DOCSLIB.ORG

Changes in the Australian Oath of Citizenship

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Changes in the Australian Oath of Citizenship 2002–03 No. 20, 19 November 2002 Changes in the Australian Oath of Citizenship The changes in the oath of citizenship In 1947 Canada departed from this The great achievement of Australian over the last 50 years reflect the common code with legislation which citizenship … lies not so much with evolution of Australia from British 'gave Canadians their own Canadian those of us who are Australians born colony to independent multicultural citizenship status whilst continuing to and bred but, rather with those nation. hold British subject status'.4 Prompted millions who … have of their own 8 Background by the 1947 Canadian Act other free will chosen to become citizens. Australian citizenship was vigorously Commonwealth countries, including Changes in the Oath of Allegiance9 debated at the Federation conferences Britain, Australia and New Zealand The Australian Citizenship Act 1948 held during the 1890s. During this introduced similar legislation. sets out the provisions by which citizenship can be acquired. These are decade the word 'citizen' appeared: Australians, who until 1949 had been by birth, adoption, descent or grant. again and again, in speeches, in the British subjects, were now Australian One of the requirements of the grant press, in the rules and charters of citizens and British subjects provision was that all new citizens take organisations, and in debates about simultaneously. This situation 1 the oath or affirmation of allegiance political entitlement. remained from 1949 until 1984. Surprisingly the final version of the (now the pledge). This is an essential Australian Citizenship rather than a symbolic part of the Constitution did not reflect this intense The legal status of Australian Citizen citizenship process. The changes from debate. came into effect on 26 January 1949 the first oath of allegiance to the Although the final Constitution gave the with the passage through Parliament of current pledge are listed below. They Commonwealth the power to make laws the Nationality and Citizenship Act 5 reflect the growing diversity of with respect to naturalisation and aliens, 1948. The Minister for Immigration, the Australia's population and the it did not mention or define Australian Hon. Arthur Calwell said: citizenship. The closest statement in the This is an historic occasion in the life development of a more inclusive Constitution on citizenship is found in of our nation. The bill … seeks to approach to citizenship. s. 117 which uses the word 'subject' establish for the first time the 1948 Nationality and Citizenship Act10 rather than 'citizen': principle of Australian citizenship, Oath of Allegiance A subject of the Queen, resident in while maintaining … the common I, A. B; swear by Almighty God that any State, shall not be subject in any bond of British nationality. … this I will be faithful and bear true other State to any disability or bill … will enable Australia to allegiance to His Majesty King discrimination which would not be proclaim its own national citizenship George the Sixth, his heirs and equally applicable to him if he were a and establish the duties and successors according to law, and that subject of the Queen resident in such responsibilities as well as the rights I will faithfully observe the laws of other State. and privileges that are inherent in it.6 Australia and fulfil my duties as an Section 24 uses the phrase 'people of Sir Ninian Stephen, former Justice of Australian citizen. the Commonwealth', and s. 44 uses the the High Court and former Governor- 1966 Amendment: Insertion of term 'citizen' in regard to persons who General of Australia, has suggested renunciation are 'subjects or citizens' of a foreign that the notion of citizenship in fact In his Second Reading Speech on the power and therefore ineligible to stand made very little impact on the 1966 Bill, the Minister for for federal parliament. Australian community: Immigration, the Hon. Hubert The concept of Australian citizenship Australian citizenship has none of the Opperman stated: therefore did not exist—it was not a aura which surrounds the concept of … we have decided that the essential formal legal term.2 being a citizen of the United States words of renunciation should now be incorporated as part of the oath of In 1914 British nationality was, for the nor … [with] being a citizen of France. This is, I believe, largely allegiance to the Queen. The change first time, defined in legislation. Self- because our citizenship has not had will simplify and shorten the governing member countries of the to be fought for but has come to us naturalisation ceremony and enhance British Empire passed nationality acts gradually, without fanfare and its dignity, and will also, I believe, based on the UK legislation and adopted without struggle.7 eliminate the emotional disturbance a British nationality 'common code' Since 1949 Australian governments felt by candidates due to their which provided British subjects with a have actively encouraged immigrants national and rightful love of their 3 11 common