Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

TO PRESCRIBE THE OATH OF RENUNCIATION

AND ALLEGIANCE FOR PURPOSES OF THE
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT

#ART OF COACHES

AUG 11 9 2004

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

B 以

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

92-832 PDF

WASHINGTON : 2004

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512-1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

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

[blocks in formation]

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.Š. 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

« ÎnapoiContinuați »