Jim Ryun

Member of Congress

 

Testimony before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Control, and Claims

House of Representatives

 

April 1, 2004

 

 

I would like thank Chairman Hostettler and Ranking Member Jackson-Lee for holding a hearing on H.R. 3191 and inviting me to testify before your sub-committee 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.