status. to become citizens: homelands. Oath of Allegiance reviewed the Australian Citizenship values of Australia and which is a I, A. B., renouncing all other Act 1948 in 1982 and recommended bonding instrument, and we can do allegiance, swear by Almighty God that the oath or affirmation of this without any disrespect to our 17 that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance should not include sovereign … allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen renunciation of all other allegiance. Pledge of Commitment Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and In 1986 the Minister for Immigration Form of Pledge No. 1 From this time forward, under God, I Successors according to law. and Ethnic Affairs, the Hon. Chris pledge my loyalty to Australia and its Affirmation of Allegiance Hurford MP, described renunciation as people, whose democratic beliefs I I, A. B., renouncing all other 'ambiguous and unnecessary'.14 allegiance, solemnly and sincerely share, whose rights and liberties I Oath of Allegiance promise and declare that I will be respect, and whose laws I will uphold I swear by Almighty God that I will faithful and bear true allegiance to and obey. be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Form of Pledge No. 2 Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Second, Her Heirs and Successors From this time forward, I pledge my Queen of Australia, Her heirs and according to law. loyalty to Australia and its people, successors according to law, and that whose democratic beliefs I share, 1973 Australian Citizenship Act: I will faithfully observe the laws of insertion of reference to Queen of whose rights and liberties I respect, Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australia12 and whose laws I will uphold and Australian citizen. Oath of Allegiance obey. Affirmation of Allegiance I, A. B., renouncing all other The Pledge came into effect in January I solemnly and sincerely promise and allegiance, swear by Almighty God 1994. There have been no changes that I will be faithful and bear true declare that I will be faithful and bear since. allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth true allegiance to Her Majesty the Second, Queen of Australia, Her Elizabeth the Second, Queen of heirs and successors according to Australia, Her heirs and successors law, and that I will faithfully observe according to law, and that I will Deirdre McKeown faithfully observe the laws of Politics and Public the laws of Australia and fulfil my Administration Group Australia and fulfil my duties as an duties as an Australian citizen. Information and Research Affirmation of Allegiance Australian citizen. Services I, A. B., renouncing all other 1993 Amendment: introduction of a Views expressed in this Research Note 15 allegiance, solemnly and sincerely Pledge of Commitment to replace the are those of the author and do not promise and declare that I will be oath or affirmation of allegiance and necessarily reflect those of the faithful and bear true allegiance to removal of reference to the Crown Information and Research Services and In 1993 the ALP made a commitment are not to be attributed to the Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Department of the Parliamentary Queen of Australia, Her heirs and to 'replace the old Oath of Allegiance Library. Research Notes provide concise successors according to law, and that with a Pledge of Commitment as a analytical briefings on issues of interest Citizen of the Country of Australia'.16 to Senators and Members. As such they I will faithfully observe the laws of may not canvass all of the key issues. Australia and fulfil my duties as an Introducing the legislation the Minister Advice on legislation or legal policy Australian citizen. for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, issues contained in this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate 1986 Amendment: removal of Senator the Hon. Nick Bolkus said: and for related parliamentary purposes. renunciation13 and removal of … we need to have an oath of This paper is not professional legal requirement that candidates state their allegiance which reflects the core opinion. names when taking the oath or making Commonwealth of Australia the affirmation ISSN 1328-8016 The Human Rights Commission Endnotes 1. Helen Irving, 'Citizenship before 1949', Individual Community Nation, Kim Rubenstein (ed.), Australian Scholarly Publishing, Melbourne, 2000, p.10. 2. Kim Rubenstein, Australian Citizenship Law in Context, Lawbook Co., 2002, p. 47. 3. The British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914. Australia passed the Nationality Act 1920 4. Australian Citizenship Council, Australian citizenship for a new century, Canberra, 2000, p. 31. 5. In 1973 the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 was renamed the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. 6. House of Representatives, Debates, 30 September 1948, p. 1060. 7. Sir Ninian Stephen, 'Australian citizenship: past, present and future', Monash University Law Review, vol.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Citizenship Ceremonies in the UK Compare to Those Around the World?
