point.
Although DHS worked on an interim rule to revise the oath,
the rule was never published in the Federal Register. It was
never issued. In fact, a draft version was prematurely leaked
to the media and was unfortunately interpreted to be an effort
to undermine the current oath. DHS chose not to issue this rule
due to the considerable public reaction, both positive and
negative, to this potential change. But the reaction is the
most telling evidence that the concept and meaning of U.S.
citizenship is relevant to people from all walks of life, from
all political parties and backgrounds. And based on this, we
decided that no action should be taken without participation
from Congress and the American public.
Now that I have given some insight on what happened last
year, I would like to speak about the bigger picture of
naturalization and civic integration. Last year, the United
States welcomed more than 455,000 new Americans through the
process of naturalization. As we prepare our immigrants for
U.S. citizenship, we must foster a sense of allegiance to their
new country. Congress and the President recognized this through
the creation of the Office of Citizenship within the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, and since its creation, the Office of
Citizenship has taken an ambitious and critically important
agenda designed to promote civic integration among newly-
arrived immigrants and also to promote awareness of the rights
and responsibilities associated with U.S. citizenship.
Preparing immigrants to integrate into the civic culture of
the United States requires reaching out to new immigrants at
the earliest opportunity to provide them with information they
need to adhere to American constitutional principles, develop
loyalty to America and actively participate in U.S. civic life.
It also requires making the process of naturalization more
meaningful, so that immigrants who choose to become citizens
have a real understanding of the commitment they are making
when they take the Oath of Allegiance.
The significance of the naturalization process is
highlighted in the Department of Homeland Security's strategic
plan, and I quote, citizenship through naturalization is the
ultimate privilege of the immigration system. We will place
renewed emphasis on a national effort to cultivate an awareness
and understanding of American civic values and to underwrite
commitment to United States citizenship. We will promote
education and training on citizenship rights, privileges and
responsibilities to not only enhance the naturalization
experience but also to ensure that the immigration system
promotes a civic identity for diverse citizens.
Now, although the Oath of Allegiance is critical to the
process of naturalization in many ways, its primary purpose is
legal rather than symbolic, unlike the national anthem or
Pledge of Allegiance. Taking the Oath of Allegiance at a public
naturalization ceremony is typically required in order to
effect the applicant's change of status from lawful permanent
resident to citizen of the United States of America. The oath
has legal significance. In fact, an individual can be subject
to denaturalization if he or she is found not to have taken the
oath in good faith and without mental reservation.
We have heard from a broad variety of stakeholders from
across the political spectrum that the Oath of Allegiance
should be updated for several reasons. First, the language of
the current oath has been described as archaic by some
stakeholders, including representatives of the Citizenship
Roundtable, a joint project of the American Legion and the
Hudson Institute; second, the current Oath of Allegiance has
been criticized for its convoluted, legalistic and cumbersome
grammar and sentence structure.
In 1997, the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration
Reform recommended that the oath be revised to make it
comprehensible, solemn and meaningful. Finally, we have heard
concerns that a revision of the current oath might result in
weaker language, and this is totally contrary to the goal of a
revision, which is to strengthen the Oath of Allegiance and
make it relevant in today's society.
Congress has acted on the oath. It established principles
for the Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance and codified them
in section 337(a) of the Immigration and Naturalization [sic]
Act.
With regard to the grammar and sentence structure, the
current oath includes legalistic and cumbersome phrasing. It
also has unnecessary redundancies, such as the phrase
absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure. At times,
immigrants, particularly those who are non-native English
speakers, have difficulty repeating the current Oath of
Allegiance.
At this time, the Department of Homeland Security continues
to study a revision of the Oath of Allegiance. If a decision is
made to revise the oath, we believe the formal administrative
regulatory process is the most appropriate means to do so.
Congress, as I have said before, through the Immigration and
Naturalization Act, has provided a clear mandate on the
necessary content and substance of the Oath of Allegiance. They
are not guidelines; they are requirements that have to be
included in the oath.
The Executive Branch has the responsibility, both the
responsibility to develop language to meet the legislative
requirement and the discretion to make periodic revisions to
the oath to make it current and relevant. Revising the oath
administratively will allow a full opportunity for the public
to provide comment on any proposed change through a rulemaking
process. This would, in our view, lead to the best possible
result in terms of comprehensibility, appropriateness of
language, solemnity, meaning and adherence to principles set
forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
We appreciate the interest Congress has shown and have
listened to your concerns and ideas on this issue. If we
proceed to a revision of the Oath of Allegiance, please be
assured that Congress and the American public will have ample
opportunity to provide comments on any proposed change prior to
implementation.
We look forward to working with Congress and other
stakeholders to ensure that the Oath of Allegiance and the
process of naturalization are meaningful so that our new
citizens have a full understanding of their rights and
responsibilities to this country.
This concludes my prepared remarks, and I thank you for
your invitation, and I will be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aguilar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alfonso Aguilar
Good afternoon Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson Lee and
Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Alfonso Aguilar and I have the
honor of serving as the first Chief of the Office of Citizenship within
the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS).
Last year the United States welcomed more than 455,000 new
Americans through the process of naturalization. As we prepare our
immigrants for U.S. citizenship, we must foster a sense of allegiance
to their new country. Congress and the President recognized this
through the creation of the Office of Citizenship within the Homeland
Security Act of 2002. Since its creation, the Office of Citizenship has
undertaken an ambitious, and critically important agenda designed to
promote civic integration among newly arrived immigrants and also to
promote awareness of the rights and responsibilities associated with
U.S. citizenship.
Preparing immigrants to integrate into the civic culture of the
United States requires reaching out to new immigrants at the earliest
opportunity to provide them with the information and tools they need to
adhere to American constitutional principles, develop loyalty to
America, and actively participate in U.S. civic life. It also requires
making the process of naturalization more meaningful so that those
immigrants who choose to become citizens have a real understanding of
the commitment they are making when they take the Oath of Renunciation
and Allegiance to the United States.
The significance of the naturalization process is highlighted in
the Department of Homeland Security's Strategic Plan: ``Citizenship
through naturalization is the ultimate privilege of the immigration
system. We will place renewed emphasis on a national effort to
cultivate an awareness and understanding of American civic values and
to underwrite commitment to United States citizenship. We will promote
education and training on citizenship rights, privileges and
responsibilities, to not only enhance the naturalization experience,
but also to ensure that our immigration system promotes a common civic
identity for diverse citizens.''
In addition, in President Bush's January 7, 2004 unveiling of the
Temporary Worker Proposal, he emphasized that any fundamental
immigration reform should recognize the importance of citizenship and
he has set high expectations for what new citizens should know about
our history and government. He has charged USCIS with examining the
standard of knowledge in the current citizenship test, to ensure that
new citizens know not only the facts of our history, but also the
ideals that have shaped our history.
Although the Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance is critical to the
process of naturalization in many ways, its primary purpose is legal
rather than symbolic, unlike the national anthem or pledge of
allegiance. Taking the Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance at a public
naturalization ceremony is typically required in order to effect the
applicant's change of status from lawful permanent resident to citizen
of the United States of America. The Oath has legal significance--in
fact an individual can be subject to denaturalization if he or she is
found not to have taken the Oath in good faith and without mental
reservations.
