DOCSLIB.ORG

Core 1..192 Hansard (PRISM::Advent3b2 6.50.00)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Core 1..192 Hansard (PRISM::Advent3b2 6.50.00) CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 138 Ï NUMBER 036 Ï 2nd SESSION Ï 37th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Monday, December 2, 2002 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire´´ at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 2081 HOUSE OF COMMONS Monday, December 2, 2002 The House met at 11 a.m. In the middle of the 18th century, as we know, Britain went to war with New France. France at that time controlled all of what we know Prayers as Quebec and much of what we know as Nova Scotia. When Britain went to war, it was the umpteenth war. Britain had been at war with France in a struggle for the continent for many years. A terrible tragedy occurred with the Acadians at that particular time. Because PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS the power was in Quebec and the British conquered Acadia—Nova Scotia—taking some of the forts there and establishing a presence, Ï (1100) the British government authorities required the Acadians, who were [English] all French speaking, just as they were in Quebec, as Quebec had CITIZENSHIP ACT been a colony of France, to take an oath of allegiance to the king. Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Al- That oath of allegiance was essentially the same oath that I just dershot, Lib.) moved that Bill C-203, an act to amend the recited. When the Acadians were reluctant to take that oath, one of Citizenship Act (Oath or Affirmation of Citizenship), be read the the great tragedies of Canadian history occurred, and that was what second time and referred to a committee. is known as the Acadian expulsion, which actually occurred on a Sunday. The British fleet happened to be in port and it seized all the He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to this private Acadian males at their churches attending mass, put them on board member's bill that would, at long last I would hope, change the ship and dispersed them down the entire coastline of the United Canadian oath of citizenship to better reflect who Canadians are. It States, as well as to Louisiana. It took many years for a few of them would change the wording of the oath to reflect the principles of the to return. It was a terrible tragedy and, of course, it changed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would suggest that, more than complexion of Nova Scotia. I am proud to say that we still have an anything else, what defines Canadians is: our respect for the rule of Acadian presence but had the British not done that, Nova Scotia law, freedom of expression, equality of opportunity, democracy and today would probably be a French speaking province, very much basic human rights. like Quebec and much of New Brunswick. I would like to begin, however, by reviewing, if I may, the current It was that oath of allegiance that I recited earlier that was used for oath of allegiance. When new Canadians come to this country the dispersal of the Acadians because the Acadians could not bear to seeking citizenship they are required to say the following words. swear allegiance to the king. They are: I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Ï (1105) Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, according to law and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a What one must understand is that the British crown in those days Canadian citizen. did not have an oath of allegiance in England. In fact it did not have Everyone will be interested to know that the New Zealand oath of an oath of allegiance, of citizenship or of naturalization until the citizenship states as follows: 1980s. In England the people were all British subjects but for the I... swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen colonies they had to devise this oath of allegiance to the king. People Elizabeth the Second, Queen of New Zealand, Her heirs and successors according to had to pledge fealty to the king as a way of guaranteeing that the the law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of New Zealand and fulfil my people who were not British subjects, who were perhaps French duties as a New Zealand citizen. So help me God. speaking or perhaps living in the colonies in the Caribbean or in Members will note that there is a direct similarity between the two Australia, for example, who were all convicts, would bow to the oaths. Indeed, they are almost exactly the same. I should say that power of the crown. It ordered them to take an oath of allegiance, only New Zealand and Canada have this oath which basically is which is the oath we have today. derived from the British colonial period of the 18th century. The British at that time had many colonies across the world. Britain was When new Canadians come to this country and swear that oath an empire very much like the United States in the sense that it was a many people have difficulty with it because some of them come mercantile empire that was acquiring colonies around the world in from Commonwealth countries where, in their own colonial history, order to develop a vast commercial enterprise, a vast world pledging allegiance to the Crown meant slavery. Therefore it is commerce. perhaps an oath that needs to be changed. 2082 COMMONS DEBATES December 2, 2002 Private Members' Business In the citizenship bill that is now before the House, Bill C-18, the Now the reason that we have to have a version that makes government has revised the oath. The government did this without reference to God is because it is in the charter, it is in O Canada, but any consultation with Parliament. It was done following hearings by also because there are those who have strong religious beliefs and do the citizenship and immigration committee in 1994-95, which not feel that they can make a real pledge unless there is a reference to universally said that Canada needed an oath that reflected Canadian God. values. What we have now before the House is this oath which states: On the other hand, we have many people coming from other lands From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada and Her who have come from places where there has been oppression in the Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada. I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms, to uphold our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws name of religion and they want a version in which they do not have and fulfil my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen. to make reference to God. Therefore, I offer in Bill C-203 the two choices. I suggest that this new oath is not much of an improvement over the oath that is currently being used by people taking out Canadian citizenship. There are a number of things about this. Most of it is Finally, Mr. Speaker, you will note that in the version that I taken from the Australian oath of citizenship, which revised its oath present to you, there is no reference to the Queen. I would suggest in 1993, and it is an echo of the oath I just read. that is hardly novel. In 1993 Australia revised its oath of citizenship which was very much like our current oath and the oath of New The oath has some very obvious flaws in it. There is the Zealand. Australia changed it. The Australian oath of citizenship is redundancy of, “I pledge my loyalty and allegiance”. These are the quite nice, it says: same things. I think, more important, it is not enough simply to ask the people who are taking out Canadian citizenship to faithfully As an Australian citizen, I affirm my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose observe our laws and fulfill their duties as citizens of Canada. democratic beliefs I share,whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I uphold and obey. I observe for members that world history is replete with examples where governments change laws so that they do not reflect basic I think that is very nice and actually is an attempt at poetry. And human rights, do not respect the rule of law and deprive people of when the Australians brought if forward—and it is important to freedom of speech and equality of opportunity. remember that Australia, like Canada, is a parliamentary mon- I refer members to the numerous European examples where archy—they had an extensive debate about whether they should citizens were obligated to obey laws that were unjust. The classic retain the monarchy. Australians said overwhelmingly that they example of course is what happened in the interwar years with wanted to retain the monarchy as the head of state just as we have Germany and Italy, where people were forced to obey laws that were here. brought in by totalitarian governments. It is not enough to ask people to obey the laws of the land. We must tell them what the laws are that However, in 1993 Australians appreciated that they needed an they must obey, that really do define who they are, and define the oath of citizenship that reflected Australian values.
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]
  • 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.
    [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]