    Citizenship ceremonies Bridget Byrne University of Manchester 11/27/2001 Citizenship ceremonies Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3 1. How do citizenship ceremonies in the UK compare to those around the world? .......................... 5 2. How do citizenship ceremonies differ across the UK? .................................................................... 7 2.1 Locations ....................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Who participates in the ceremonies? .......................................................................................... 7 3. Content of the welcome speeches ..................................................................................................... 9 3.1 History and welcome ................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Meanings of citizenship .............................................................................................................. 10 3.3 New citizens in the speeches ..................................................................................................... 11 4. What are the different reasons why people want British citizenship? ........................................ 12 5. What had been new citizens’ experiences in applying for visas and citizenship? .......................
    [Show full text]
  • Discover Canada the Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship 2 Your Canadian Citizenship Study Guide
    STUDY GUIDE Discover Canada The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship 2 Your Canadian Citizenship Study Guide Message to Our Readers The Oath of Citizenship Le serment de citoyenneté Welcome! It took courage to move to a new country. Your decision to apply for citizenship is Je jure (ou j’affirme solennellement) another big step. You are becoming part of a great tradition that was built by generations of pioneers I swear (or affirm) Que je serai fidèle before you. Once you have met all the legal requirements, we hope to welcome you as a new citizen with That I will be faithful Et porterai sincère allégeance all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. And bear true allegiance à Sa Majesté la Reine Elizabeth Deux To Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second Reine du Canada Queen of Canada À ses héritiers et successeurs Her Heirs and Successors Que j’observerai fidèlement les lois du Canada And that I will faithfully observe Et que je remplirai loyalement mes obligations The laws of Canada de citoyen canadien. And fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen. Understanding the Oath Canada has welcomed generations of newcomers Immigrants between the ages of 18 and 54 must to our shores to help us build a free, law-abiding have adequate knowledge of English or French In Canada, we profess our loyalty to a person who represents all Canadians and not to a document such and prosperous society. For 400 years, settlers in order to become Canadian citizens. You must as a constitution, a banner such as a flag, or a geopolitical entity such as a country.
    [Show full text]
  • Citizenship Requirements in Europe and North America
    A New Citizenship Bargain for the Age of Mobility? Citizenship Requirements in Europe and North America Randall A. Hansen University of Toronto 2008 The Migration Policy Institute is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank dedicated to the study of the movement of people worldwide. About the Transatlantic Council on Migration This paper was commissioned by the Transatlantic Council on Migration for its inaugural meeting held in Bellagio, Italy, in April 2008. The meeting’s theme was “Identity and Citizenship in the 21st Century,” and this paper was one of several that informed the Council’s discussions. The Council is an initiative of the Migration Policy Institute undertaken in cooperation with its policy partners: the Bertelsmann Stiftung and European Policy Centre. The Council is a unique deliberative body that examines vital policy issues and informs migration policymaking processes in North America and Europe. For more on the Transatlantic Council on Migration, please visit: www.migrationpolicy.org/transatlantic © 2008 Migration Policy Institute. All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the Migration Policy Institute. A full-text PDF of this document is available for free download from www.migrationpolicy.org. Permission for reproducing excerpts from this report should be directed to: Permissions Department, Migration Policy Institute, 1400 16th Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036, or by contacting [email protected] Suggested citation: Hansen, Randall A. 2008. A New Citizenship Bargain for the Age of Mobility? Citizenship Requirements in Europe and North America.