We have heard from a broad variety of stakeholders from across the
political spectrum that the Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance should
be updated for several reasons. First, the language of the current Oath
has been described as archaic by some stakeholders, including
representatives of the Citizenship Roundtable, a joint project of the
American Legion and the Hudson Institute. Second, the current Oath of
Renunciation and Allegiance has been criticized for its convoluted,
legalistic and cumbersome grammar and sentence structure. In 1997, the
bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform recommended that the
Oath be revised to make it ``comprehensible, solemn and meaningful.''
Finally, we have heard concerns that a revision of the current Oath
might result in weaker language. This is totally contrary to the goal
of a revision, which is to strengthen the Oath of Renunciation and
Allegiance and make it relevant in today's society.
The principles embodied in the Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance
are codified in Section 337(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
which provides that all applicants shall take an Oath of Renunciation
and Allegiance that incorporates the substance of the following:
(1) Support the Constitution;
(2) Renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance
and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or
sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject
or citizen;
(3) Support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
(4) Bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
(5) (A) Bear arms on behalf of the United States when required
by the law; or
(B) Perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the
United States when required by the law; or
(C) Perform work of national importance under civilian
direction when required by the law.
The language of the current Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance--
while derived from earlier versions of the Oath--is the product of
Immigration and Naturalization Service rule making in the 1950's. The
Oath includes words such as ``abjure'' and ``potentate'', which were
not in common use at that time, let alone now. The Oath clearly is
closely based upon the statutory elements in section 337(a), but it
does not repeat them all verbatim; for example, it omits the first
statutory element, ``Support the Constitution,'' as adequately included
within the third element, relating to the support and defense of the
Constitution and laws against enemies. Because the Oath of Renunciation
and Allegiance is the cornerstone of the applicant's commitment to the
United States, its institutions, and its people, it is critical that
applicants unequivocally understand the commitment they are making to
this country. Both immigrants and native-born U.S. citizens have
trouble making sense of the current language.
With regard to grammar and sentence structure, the current Oath
includes legalistic and cumbersome phrasing, such as ``of whom or which
I have heretofore.'' It also has unnecessary redundancy, such as the
phrase ``absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure.'' At times,
immigrants, particularly those who are non-native English speakers,
have difficulty repeating the current Oath of Renunciation and
Allegiance. The Oath could be made clearer if the clauses were broken
up in a manner that improves both the comprehensibility of the Oath and
the dignity of the occasion.
At this time, DHS continues to study a revision of the Oath of
Renunciation and Allegiance. If a decision is made to revise the Oath,
we believe the formal administrative regulatory process is the most
appropriate means to do so. Congress, through the Immigration and
Nationality Act, has provided a clear mandate on the necessary content
and substance of the Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance. The Executive
branch has both the responsibility to develop language to meet the
legislative requirement and the discretion to make periodic revisions
to the Oath to keep it current and relevant. Revising the Oath
administratively will allow a full opportunity for the public to
provide comment on any proposed change through a rule making process.
This would, in our view, lead to the best possible result in terms of
comprehensibility, appropriateness of language, solemnity, meaning, and
adherence to the principles set forth in the Immigration and
Nationality Act.
We appreciate the interest Congress has shown and have listened to
your concerns and ideas on this issue. If we proceed to propose a
revision of the Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance, please be assured
that Congress and the American public will have ample opportunity to
provide comments on any proposed changes prior to implementation.
The Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance is the culmination of an
immigrant's preparation to become a naturalized U.S. citizen, but it is
not the end of the process of becoming a citizen. The extent to which a
new citizen is actually a ``good citizen'' depends upon many factors,
not least of which is an understanding and acceptance of the commitment
made to the United States of America. Reciting the Oath of Renunciation
and Allegiance, regardless of the language, does not guarantee that the
new citizen will be a good citizen. By choosing to become a U.S.
citizen, these immigrants must accept both the responsibilities and the
rights of citizenship. The USCIS Office of Citizenship is working to
ensure that both new immigrants and new citizens are educated about
these rights and responsibilities. The end result of these efforts will
be a stronger America with a common civic identity that unites its
diverse citizens.
We look forward to working with Congress and other stakeholders to
ensure that the Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance and the process of
naturalization are meaningful, so that our new citizens have a full
understanding of their rights and responsibilities to this country.
This concludes my prepared remarks. I thank you for the invitation
to testify before this committee and I would be happy to answer any
questions.
__________
The current Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance appears in Title 8
of the Code of Federal Regulations:
Sec. 337.1 Oath of allegiance.
(a) Form of oath. Except as otherwise provided in the Act and after
receiving notice from the district director that such applicant is
eligible for naturalization pursuant to Sec. 335.3 of this chapter, an
applicant for naturalization shall, before being admitted to
citizenship, take in a public ceremony held within the United States
the following oath of allegiance, to a copy of which the applicant
shall affix his or her signature:
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, of whom or which I have heretofore
been a subject or 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 the law; that I will perform noncombatant
service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the
law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian
direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation
freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help
me God.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you Mr. Aguilar.
Dr. Fonte?
STATEMENT OF JOHN FONTE, SENIOR FELLOW,
THE HUDSON INSTITUTE
Mr. Fonte. Thank you, Chairman Hostettler.
My testimony today has the endorsement of the Citizenship
Roundtable and the alliance of the Hudson Institute and the
American Legion that was formed in 1999 to strengthen
citizenship and promote the patriotic assimilation of
immigrants into the American way of life.
American Legion Resolution 169 opposes any and all changes
that would dilute the five core elements of the oath. We
commend Congressman Jim Ryun for introducing this legislation
to reaffirm America's commitment to the Oath of Renunciation
and Allegiance, and we also salute officials at the United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services, particularly the
new chief of the Office of Citizenship, Alfonso Aguilar, who, I
know, has been working very hard on this crucial issue and has
some excellent ideas on the subject of the oath.
This issue is important because the Oath of Renunciation
and Allegiance is essential to American democracy. It is
central to who we are as a people. At the core of American
self-government is the principle, ``we the people of the United
States.'' In taking this oath, the immigrant is voluntarily
leaving a previous people and joining the American people. The
newcomer is transferring sole political allegiance from his or
her birth nation to the United States of America and also from
any foreign sovereignty or political actor.
Now, for more than two centuries, this transfer of
allegiance has been a central feature of our nation's great
success in assimilating immigrants into what has been called
the American way of life. We are not simply a nation of
immigrants. We are a nation of assimilated immigrants and their
descendants. The oath is central to America because of the kind
of country that we are. If we were, like many other countries,
a regime based on race or ethnicity or religion, the oath would
not be crucial.
However, unlike most other countries, our nationhood is not
based on these factors but instead on political loyalty to
American constitutional democracy, so it is precisely because
we are a nation of assimilated immigrants that we must be
serious about the Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance.
Now, this oath, this transfer of allegiance is at the heart
of citizenship and naturalization. To retain allegiance to
another constitution besides the American Constitution and thus
to belong to another people besides the American people is
inconsistent with the moral and philosophical foundations of
American constitutional democracy. So it is vitally important
that we have an oath that is rhetorically unambiguous and
substantively significant to the majesty of American
citizenship and the meaning of American citizenship.
Both Congressman Ryun and Senator Alexander are right that
the current oath possesses powerful, historic and majestic
language and phrases. We know that others disagree and object
to words like abjure and potentate. Reasonable people can
disagree about the utility of these two words. But what we feel
is essential are three major points: first, that Congress
should decide the oath. This is something for the elected
representatives of the people; second, that the five elements
of the current oath must be maintained. This should essentially
be the ``default position;'' and third, that questions on the
meaning of the oath should be part of the civics history test
that applicants for citizenship take.
