Is it important to hold naturalized citizens accountable to their citizenship oaths or declarations?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but non-naturalised citizens are only held accountable to the law and not bound by any additional oaths or declarations. So why should naturalised citizens be treated differently? Every citizen should be held to the same standard of accountability—anything else amounts to treating some as second-class citizens. Or are we now advocating for separation?
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Once you're an American, it's your god given absolute right to say fuck it to whatever bullshit song and dance they made you do
Anyone currently standing on American soil has that right, too, but for the Americans, its extra god given
(This is what we promised ourselves, this is how things are supposed to be, but unfortunately this is not the case in 2025 and has never been the case depending on your skin color)
-
Naturalized citizens should be treated no differently to any other citizens, we don't need or want different classes of citizens.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Depending on the country you might have less rights
For example, in the US you can't become president if you are naturalised
-
Once you're an American, it's your god given absolute right to say fuck it to whatever bullshit song and dance they made you do
Anyone currently standing on American soil has that right, too, but for the Americans, its extra god given
(This is what we promised ourselves, this is how things are supposed to be, but unfortunately this is not the case in 2025 and has never been the case depending on your skin color)
wrote last edited by [email protected]It's important to note, as you are implying here, that the rights that are protected in the bill of rights aren't granted exclusively to citizens. Take the fourth amendment for example:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It says nothing about citizenship, but instead refers to people.
-
It's important to note, as you are implying here, that the rights that are protected in the bill of rights aren't granted exclusively to citizens. Take the fourth amendment for example:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It says nothing about citizenship, but instead refers to people.
English is my second language, but it says "the people", as in " this very specific group of citizens", not "people" in general.
-
Depending on the country you might have less rights
For example, in the US you can't become president if you are naturalised
Which is wrong, all citizens should be equal no exceptions.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Outside of the oath to tell the truth in a legal proceeding, which has very specific terms and consequences for violation, oaths are ceremony. Perhaps a vain hope the divine will hold someone accountable even if no earthly authority can.
Although if we do decide to hold people to their oaths, I'd like to start with oaths to follow and defend the constitution.
-
English is my second language, but it says "the people", as in " this very specific group of citizens", not "people" in general.
There are other parts that talk about citizens specifically. They intentionally did not in this case.
-
This post did not contain any content.
This is sooo weird, it can only be Usa.
-
English is my second language, but it says "the people", as in " this very specific group of citizens", not "people" in general.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It says "the people" as in "this very specific group of
citizenspeople, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"You're correct that it applies to a specific group and not just all people in general, but you are incorrectly pulling a "citizens" qualifier out of thin air. The group qualifier is jurisdiction.