    [Show full text]
  • Remote Naturalization Oaths Are Legally Permissible | July 2020 1
    Practice Advisory | July 2020 REMOTE NATURALIZATION OATHS ARE LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE By Ethan Nasr and Peggy Gleason I. Introduction The United States has a long and rich history of welcoming immigrants from around the world and the desire to undertake the naturalization process has steadily increased over time.1 U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) naturalized more than 7.2 million residents in the last decade. 2 From 2010-2020, naturalizations have ranged from 620,000 to 780,000 per year.3 For the hundreds of thousands of Lawful Permanent Residents seeking to become U.S. citizens each year, the Oath of Allegiance – typically administered during regularly scheduled citizenship ceremonies – is the last step to becoming a U.S. citizen.4 Naturalization applicants do not become U.S. citizens until they have taken the Oath of Allegiance.5 On March 18, 2020, USCIS suspended operations involving in-person contact temporarily due to COVID-19, including administering naturalization oath ceremonies. While a gradual reopening began on June 4, 2020, opening was delayed in areas that continued to be heavily impacted by the virus.6 Even reopened offices have limited operations due to the demands of social distancing. In addition, offices that have reopened will be facing return waves of the pandemic in the near future, necessitating closure once again. Before the pandemic, approximately 63,000 applicants took the oath of allegiance each month.7 During the USCIS closure in the first half of 2020, 126,000 individuals who had been approved to naturalize found themselves stymied in the process as they awaited the administration of the oath of allegiance.8 This final - essentially ceremonial - step is the only formality standing in the way of accessing all of the rights and privileges that are fundamental to U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Ensuring New Zealand's Constitution Is Fit for Purpose
    July 2013 Submission Ensuring New Zealand’s Constitution is Fit for Purpose Submission to the Constitutional Advisory Panel ΞDĐ'ƵŝŶŶĞƐƐ/ŶƐƟƚƵƚĞ>ŝŵŝƚĞĚϮϬϭϯ /^EϵϳϴͲϭͲϵϳϮϭϵϯͲϯϳͲϮ;ƉĂƉĞƌďĂĐŬͿ /^EϵϳϴͲϭͲϵϳϮϭϵϯͲϯϴͲϵ;W&Ϳ WKŽdžϮϰϮϮϮ tĞůůŝŶŐƚŽŶϲϭϰϮ EĞǁĞĂůĂŶĚ ǁǁǁ͘ŵĐŐƵŝŶŶĞƐƐŝŶƐƟƚƵƚĞ͘ŽƌŐ ďŽƵƚƚŚĞDĐ'ƵŝŶŶĞƐƐ/ŶƐƟƚƵƚĞ The McGuinness Institute is a non-partisan, not-for-profit research organisation specialising in issues that affect New Zealand’s long term future. Founded in 2004, the Institute aims to contribute to the ongoing debate about how to progress this nation through the production of timely, comprehensive and evidence-based research and the sharing of ideas. This can take a number of forms including books, reports, working papers, think pieces, workshops and videos. ďŽƵƚƚŚĞƵƚŚŽƌ Wendy McGuinness Wendy McGuinness is the founder and chief executive of the McGuinness Institute. Originally from the King Country, Wendy completed her secondary schooling at Hamilton Girls’ High School and Edgewater College. She then went on to study at Manukau Technical Institute (gaining an NZCC), Auckland University (BCom) and Otago University (MBA), as well as completing additional environmental papers at Massey University. As a Fellow Chartered Accountant (FCA) specialising in risk management, Wendy has worked in both the public and private sectors. In 2004 she established the McGuinness Institute (formerly the Sustainable Future Institute) as a way of contributing to New Zealand’s long-term future. She has also co-authored a book, Nation Dates: Significant events that have shaped the nation of New Zealand. tŝƚŚŽŶƚƌŝďƵƟŽŶƐĨƌŽŵ Sylvia Avery Sylvia Avery is a practicing primary school teacher who recently graduated from the University of Otago with a BA in Theatre and Politics and a Graduate Diploma in Teaching (Primary).