In today's post-9/11 and globalizing world of increasing
transnational ties and continuous high immigration, it is more
important than ever that the meaning of the Oath of
Renunciation and Allegiance remain clear to all citizens,
immigrant and native-born alike. Therefore, we believe it is
essential that questions on the meaning of the oath be
incorporated into the history and Government test that
applicants for citizenship take.
Candidates for citizenship, when they apply for
naturalization, should be given study guides that explain the
meaning of the oath and told that there will be questions about
it on the test. In other words, it should be clearly explained
to new citizens by the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, that the
oath means that they have a moral obligation to give up all
political allegiance, loyalty and citizenship from their birth
nations and from non-state actors and foreign powers; that upon
taking this oath, their sole political allegiance is to the
United States of America.
Incorporating the principles and elements of the oath in
the citizenship test should not be difficult. Current
candidates for citizenship are asked questions such as, ``What
is the Constitution?'', ``What are the duties of Congress?''
The current test also includes less appropriate questions, such
as, ``What form is used to apply to become a naturalized
citizen?''
Certainly, candidates for American citizenship could be
asked questions such as, ``What do citizens promise to do when
they take the Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance?'' ``What is
it they are doing?'' So including questions on the meaning of
the Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance in the citizenship test
would help make the naturalization process what it should be.
It should be a rite of passage much as a communion or a
confirmation or a bar or bat mitzvah or a wedding ceremony, for
as James Madison declared in Federalist 49, our democratic
republic requires both enlightened reason and a certain degree
of veneration in order to endure.
From a serious orientation program at the beginning of the
process when immigrants first apply to citizenship to studying
for and passing the history and Government test and the
language test to the final ceremony, the citizenship
naturalization experience should be meaningful, dignified and
inspiring. In short, it should foster patriotism.
For new Americans, the naturalization process should be a
major life-altering experience. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fonte follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Fonte
Thank you, Chairman Hostettler. I am John Fonte, a Senior Fellow at
the Hudson Institute and director of the Center for American Common
Culture. My testimony today has the endorsement of the Citizenship
Roundtable, an alliance which the Hudson Institute and the American
Legion formed in 1999 to strengthen citizenship, and to promote the
patriotic assimilation of immigrants into the American way of life. I
would like to introduce into the record American Legion Resolution
Number 169 that states that:
``The American Legion opposes any and all changes to the Oath of
Renunciation and Allegiance, as used in naturalization ceremonies, that
would dilute or eliminate any of the following important and necessary
elements of the Oath:
(1) Support for the Constitution of the United States of
America
(2) Renunciation of all allegiances to foreign states or
sovereignties
(3) Support for and defense of the Constitution and laws of
the United States of America against all enemies foreign and
domestic
(4) Bear `true faith and allegiance' to the United States of
America and
(5) Bear arms on behalf of the United States, or perform work
of national importance on behalf of the United States.''
We commend Congressman Jim Ryun for introducing this legislation to
reaffirm America's commitment to the Oath of Renunciation and
Allegiance and to codify it into law. We also salute the officials at
United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, particularly the
Chief of the new Office of Citizenship, Alfonso Aguilar, who has been
working hard on this crucial issue and has some excellent ideas on the
subject of the Oath.
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This issue is important because the Oath of Renunciation and
Allegiance is central to American Democracy. It is central to who we
are as a people. At the core of American self-government is the
principle of ``We the People of the United States,'' the first words of
our constitution expressing the principle of popular sovereignty. In
taking this Oath, the immigrant is voluntarily joining ``We the
People,'' the sovereign American People. The newcomer is transferring
sole political allegiance from his or her birth nation>and from any
other foreign sovereignty or political actor>to the United States of
America. For more than two centuries this ``transfer of allegiance''
has been a central feature of our nation's great success in
assimilating immigrants into what has been called the American way of
life. We are not simply a ``nation of immigrants'' we are a nation of
assimilated immigrants and their descendants.
The Oath is central to America because of the kind of country that
we are. If we were (like many other nations) a regime based on race or
ethnicity or religion, the Oath would not be crucial. However, unlike
most other countries our nationhood is not built on race, ethnicity, or
religion, but, instead, on political loyalty to American constitutional
democracy. It is precisely because we are a ``nation of assimilated
immigrants,'' whose citizens come from all parts of the world, that we
must be serious about the Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance.
This Oath>this transfer of allegiance>is at the heart of
citizenship naturalization. To retain allegiance to another
constitution besides the American Constitution, and thus to continue to
belong to another people besides the American people, is inconsistent
with the moral and philosophical foundation of American constitutional
democracy.
Clearly, a self-governing people, such as the American people, has
the right to determine the rules of admission to citizenship, to its
political community>and there is no evidence that the American people
favor dropping the principle of transferring allegiance from the old
country to United States, that has been part of our law since the
Presidency of George Washington.
HISTORY OF THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
The history of the Oath could be roughly divided into two periods:
the Founding Era of the 1790s and the Americanization period of the
20th century.
Founding Era. With immigration on the rise after American
independence, the Congress passed a series of laws regulating the
citizenship naturalization of newcomers. The Naturalization Acts of
1790 and 1795 required new citizens to take an oath of allegiance to
support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and
to renounce all previous political allegiances. In addition, the new
citizens were required to be of ``good moral character,'' ``attached to
the principles of the Constitution'' and ``well disposed to the good
order of the United States.'' All of these requirements remain part of
the law today.
The Founding Fathers favored what could be called the ``patriotic
assimilation'' of immigrants into the mainstream of American life.
Thus, George Washington wrote to John Adams that he envisioned
immigrants getting ``assimilated to our customs, measures, laws,'' and
because of this, Washington believed, native-born citizens and
immigrants would ``soon become one people.''
In a 1790 speech to Congress on the naturalization of immigrants,
James Madison stated that America should welcome immigrants who could
assimilate, but exclude those who would ``not incorporate'' themselves
into our society. Alexander Hamilton recommended gradually drawing
newcomers into American life, ``to enable aliens to get rid of foreign
and acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and imbibe
the spirit of our government; and to admit of a philosophy at least, of
their feeling a real interest in our affairs.''
Americanization period. During the period of large-scale
immigration at the beginning of the 20th century America's political
and civic leaders (including Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Louis
Brandeis, Jane Addams) supported a policy ``Americanization.''
In the spirit of Americanization Theodore Roosevelt declared that:
``the immigrant who comes here in good faith [and] becomes an American
and assimilates himself to us . . . shall be treated on an exact
equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate
against any such man because of creed or birthplace or origin. But that
is predicated upon the man's becoming an American and nothing but an
American . . .''
Roosevelt's chief political rival, Woodrow Wilson, also supported
Americanization. He told a mass naturalization ceremony in 1915:
``I certainly would not be one even to suggest that a man cease
to love the home of his birth and the nation of his origin--
these things are very sacred and ought not to be put out of our
hearts--but it is one thing to love the place where you were
born and it is another to dedicate yourself to the place to
which you go. You cannot dedicate yourself to America unless
you become . . . with every purpose of your will thoroughly
Americans . . .''
As part of this Americanization policy, citizenship naturalization
requirements were standardized. In 1905 a Commission on Naturalization
appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt recommended the following as
a standard Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance (for a hypothetical
immigrant from Great Britain):
``I John Smith, do solemnly swear that I support and defend the
Constitution and the laws of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same, that I absolutely and entirely renounce
and abjure all allegiance to any foreign prince, potentate,
state, or sovereignty, and particularly my allegiance to King
Edward VII of whom I was formerly a subject, and that I take
this obligation freely without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion, so help me God.''
