Citizenship is a Commitment

Yesterday I read that more than 25,000 university professors signed a petition dismissing “citizenship” as nothing more than an artificial distinction between Americans and foreigners.  I disagree.

Let’s start by looking at the oath that non-U.S. born individuals take when they become naturalized American citizens:

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.

This is something that these new citizens work hard for and take very seriously.  The oath is something that we also assume is something inherent in natural born citizens (though perhaps it is something to consider requiring when one reaches the age of consent – but more on that later).

Citizens confirm their allegiance to their country – in the case of naturalized citizens it is their chosen country.  This oath distinguishes them from others who may be in our country as visitors, guests, or illegal aliens and who, unlike citizens, do not give full allegiance to our country and may not be willing to stand for its laws and its Constitution.

This is, indeed, what citizenship is about.  It is a key part in defining a country, something which is made up of those who together believe in that country and its ideals and will defend it and its principles against those others, whether inside or outside its boundaries, who would attack it.  A non-citizen, even if not averse to those principles, does not have the same commitment to the country; the distinction is not artificial, but real.

While arguing that there is no difference between citizens and others might be useful for one seeking open borders, it is disingenuous at best.  These professors argue that “the artificial distinction between foreign and domestic students . . . undermines the pursuit of both knowledge and justice.”  This statement just makes no sense.  We allow foreign students to study in this country on a variety of visas.  That they are not citizens does not deny that pursuit.

The professors object to the new Immigration order that ends student visas for foreigners who pay for online-only classes.  Actually, if a student is studying online only, there is no reason for that student to be present at the site of the institution providing the education.  Foreign students can study from their homelands just as easily as from this country.  There is no undermining of their pursuit of knowledge.  If they have other reasons for coming to this country, they can pursue the appropriate visas.  But, whether in the country as a foreigner or outside of it as an online student, they are not citizens and do not hold the same allegiances to the same country as do American citizens.

One final thought.  The citizenship oath contains promises that a defined country generally assumes and expects of all of its citizens.  In this country, for it to remain a country, it is presumed and essential that the citizenry agree that our system, our laws, our Constitution be supported and defended.  Given the number of individuals – not just extremists but mainstream leaders and politicians – who currently advocate for the dismantling of one or more parts of our government, I wonder how many of our natural born citizens would be willing to take this oath today. 

Perhaps it is time that we ask every citizen, not just those who are naturalized, to take this oath, to confirm that it is their choice and desire to be a citizen of this country.  We could ask that upon reaching adulthood and thus having the ability to make their own decisions, that those who were born here make a free choice as to whether they choose to be a citizen of this country with all that such citizenship entails – both rights and responsibilities.  Especially it should be clear that being a citizen requires a commitment to the principles, the laws, and the Constitution of the country.  

When I was baptized as a child, I had no choice in the matter.  Later, when I was able to think for myself, I chose to be confirmed into my church.  Others who had been baptized did not make the same choice.  In a way, this is not unlike being born into a particular country’s citizenship.  One did not choose that country just as one did not choose to be baptized.  Later, when one is able to think for oneself, one can then choose to what country he or she would like to commit oneself and give one’s allegiance to, just as I freely chose my church.  

One could and should express one's free choice that this will be their country and they will work to support and make it better - for it, not against it.  This is how we, together as one citizenry, work to ever improve the country that we call our own.

Before making the commitment to citizenship, those who choose to become naturalized I suspect give it deep and serious thought and with full commitment make their oath.  It is unfortunate that we seem to have so many natural born citizens here who do not do the same.