    [Show full text]
  • The Construction of Citizenship in an Emigration Context
    SYMPOSIUM HOME AND AWAY: THE CONSTRUCTION OF CITIZENSHIP IN AN EMIGRATION CONTEXT KIM BARRY* Scholarly discourse on immigration is abundant,but little attention has been paid to emigration as such, and particularly to citizenship within the emigration context. This Article examines the ways in which citizenship has been reconfigured by emigrants and emigration states, and begins to construct a broadened conception of citizenship based on these actual practices. Citizenship as experienced by emigrants, or "external citizenship," has two dimensions: formal legal status and the lived experience of participation in national life. The Article highlights the strong economic incentives for emigration states to strengthen ties with their absent citizens. It also emphasizes emigrants' active stance in shaping their new role in the national life of their home countries. As emigrant states and emigrants negotiate the terms of their relationship, a new set of citizenship constructs has begun to emerge. States have newly styled emigrants as heroic citizens, as they seek to encourage emigrants to directfinancial resources homeward, in the form of remit- tances, direct contributions styled as taxes, and investment. In approving dual nationality,states have allowed emigrants to retain legal membership at home, even as they acquire citizenship abroad. Emigrants themselves have begun to assert political claims in their home states, and in a number of states, emigrants have acquired the right to vote in national elections while abroad. Emigrants also continue to influence politics in their home states in other ways, including running for office, making contributions to candidates, and traveling home to vote there. The Article concludes by offering some initialthoughts on the ways in which emi- grant citizenship might evolve in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Dual Allegiance: a Challenge to Immigration Reform and Patriotic
    Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder November 2005 Dual Allegiance A Challenge to Immigration Reform and Patriotic Assimilation By John Fonte, Ph.D. Foreword by Newt Gingrich Introduction by Thomas L. Bock, National Commander of the American Legion, and Dr. Herbert I. London, President of the Hudson Institute Executive Summary • When immigrants become American citizens they take a solemn oath to “absolutely and entirely renounce” all previous political allegiances. They transfer their loyalty from the “old country” to the United States. Dual allegiance violates this oath. • Dual allegiance is incompatible with the moral basis of American constitutional democracy because 1) Dual allegiance challenges our core foundation as a civic nation (built on political loyalty) by promoting an eth- nic and racial basis for allegiance and, thus, subverts our “nation of (assimilated) immigrants” ethic; and 2) Dual allegiance violates the core American principle of equality of citizenship. • The Founders, along with Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Louis Brandeis, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Felix Frankfurter, and Newt Gingrich, among others, have all affirmed that undivided political loyalty to the United States should be an absolute condition for citizenship. • Mexican government policies today directly challenge the patriotic assimilation of immigrants, just as Italian government policies did in the past. What is different is that, in the past, the American government and elites opposed dual allegiance and insisted upon patriotic assimilation. Today, they are mute. • In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court in Afroyim v. Rusk, by a vote of 5-4, overturned 200 years of traditional American practice toward dual allegiance. Nevertheless, there is plenty of effective action that Congress could take within current Supreme Court interpretations.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Immigration and Border Protection | 2
    Submission to the Inquiry into the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee UNCLASSIFIED Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter One Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 6 Immigration is helping to shape the nation ......................................................................................... 6 Australia’s success as an immigration nation ..................................................................................... 6 Developments in Australia’s immigration policy ................................................................................. 9 Citizenship in Australia today ........................................................................................................... 10 Australian citizenship—privileges and responsibilities ..................................................................... 13 Privileges ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Responsibilities ............................................................................................................................ 14 Chapter Two The changing global context ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Constituting Citizens Oaths, Gender, Religious Attire Ayelet Shachar
    6 Constituting Citizens Oaths, Gender, Religious Attire ayelet shachar The issue which consumed the final few weeks of the 2015 Canadian Federal Election began innocuously enough. Zunera Ishaq, a permanent resident in Canada and citizen of Pakistan, had completed all of the other prerequisites for naturalization and been scheduled to attend a citizenship ceremony on 1 January 2014. There was only one hitch – she intended to recite the oath 2 while wearing her niqab. The government banned such a practice. Alas, only after taking the oath do the participants become full-fledged members of the 3 new home country to which they have sworn allegiance. Without it, the 4 naturalization process remains incomplete. Citizenship is not conferred. Ishaq’s religious practice thus appeared to bar her from acquiring full and equal membership in her new home country. An earlier version was presented at Yale Law School. I’m grateful for the lively discussion this paper provoked at Yale and would like to extend my gratitude to Richard Albert and David Cameron for the invitation to participate in this project. Special thanks are due to Owen Fiss and Ran Hirschl for their insightful comments and suggestions. Matthew Milne and Marinka Yossiffon provided invaluable research assistance. 1 These requirements include: lawful residency, physical presence in the country, language proficiency in English or French as well as demonstration of adequate knowledge of the country’s history, institutions, symbols, and core constitutional values. 2 The niqab is a face veil worn by some Muslim women, leaving only the eyes revealed. 3 At the end of the ceremony, each participant receives his or her citizenship certificate, which offers legal proof of their newly acquired full membership status.