In 1929 regulations for specific oath language were enacted that
began with the renunciation of all allegiance to any foreign prince,
potentate, state, or sovereignty and followed with a promise to
``support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of
America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.'' On the eve of
World War II the phrase ``I will bear arms on behalf of the United
States'' was added to the elements of the oath. The current oath based
on the five elements, is as follows:
``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 of whom or which I
have heretofore been a subject of 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 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.''
CONCLUSION: H.R. 3191 AND THE CENTRALITY OF THE FIVE ELEMENTS OF THE
OATH
It is vitally important to have an Oath that is rhetorically
unambiguous and inspiring, and substantively significant to the meaning
of American citizenship. The language should be solemn and majestic. It
must not be pedestrian. Above all, it should both focus the mind and
stir the heart.
Congressman Jim Ryun has stated that ``we need a forceful and
uncompromising Oath of Allegiance.'' The Senate sponsor, Lamar
Alexander, has declared that he likes the current Oath because ``It has
strength. It has clarity.''
Congressman Ryun and Senator Alexander are certainly right that the
current Oath possesses powerful, historic, and majestic language and
phrases. We know that others disagree and object to words like
``abjure'' and ``potentate'' that they call archaic and obscure.
Reasonable people can disagree about the utility of these two
words, but what is absolutely essential are three major points.
First. Congress should decide the Oath
The Oath is a serious expression of American national identity
(like, for example, the National Anthem) that should be decided by the
elected representatives of the people. No single Administration should
be able to change or alter the words of the Oath on their own volition.
Second. The Five Elements of the Current Oath must be maintained.
This means that either the current historic oath should be codified
as is, or codified with some very minor stylistic changes (by, for
example, dropping one or two words such as ``abjure'' and
``potentate.'') The five elements of the current oath (some of which
has been in use since the 1790s), and the core language of the current
oath should be the ``default position.'' The five elements are the
substantive heart of the Oath. It is imperative to retain these five
elements and the traditional core phrases of the Oath that focus the
mind and stir the soul, such as: ``I absolutely and entirely renounce .
. . all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign state or sovereignty;
``that I will 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; ``that I will bear true faith and
allegiance;'' ``that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion, so help me God.''
Third. Questions on the meaning of the Oath should be part of the
civics/history test that applicants for citizenship take.
In today's post 9/11 and globalizing world of increasing
transnational ties and continuous high immigration, it is more
important than ever that we get citizenship naturalization right. It is
vital that the meaning of the Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance
remain clear to all citizens, immigrant and native born alike. Our new
fellow citizens should clearly understand the nature of the moral
commitment that they are making to the American democratic republic.
Therefore, we think it is essential that questions on the meaning
and significance of the Oath (and the five elements of the Oath) be
incorporated into the history-government test that applicants for
citizenship take. Upon beginning the naturalization process, candidates
for citizenship should be given study guides that clearly explain the
meaning of the Oath (and its five elements) and told that there will be
questions about it on the test. At this point, what could be considered
as more obscure terms could be explained with examples given. For
example, Osama Bin Laden meets one definition of potentate (``one who
dominates or leads any group or endeavor.'')
It should be clearly explained to new citizens by the Department of
Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service,
that the Oath means that they have a moral obligation to give up all
political allegiance, loyalty, and citizenship, from their birth
nations and from non-state foreign powers, and that upon taking the
Oath, their sole political allegiance is to the United States of
America.
Incorporating the principles and elements of the Oath in the
citizenship test should not be difficult. They could be incorporated
into a multiple choice test or other format. Currently candidates for
citizenship are asked questions such as: What is the Constitution? What
are the duties of Congress? Name one benefit of becoming a citizen of
the United States? The current test also includes less appropriate
questions such as ``What INS (USCIS) form is used to apply to become a
naturalized citizen''? Certainly candidates for American citizenship
could also be asked questions such as: ``What does the Oath of
Renunciation and Allegiance mean''? ``What do new citizens promise to
do when taking the Oath''? ``What is one thing that new citizens
promise to do when taking the Oath''?
Including serious questions on the meaning of the Oath of
Renunciation and Allegiance in the citizenship test would help make the
naturalization process what it should be. That is to say, it should be
a ``rite of passage, ``much as a communion, confirmation, bar or bat
mitzvah, graduation, or wedding ceremony. For as James Madison declared
in Federalist 49 our democratic republic requires both ``enlightened
reason'' and a certain degree of ``veneration'' in order to endure.
From a serious orientation program at the beginning of the process
when immigrants first apply for citizenship, to studying for and
passing the history/government and language tests, to the final
ceremony, the citizenship naturalization experience should be
meaningful, dignified and inspiring. In short it should foster
patriotism. For new Americans, the naturalization process should be a
major life-altering experience.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Dr. Fonte.
Dr. Schoenholtz?
STATEMENT OF ANDREW SCHOENHOLTZ, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR
THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
Mr. Schoenholtz. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is
an honor to be here speaking with everyone.
Comprehensible, solemn and meaningful, that is what the
naturalization oath of the United States should be, declared
the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform in 1997,
after considered reflection. As the former deputy director of
the Commission, I am pleased to explain to you why the
Commission reached that conclusion and proposed a new oath.
First, a word on the Commission. Congress established and
funded this body for a period of 5 years, from 1992 to 1997, to
study and make recommendations on the reform of our immigration
laws and policies where needed. The Commission consisted of
nine members: four appointed by the Senate, two Republicans and
two Democrats; four appointed by the House, two Republicans and
two Democrats, and the chair appointed by the President. Former
Congresswoman Barbara Jordan chaired the commission until her
death in 1996, when former Education Secretary and U.S. Court
of Appeals Judge Shirley Hufstedler became chair.
Importantly, the Commission worked by consensus. Most
decisions were unanimous. The decision to recommend a new oath
was agreed to by all nine commissioners. With respect to the
oath, the Commission first examined the current law, which has
remained unchanged since its enactment in 1952. The statute
requires the five elements that have already been discussed
today.
The Commission determined that the statute continued to
serve the national interests of the United States and did not
need any change. The Commission then carefully examined the
form of the oath that the Executive Branch established pursuant
to regulation. The commissioners found that form wanting,
particularly in terms of clarity. They doubted that most people
understood the dated language of abjure and potentate, the
archaic form and the convoluted grammar of that oath.
They believed, however, that newly-naturalized citizens
must understand exactly what they are saying when they pledge
allegiance to this country and to what it stands for. The
commissioners determined that the oath needed to be
comprehensible in order to be meaningful and solemn. To ensure
that the oath conveyed the core meaning of becoming an American
citizen, they asked Commissioner Richard Estrada, an eloquent
writer and at the time a journalist for the Dallas Morning
News, to draft a new oath.
Generally, consensus was not easily achieved by this very
diverse group of nine commissioners. A unanimous
recommendation, based on a proposal by Commissioner Estrada,
one of the most conservative members of the Commission, was a
real challenge. But in this case, the Republican appointed by
Senator Simpson of Wyoming did all of his persuading through
lucid and eloquent language. For all nine commissioners, the
recommended oath delivered the solemnity and meaning of the
extraordinary occasion of becoming an American citizen in a
clear and fluent fashion.
In recommending this new oath, the Commission made two
important determinations: first, they found that Congress had
fulfilled its legislative duties well in setting forth the five
required elements of the oath. Second, they recognized that
language is a living expression of culture that grows and
evolves; that the American language had evolved considerably
since the language of the current oath started developing in
the 18th Century and that from time to time, the Executive
Branch should update the language so that those naturalizing
understand and appreciate the solemnity and meaning of becoming
an American citizen.
From the Commission's point of view, then, H.R. 3191, which
would codify the current regulatory oath, should not be enacted
for two important reasons: first, as I just explained, clear
language is needed to make the oath solemn and meaningful. H.R.
3191 would prevent this needed reform from taking place.
Second, Congress has duly exercised its legislative
responsibility by setting forth the required elements of the
oath and has rightfully determined, until now, that the
Executive Branch is best suited to establish the specific
language of the oath that incorporates all the required
elements.
In its wisdom, Congress has already recognized that the
difficult process of legislative change should not be imposed
in this area by specifying the language of the oath in statute.
By setting out the language of the oath in statute, H.R. 3191
would make it considerably more difficult for future
generations to ensure that the naturalization oath is clear,
solemn and meaningful.
In contrast, I know that the Commission would be pleased
that Director Aguirre of the Department of Homeland Security's
Citizenship and Immigration Services has taken their
recommendation to heart and hopes to do precisely what the
Commission intended: create a clear, solemn and meaningful oath
for the new citizens today. I have no doubt that the
commissioners would unanimously support him in his endeavor,
particularly if a new oath reflects the eloquence of
Commissioner Estrada's lucid words.
Members of the Committee, thank you for considering my
testimony today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schoenholtz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andrew I. Schoenholtz
Comprehensible, solemn, and meaningful. That is what the
naturalization oath of the United States should be, declared the bi-
partisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform in 1997 after considered
reflection. As the former Deputy Director of that Commission, I am
pleased to explain to you why the Commission reached that conclusion
and proposed a new oath.
First, a word on this Commission. Congress established and funded
this body for a period of five years (1992-1997) to study and make
recommendations on the reform of our immigration laws and policies
where needed. The Commission consisted of 9 members: four appointed by
the Senate (two Republicans and two Democrats), four appointed by the
House (two Republicans and two Democrats), and the Chair appointed by
the President. Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan chaired the
Commission until her death in 1996, when former Education Secretary and
U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Shirley M. Hufstedler became chair.
Importantly, the Commission worked by consensus. Most decisions
were unanimous. The decision to recommend a new oath was agreed to by
all nine Commissioners.
With respect to the naturalization oath, the Commission first
examined the current law, which has remained unchanged since enactment
in 1952. The statute requires that the oath contain five elements:
(1) support for the Constitution;
(2) renunciation of prior allegiance;
(3) defense of the Constitution and the laws of the United
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
(4) true faith and allegiance to the Constitutions and laws;
and
(5) a commitment to bear arms or perform noncombatant service
when required by law.
The Commission determined that the statute continued to serve the
national interest of the United States and did not need any change.
The Commission then carefully examined the form of the oath that
the Executive branch established pursuant to the statute in Title 8,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 337.1:
``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, of whom or which I
have heretofore been a subject or 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 the law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of
the United States when required by the law; that I will perform
work of national importance under civilian direction when
required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely,
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help
me God.''
The Commissioners found that form wanting, particularly in terms of
clarity. They doubted that most people understood the dated language of
``abjure'' and ``potentate,'' the archaic form, and the convoluted
grammar of the existing oath. They believed, however, that newly
naturalized citizens must understand exactly what they are saying when
they pledge allegiance to this country and what it stands for. The
Commissioners determined that the oath needed to be comprehensible in
order to be meaningful and solemn. To ensure that the oath conveyed the
core meaning of becoming an American citizen, they asked Commissioner
Richard Estrada, an eloquent writer and at the time a journalist for
the Dallas Morning News, to draft a new oath.
Generally, consensus was not easily achieved by this very diverse
group of nine Commissioners. A unanimous recommendation based on a
proposal by Commissioner Estrada, one of the most conservative members
of the Commission, was a real challenge. But in this case, the
Republican appointed by Senator Simpson of Wyoming did all his
persuading through lucid and eloquent language. For all nine
commissioners, the recommended oath delivered the solemnity and meaning
of the extraordinary occasion of becoming an American citizen in a
clear and fluent fashion:
``Solemnly, freely, and without any mental reservation, I
hereby renounce under oath all former political allegiances. My
sole political fidelity and allegiance from this day forward is
to the United States of America. I pledge to support and
respect its Constitution and laws. Where and if lawfully
required, I further commit myself to defend them against all
enemies, foreign and domestic, either by military or civilian
service. This I do solemnly swear, so help me God.''
In recommending this new oath, the Commission made two important
determinations. First, they found that Congress had fulfilled its
legislative duties well in setting forth the five required elements of
the oath. Second, they recognized that language is a living expression
of culture that grows and evolves, the American language had evolved
considerably since the language of the current oath started developing
in the 18th century, and from time to time the Executive branch should
update the language so that those naturalizing understand and
appreciate the solemnity and meaning of becoming an American citizen.
From the Commission point of view, then, H.R. 3191, which would
codify the current regulatory oath, should not be enacted for two
important reasons. First, as I just explained, clear language is needed
to make the oath solemn and meaningful. H.R. 3191 would prevent this
needed reform from taking place. Second, Congress has duly exercised
its legislative responsibility by setting forth the required elements
of the oath and has rightfully determined until now that the Executive
branch is best suited to establish the specific language of the oath
that incorporates all the required elements. In its wisdom, Congress
has already recognized that the difficult process of legislative change
should not be imposed in this area by specifying the language of the
oath in statute. By setting out the language in statute, H.R. 3191
would make it considerably more difficult for future generations to
ensure that the naturalization oath is clear, solemn, and meaningful.
In contrast, I know that the Commission would be pleased that
Director Aguirre at the Department of Homeland Security's Citizenship
and Immigration Services has taken their recommendation to heart and
hopes to do precisely what the Commission recommended: create a clear,
solemn and meaningful oath for the new citizens of today. I have no
doubt that the Commissioners would unanimously support him in this
endeavor--particularly if a new oath reflects the eloquence of
Commissioner Estrada's lucid words.
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for considering my testimony
today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have at this
time.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Dr. Schoenholtz.
We will now turn to questions. Representative Ryun, do you
believe that any of the language of the oath as it is today is
archaic and should be more modern?
Mr. Ryun. Mr. Chairman, some of the words are not widely-
used; at the same time, if there is a way of modernizing it
without compromising the intent, you know, I am not opposed to
that. H.R. 3191 does not preclude being able to modernize in
some way. I think one thing that I want to keep with the intent
here is that, you know, some of the words are a little
difficult. However, what they do is they cause the immigrant
working through this to pause and realize the seriousness of
what they're doing. If there's something we can do without
compromising the intent, then yes, I think that is
substantially fine. That is what the intent of the bill is.
Mr. Hostettler. Do you believe that the five principles of
citizenship embodied in the oath are as meaningful today as
they were when Congress wrote them?
Mr. Ryun. They are meaningful if not more meaningful as a
result of the things that have happened in recent time.
Mr. Hostettler. Very good.