    [Show full text]
  • Jus Meritum Citizenship for Service
    70 Lisa Garcia Bedolla 18. Given the si~nificant racial and socioeconomic differences that exist be­ tween the California electorate and its voters, this problem is also present state­ wide. See Garcia Bedolla (2005). For a discussion of racial differences in pub­ lic opinion, see Dawson (2000). 19. These include five cities in Maryland: Takoma Park, Barnesville, Mar­ Jus Meritum tin's Additions, Somerset, and Chevy Chase. Noncitizens can vote in school Citizenship for Service board elections in the city of Chicago. Noncitizen parents can vote for and serve on community and school boards under New York state education law so long as they have not been convicted of a felony or voting fraud. As of 1992, Cara Wong and Grace Cho there were 56,000 noncitizens registered as parent voters in New York. See Harper-Ho (2000) and Hayduk (2002). 20. They find that Latino applicants are more likely to be denied citizenship on administrative grounds than those from other parts of the world. 21. This is largely because socioeconomic status has been found to be the According to scholars of citizenship, there are two main principles strongest predictor of political participation, and most immigrants possess low that have been used by nations to decide citizenship (and national­ socioeconomic status (see Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1995). In a study ity): lineage and land (Aleinikoff and Klusmeyer 2001, Faulks 2000, comparing native born and foreign born voting in New York state, Minnite, Heater 1999, Kondo 2001, Shallr 1998). Jus sanguinis, or "right of Holdaway and Hayduk (2001) find that nativity has a significant negative im­ blood," re.fers to a law of descent, whereby citizenship is accrued from pact on participation rates across a number of modes of participation.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on Loyalty Oaths
    Michigan Law Review Volume 84 Issue 7 1986 Constituting Communities Through Words That Bind: Reflections on Loyalty Oaths Sanford Levinson University of Texas Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Law and Politics Commons, and the Law and Society Commons Recommended Citation Sanford Levinson, Constituting Communities Through Words That Bind: Reflections on Loyalty Oaths, 84 MICH. L. REV. 1440 (1986). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol84/iss7/5 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONSTITUTING COMMUNITIES THROUGH WORDS THAT BIND: REFLECTIONS ON LOYALTY OATHS Sanford Levinson* I. PREFACE: A PERSONAL INTRODUCTION On December 5, 1942, Felix Frankfurter articulated what can only be described as a personal testament of faith as he joined his colleagues on the Supreme Court in considering a fascinating case involving the meaning of the oath one takes upon becoming a naturalized citizen. 1 After reminding the other Justices seated around the conference table that "[i]t is well known that a convert is more zealous than one born to the faith," Frankfurter went on to describe his own experience, unique among the Justices, of naturalization. "I was at college when my father became naturalized and I can assure you that for months preceding it was a matter of moment in our family life, and when the great day came it partook for me of great solemnity." Describing him­ self "[a]s one who has no ties with any formal religion,"2 he immedi- * Professor of Law, University of Texas Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Forswearing Allegiance Gerhard Casper
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Fulton Lectures Law School Lectures and Events 2008 Forswearing Allegiance Gerhard Casper Follow this and additional works at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/fulton_lectures Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Gerhard Casper, "Forswearing Allegiance" (Fulton Lectures 2008). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Lectures and Events at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fulton Lectures by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Maurice and Muriel Fulton Lecture Series Forswearing Allegiance Gerhard Casper May 1, 2008 The Law School The University of Chicago Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1311584 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1311584 Forswearing Allegiance Gerhard Casper* My subject is the requirement that new citizens abjure prior allegianc- es. It was introduced into federal naturalization law in 1795 and it is still the law of the land.1 A seemingly small historical topic, it pro- vides cause to reflect about changes in the concept of citizenship that have taken place over time, especially in recent decades. The 1795 “Act to establish a uniform rule of Naturalization”2 provided that an alien, in order to become a citizen, had to have been a resident of the United States for at least five years and had to declare, in court, three years before his admission, on oath or affirmation, that “it was bona fide his intention to become a citizen of the United States,3 and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any for- eign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at the time, be a citizen or subject.” The actual forswearance of allegiance took place at the time of naturalization and was to be recorded by the clerk of the court that admitted the applicant to citizenship.
    [Show full text]