Mr. Aguilar, it was not Citizenship and Immigration
Services' intent, was it, to imply in the proposed oath of last
year that the only duty that naturalized citizens have to
defend the Constitution and laws of the United States is by
being consented to being drafted and not a lifelong obligation
to uphold the principles of our republic in everything that
they do, was it?
Mr. Aguilar. No, not at all.
Mr. Hostettler. Your microphone, if you could--that is all
right.
Mr. Aguilar. No, not at all, and I should clarify that at
this point, we are currently working on new language that is
considerably different from the one that was circulated last
year, and the fundamental thing that we are looking for here is
that we, of course, include the five components that are
required by the Immigration and Nationality Act.
But at the same time, because taking the oath is a legal
action, we want to make sure that people taking the oath
understand clearly what they are swearing allegiance to. So we
definitely, and I agree with the Congressman, we want to
strengthen the language. He mentioned, for example, that we
should recognize all the geopolitical threats that our country
recognizes right now. I think that is appropriate. Perhaps
instead of mentioning all of the different principates,
potentates or sovereign entities and potentates, I guess could
be understood as a terrorist group, but I think we could
simplify that and use terminology, for example, like foreign
state and power. Power, I think, would cover groups like al-
Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
So I think there is room here to work, but we have to make
sure, because that is the mandate from Congress, that we meet
those five requirements. And that, we are going to make sure
that we meet. But at the same time, we want to make sure that
we include comments from the public, from citizens and
obviously from Congress.
Mr. Hostettler. And with regard to the five requirements in
law, I see a nuance change in the proposed language where the
requirement in statute explicitly says that an oath must
include the mention of bearing arms on behalf of the United
States when required by law. And that does not differentiate
between military service and, say, the context of the second
amendment to the Constitution regarding civilian keeping and
bearing of arms. And so, the original oath, the current oath,
does explicitly refer to bearing arms and does not make a
differentiation between who bears arms, but in the proposed
oath by the Bureau, it says, ``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.''
And because it does not speak explicitly to the point made
in statute with regard to bearing arms, and because it
explicitly does mention military service in relationship to
noncombatant or civilian service, there is, to me, once again a
nuance that we may be changing the notion that civilians who
are not under military control may be required, if there is an
assault on the homeland, to bear arms. And it seems to me that
the explicit mention of that in statute as it is today is once
again harkening back to our War for Independence and the second
amendment.
Can you speak to that?
Mr. Aguilar. Absolutely, and let me say that I agree with
you wholeheartedly. In the language that we are working on
right now, we are actually addressing that issue. And right
now, we believe that the principle of bearing arms should be
included in the oath.
Mr. Hostettler. For nonmilitary citizens?
Mr. Aguilar. So it is understood as it is right now in the
current oath.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
My time is up, and our time may be up. And since our time
is not up, please continue with what you were mentioning.
Mr. Aguilar. Right, so it would basically make the point
that the current oath makes now, and if I can just find the
language--exactly, make the point that it says right now: I
will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by
law. We believe that we should keep that concept as we are
working on new language that that concept should be included
for civilian individuals.
Mr. Hostettler. Citizens.
Mr. Aguilar. Citizens, yes.
Mr. Hostettler. Very good.
Dr. Schoenholtz, I have questions for you, too. It was not
the Commission on Immigration Reform's intent, once again, that
the only duty that naturalized citizens would have to defend
the Constitution and laws of the United States is by consenting
to be drafted, was it?
Mr. Schoenholtz. Not in the least.
Mr. Hostettler. Do you know in your discussion why the
notion of bearing arms by citizens was not--once again, it
seems like the language, to me, refers to the bearing of arms
strictly by the military, and then, in relationship to so-
called noncombatant service and civilian service.
Mr. Schoenholtz. Frankly, it was not a major discussion
among the commissioners. In fact, they simply found
Commissioner Estrada's language clearer. They didn't think it
raised any of these issues. Had they, I am sure there would
have been much more discussion about it.
I think Commissioner Estrada, were he able to speak to you
today; unfortunately, he passed away several years ago.
Mr. Hostettler. Yes.
Mr. Schoenholtz. Would tell you the very same thing, that
certainly, there was no intent to change the meaning of those
elements. He thought and the commissioners, all nine, thought,
they captured that meaning, and they certainly were not trying
to change the intent of Congress in that. They thought this was
clearer.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
Dr. Fonte, why do you believe that the oath plays such a
key role in making new citizens part of the American family?
Mr. Fonte. Well, as I said in my testimony, I believe that
the oath--because of the kind of country that we are, a nation
not based on race or ethnicity and religion but on loyalty to
our Constitutional democracy. What the immigrant is doing is
leaving a previous people and joining the American people,
becoming part of the sovereign American people.
If I could make a comment on what some of the other--what
the discussion has been on the oath itself, we worked with
Congressman Gekas, when he was Chairman of the Committee, with
the Citizenship Roundtable, and he wanted to drop abjure and
potentate, and we thought that was fine, and basically kept
everything else the same. Now, Chief Aguilar has a suggestion
in putting in the word ``power'' instead of ``potentate.'' A
foreign power, then, would be--al-Qaeda or a terrorist group
could be constituted as a foreign power.
Now, the other point that I wanted to emphasize is that
upon applying for naturalization, the applicants for
citizenship do get the oath, so they have 6 months or
sometimes, we know it takes a long time to become a citizen; it
may take years, they have time to study the meaning of the
oath. So this is a very short--whatever is come up with and
even the current one could be explained exactly what is in the
documents given to the applicants, and they have a lot of time
to study the meaning of the oath, so there is a period of time
to understand exactly what it means.
Mr. Hostettler. Very good.
And so as not to seem as an overly despotic potentate at
this point---- [Laughter.]
I would like to recognize the gentlelady from Texas, the
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Ms. Jackson Lee, for an
opening statement and for questions.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I hope you offer to the witnesses, Mr. Ryun, that the
Science Committee markup was doing something probably a little
bit awry from this hearing on green chemistry, and for those of
you who may not be aware, I wear a scientist's hat in my own
mind, but I had an amendment, so I apologize to the Chairman,
but I thank the Committee very much for this hearing.
Allow me to offer a few words of an opening statement and
to say that I surmise and would believe that the support of the
change in the language or the support of preserving the
language is one that has been offered with great commitment and
intent to the principles and the value of citizenship in the
United States, and I respect that.
Taking an oath is a critical legal step in becoming a
naturalized citizen, and in this Committee, both of us, the
Chairman and the Ranking Member have spoken about the values of
accessing citizenship. We may come at it in a different
perspective, or we may have different solutions, but the value
of accessing citizenship or the value of citizenship is taken
very seriously in this Committee.
The words of the Oath of Allegiance convey the core meaning
of becoming an American citizen. The Naturalization Act of 1790
and other early statutes required new citizens to swear an oath
containing the elements of the current language, but prior to
1906, naturalization courts had free rein in determining the
actual words.
As there were approximately 5,000 such courts, there was a
wide variation in the language used, and might I suggest to you
that that was the time when America opened its doors and its
shores to immigrants who came for economic opportunity. We're
reminded of the Statue of Liberty and the words that she posts
on her figure.
It is interesting as well that in that time, though we went
through our share of discrimination, the doors remained open
and our hearts as well. Any of us who have attended
naturalization services realize that the intensity, commitment,
the joy, the celebration is equal, probably, to those years
past. In 1905, Teddy Roosevelt's Commission on Naturalization
recommended that naturalization laws should be rewritten to be
more effective and consistent.
The basic Naturalization Act of 1906 implemented most of
the Roosevelt Commission's recommendations, but it did not
mandate a specific text for the oath. Regulations were not
enacted until 1929. The Naturalization Act of 1940 provided
that the elements of the naturalization oath prescribed by
regulation must all be present in the spoken oath to make it a
binding act. The 1952 McCarran-Walter Act required an oath with
five specific elements, but it left the actual words to
regulations and the discretion of judges who administer the
oath.
The following elements were specified: support for the
Constitution; renunciation of prior allegiance; defense of the
Constitution against all foreign and domestic enemies; true
faith and allegiance to bear arms or noncombatant service as
required.
Mr. Chairman and the panel, I agree with the elements of
this oath. They are realistic; they are minimal, but they are
necessary. In 1997, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform
determined that Congress had fulfilled its legislative duties
by establishing the five required elements. The Commission also
determined that the language of the oath is a living expression
of culture that grows and evolves. And it concluded that the
language of oath should be updated, and might I repeat what the
Commission concluded, that the oath is a living expression of
culture that grows and evolves.
It unanimously recommended a new naturalization oath
written by Richard Estrada. In late 2003, the Bush
administration announced its intention to adopt the following,
slightly modified version of the Estrada oath: ``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.''
This proposal met with resistance. For instance, former
Attorney General Edwin Meese objected that the proposed
language only asked new citizens to renounce their allegiance
to ``foreign state.'' He argued that, ``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 terms should be
maintained.''
The Citizenship Roundtable objected to the dropping of the
phrase, ``I will bear arms on behalf of the United States,''
which it felt should clearly be understandable by anyone who
wishes to become an American citizen.
I welcome such a debate over the text of our naturalization
oath. But the need to resolve such issues does not require
Congressional intervention or justify making the oath a
statutory provision. I agree with the U.S. Commission on
Immigration Reform that the language of the oath should be
updated to make it meaningful to the people being naturalized.
The current oath's dated language, archaic form and convoluted
grammar prevent it from being widely understood by new
citizens.
On the other hand, I also agree with my colleague,
Congressman Ryun, that changes should not be made hastily. I
believe that the oath should only be changed by regulations
promulgated in accordance with the safeguards of the
Administrative Procedure Act.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that my statement be submitted into the
record or that it be accepted, rather, into the record.
Mr. Hostettler. Without objection.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me briefly take some questions, in
particular to my colleague, Mr. Ryun.
In general, Congress sets out major parameters for
immigration law and leaves it up to the Executive Branch to
work out the implementing details. This has been the practice
for many years with respect to the Oath of Allegiance. And my
question, of course, which is a question included in my
statement, is why now, and why should we alter that practice?
Mr. Ryun. Thank you very much for your opening statement,
and let me also address your question.
First of all, the reason this was brought to the attention
of the Judiciary Committee is simply because there were some
considerations for a language change that could have
compromised the intent, I think, of the original Oath of
Allegiance, and the reason for this legislation is simply to
bring that debate where I think it should be addressed, and
that is to the appropriate Committee, to the House of
Representatives, to our elected officials, with Congressional
oversight so that there would be a good, healthy debate and
keep the intent of what was designed as the Oath of Allegiance
from the very beginning.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Ryun, let me just say that the
explanation could result in quite the contrary, and I guess my
concern would be that we would constantly be amending the
language by statutory effort and altering a simple oath that
would be clear on its face and clear to those who are taking
the oath of office including all of the elements.
As I look at the oath as presently constructed, we do have
to support and honor and be loyal to the United States, and we
also have to defend the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic, either by military, noncombatant or
civilian service. Where lies the confusion or the necessity to
clarify?
Mr. Ryun. The intent, again, is to bring that before a body
such as this where you would have the kind of debate I think
that is necessary, again, to move it forward as opposed to
allowing a bureaucracy on the outside to make such a decision
without having Congressional oversight.
So, again, the intent is to ensure that we keep those five
basic principles that are there. Perhaps there is a need to
address some of the modernization of some words, and I
recognize some of them are hard to say. But when you say them,
and you have to pause and say them, it causes you to realize
the seriousness of what the immigrant is getting involved in in
terms of citizenship.
I am not opposed to modernizing some of the words, but let
us not abandon the time-tested principle of Congressional
oversight.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Schoenholtz, how do you respond to the
argument made by Congressman Ryun, and does the climate today
require us to codify and make statutory a simple oath? Are we
in any way weeding out terrorists if we have a statutory basis?
Are we gaining anything by this approach?
Mr. Schoenholtz. Ms. Jackson Lee, I think that Congress
would not be gaining anything by enacting statutory language.
In fact, I think we might be losing something here. The usual
division of carrying out the responsibilities between the
Congress and the Executive Branch is that Congress has set
forth the major policies. That is what it has done with regard
to the naturalization oath. It has the five required elements.
And it has required the Executive Branch then to work out the
details, important details, very important here, and they have
done so through the regulatory process in the past, and that is
certainly what they should do again today.
By enacting something in statute, which we know takes
considerable effort, it means that it may be difficult in the
future, that much more difficult in the future, for future
generations to have a clear, solemn and meaningful oath. I
think that the best way to move forward at this point is to
hear all of the stakeholders on this issue, which I know that
the Department of Homeland Security has been doing, and I can
say that the Commission did; and then, move ahead with the
regulatory process, which is a meaningful process; it is notice
and comment rulemaking that should take place, and all
Americans should be heard in this manner.
That way, we will have a meaningful oath today, for today's
new citizens, and the next generation, if they feel they need
to update it for good reasons they can go through a similar
process. That process will guarantee the same protections, I
believe, that a Congressional process would, but it won't mean
that it will be that difficult to change in the future if
necessary.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And what do we gain, you've asked us, what
do we gain by, besides the difficulty of changing statutory
language, is there some suggestion of us being safer, that this
has sort of a grounding in the changing mode that we're in
after 9/11 as it relates to a citizenship pledge? Is there any
argument that we could make that the times have changed and
that we require statutory intervention? Is there any argument
that you would see valid at this time?
Mr. Schoenholtz. Not at this time. I believe that the
Department is as committed as the Congress is to making sure
that our country is protected from any security risks. Our
process guarantees that. I am not concerned in the least that
the Executive Branch process would result in any security risks
to our country. Therefore, on the whole, I think we would be
much better off going down that path.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman.
I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Hostettler. The Chair recognizes himself for 1 minute
out of order. Dr. Schoenholtz, why would you think that the
people directly elected by the citizens of this country would
be less able to determine the oath of citizenship through
statute than would the Executive Branch, selected by an
electoral college and regulators, those very important
employees in the Executive Branch that are not elected by
citizens but that are appointed, employed, hired by that
Executive Branch, why would you think that they would be more
capable of doing that than would the people directly elected by
the citizens?
Mr. Schoenholtz. Mr. Chairman, I apologize if you thought I
was saying that the Congress is less able than the Executive
Branch. That is not at all what I am saying. I am saying that
the Executive Branch is perfectly capable of doing this, and
the division of power that has existed in our immigration laws
in general and specifically regarding the naturalization oath,
has worked just fine. And that is Congress should be focusing
on the major policies set forth by our immigration laws.
Those are difficult enough to achieve. It has traditionally
left to the Executive Branch the implementation of those laws,
and I think that is the better system that we should continue
to follow. It was certainly not meant to suggest that Congress
is not capable of doing this; Congress is. But the
Congressional process would also make it not only difficult
now, but in the future to effect such change, whereas, I think
the procedures, through the APA--we are talking about notice
and comment rulemaking--that have traditionally allowed all of
the stakeholders to play a role in this process, and I have
seen it done very well; I work with a lot of people in the
field, and I am sure that the talented people at this table and
others will be coming forth to make excellent suggestions on
how to develop the new oath. So I believe they are also capable
of doing this.
Thank you.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee,
Mrs. Blackburn, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you all, and thanks for letting me
step back in the hearing, Mr. Chairman. We had a markup next
door in Government Reform, so I had to get over there for a few
moments.
Dr. Schoenholtz and Mr. Aguilar, I would like to direct my
first question to you and have a quick answer from each of you.
What is your stated goal, very concise stated goal and
reason for changing the oath? Mr. Aguilar, if you will go
first.
Mr. Aguilar. Our main goal is to make sure that the Oath of
Allegiance is comprehensible and that it follows the
requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act but that
people understand--this is a homeland security interest--that
people understand what they are swearing allegiance to.
Mrs. Blackburn. Okay; Dr. Schoenholtz?
Mr. Schoenholtz. Congresswoman, the Commission's intent was
to ensure that the oath is comprehensible, solemn and
meaningful. To do that, they felt that the five elements needed
to be placed in a language that our modern American understands
when they take a very serious oath.
Mrs. Blackburn. Okay; thank you both. I appreciate hearing
your responses to that and knowing that that is your stated
goal in the outcome, and I would like--other than that, that
was the only other question that I had; I wanted to hear from
each of you what your purpose, what you were desiring to
achieve out of this actually was.
Other than that, Mr. Ryun, I want to thank you for bringing
your bill. I think that it is a worthy bill, and I look forward
to hearing more from you as we go forward on the legislation.
Sir?
Mr. Ryun. If I may respond.
Mrs. Blackburn. Yes, please do.
Mr. Ryun. First of all, thank you for your question.
I would just like to respond to your question in the sense
that I think in some respects, we are all headed toward the
same objective: comprehensible, sound, meaningful. But the
forum in which that should take place is what I think this
debate is partly about. I believe it should be done within the
oversight of Congress as opposed to an outside body. Keeping
the intent is very, very important, and, you know, the five
principles, again, staying within this body I think is
significant, and that is why this is being offered.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentlelady.
I want to once again thank the panel of Members, the panel
for coming out today and discussing this very important issue.
Your insight and your input is invaluable in this discussion of
a very important part of American life for those who have come
here and have worked diligently to become citizens. So I want
to thank you for that and remind Members of the Subcommittee
that all Members will have seven legislative days to add to the
record, to revise and extend their remarks.
Yes, the gentlelady from Texas is recognized for a
question.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, I wanted to ask a question. Let me--
is the--can I just ask Dr. Schoenholtz again, I want to pursue
this statutory question. The present oath is regulatory, and it
has been regulatory for, now, a good century, I guess.
Mr. Schoenholtz. 1952 was the last time that the regulation
was--that the oath was put into the regulation.
Ms. Jackson Lee. But we've had an oath since early 19--et
cetera.
Mr. Schoenholtz. Going back a long, long, time, now, to the
beginning.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And we have managed to frame it as the
culture has changed, America has changed. Again, let me just
focus on the fact that we have had 9/11 and the fact that we
have a new wave of immigrants. Does this in any way suggest
some discriminatory approach because we have a new wave of
immigrants coming from different regions, that we would want to
put this oath in statutory language?
Mr. Schoenholtz. Congresswoman Jackson Lee, I don't believe
that those changes suggest that the naturalization oath needs
to be placed into statutory language. If you are suggesting
that Congress is going to be more protective of our national
security interests than any other branch of our Government, I
fully believe that every branch of our Government will do its
utmost to protect the American people. And I believe that the
Executive Branch is fully committed to this. We now have the
Department of Homeland Security that will exercise this
regulatory duty, as the inheritor of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
So I am confident that they will be able to carry this out
well, and I don't see any added benefit, in that sense, from
Congress taking this on.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And what I would simply say in the course
of accessing citizenship or becoming a citizen, we have the
same stringent requirements that would weed out those seeking
citizenship to do us harm, seeking it under fraud, fraudulent
purposes. And so, by the time that you reach the oath, is it my
understanding that you have been completely vetted, and you are
now ready, simply, to make your commitment to the United
States? The oath does not serve as a weeding-out document; it
is simply a document that confirms your willingness to accept
the responsibilities of citizenship; is that not clear?
Mr. Schoenholtz. That is absolutely correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And so, statutory intervention might bog
down that already-vetted process rather than enhance it.
Mr. Schoenholtz. That is true.
Ms. Jackson Lee. That is a possibility?
Mr. Schoenholtz. Mm-hmm.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you.
Mr. Hostettler. I thank the gentlelady.
Once again, the Chair reminds the Members that we have
seven legislative days to revise and extend for the record.
The business of this Subcommittee being completed, we are
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress From the State of Texas
Taking an oath is a critical legal step in becoming a naturalized
citizen. The words of the Oath of Allegiance convey the core meaning of
becoming an American citizen. The Naturalization Act of 1790 and other
early statutes required new citizens to swear an oath containing the
elements of the current language, but prior to 1906, naturalization
courts had free rein in determining the actual words. As there were
approximately 5,000 such courts, there was wide variation in the
language used.
In 1905, Teddy Roosevelt's Commission on Naturalization recommended
that naturalization laws be rewritten to be more effective and
consistent. The Basic Naturalization Act of 1906 implemented most of
the Roosevelt Commission's recommendations, but it did not mandate a
specific text for the oath.
Regulations were not enacted until 1929. The Nationality Act of
1940 provided that the elements of the naturalization oath prescribed
by regulation must all be present in the spoken oath to make it a
binding act.
The 1952 McCarren-Walter Act required an oath with five specific
elements, but it left the actual words to regulation and the discretion
of the judges who administer the oath. The following elements were
specified: (1) Support for the Constitution; (2) renunciation of prior
allegiance; (3) defense of the Constitution against all foreign and
domestic enemies; (4) true faith and allegiance; and (5) to bear arms
or noncombatant service as required.
In 1997, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform determined that
Congress had fulfilled its legislative duties by establishing the five
required elements. The Commission also determined that the language of
the oath is a living expression of culture that grows and evolves. It
concluded that the language of the oath should be updated. It
unanimously recommended a new Naturalization Oath written by Richard
Estrada. In late 2003, the Bush Administration announced its intention
to adopt the following, slightly modified version of the Estrada oath:
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.
This proposal met with resistance. For instance, former Attorney
General Edwin Meese objected that the proposed language only asks new
citizens to renounce their allegiance to a ``foreign state.'' He argued
that, ``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.'' The Citizenship Roundtable objected to dropping the
phrase, ``I will bear arms on behalf of the United States,'' which it
felt should clearly be understandable by anyone who wishes to become an
American citizen.
I welcome such debate over the text of our naturalization oath, but
the need to resolve such issues does not require Congressional
intervention or justify making the oath a statutory provision.
I agree with the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform that the
language of the oath should be updated to make it meaningful to the
people being naturalized. The current oath's dated language, archaic
form, and convoluted grammar prevent it from being widely understood by
new citizens. On the other hand, I also agree with my colleague,
Congressman Jim Ryun, that changes should not be made hastily. I
believe that the oath should only be changed by regulations promulgated
in accordance with the safeguards of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Thank you.