Basically: In some countries, the pledge is with the constitution or the people, but in others (like constitutional monarchies), its a pledge to the (constitutional) monarch and their successors.
What is your opinion on this loyalty pledge? Do you believe it’s a reasonable request?
(For context: My mother and older brother had to do the pledge to gain [US] citizenship so the idea of deportation isn’t looming over our heads. I didn’t have do it because I was under 18 and my mother’s citizenship status automatically carried over to me according to the law.)
Do most countries require a pledge? Mine didn’t when I got my citizenship.
You said most countries but then only mention the USA. May I surmise you’re from the USA aka the world? :P
So I got curious, but it’s also 7am and I need to sleep. I looked it up for my own country: we don’t exactly have this
The Netherlands basically requires you to acknowledge that its laws apply to you (they do when you set foot here anyway) and that you’ll fulfill the duties that come with citizenship.
When opening the included FAQ item “what duties?” it says two things: you abide by the laws (duh) and that you should consider that you’re part of this society and that “you’ll do what is needed to really be part of this society.” Handwavey and not about choosing a side in a war or something, just focused on integration and community. Seems okay to me and distinct from blind allegiance. There’s some more details but the FAQs all circle back to respecting the other citizens (no discrimination) and the likeI think about a majestic golden eagle who is in an erotic fight to the death with a mermaid.
Yes it’s a reasonable request, but it’s also pretty meaningless.
It’s performative. Like if you break this pledge nothing happens.
However, it’s performative in the same way that a marriage is really. I mean you can go to the court house and register your marriage without having a ceremony, but that’s very uncommon and in the vast majority of cases you have a ceremony and do all the things.
Achieving citizenship is an important moment in anyone’s life. If your own case for example your Mother’s citizenship ceremony marked the point at which the work to change the trajectory of her life and all of her descendants had achieved the objective.
A little pomp and ceremony doesn’t hurt.
Citizenship is different than residency. A citizen has roles and responsibilities beyond that of a resident. I don’t think it is that unreasonable to ask a naturalized citizen to be loyal to their new country.
Then should it not be automatic for people who were just born there, or to citizen parents, as the case may be?
In the US, children are made to participate in the pledge of allegiance daily at school. To answer your question more broadly, in many cases, if a citizen commits certain crimes against a country, then it is considered treason. Maybe it’s considered that a citizen born in the country understands that, but someone naturalising must acknowledge it.
Tbf, the school pledges are voluntary under the first amendment. The naturalization oath is manadatory, you aren’t officially a citizen until you take the oath.
If only someone had told that to my schools in the 70s and 80s. I spent so much time in trouble for refusing to participate. It wasn’t even that I was raised that way, it just seemed really creepy and antithetical to everything the US is/was supposed to stand for.
Voluntary does not mean there isn’t a heavy amount of pressure to conform, from what I’ve heard and read.
Unless fascism wasn’t part of the deal perhaps.
If one wants to become citicen of a fascist country, there are bigger problems
I mean unless their original country was fascism x2, then, reducing fascism by half doesn’t seem that bad anymore.
Seriously tho, you think you find a bad enough country, then you look deeper, there’s a country even worse. Then just as you think you found the worst country, there’s still an even worse country, like there are more thsn 200 of them (including unrecognized ones) and you can almost certaintly keep finding worse and worse countries, you never know where someone is from.
Immigration is always a scale of balance: How much does the situation becomes less shitty vs how much xenophobia you’ll face. Sometimes, if the xenophobia isn’t that strong at the time of you deciding to move, so you can still have more to gain from the country being less shitty than your previous one, despite having to deal with racism.
There are not really many “good” countries, mostly it’s just: shitty countries vs less shitty countries.
Edit: And if its a bad country vs worse country sceanrio, I think people would just “take the oath” symbolically, but never actually intended to fullfill the actual obligation to the dictator or whatever.
Edit 2: Or you could be in a Snowden-tyoe situation. I mean… the US was after him… Snowden then became a citizen of russia, but I doubt he actually cares about loyalty to putin.
Sometimes a country isn’t fascist until it is though.
But the signs are very obviouse. Even with the OG nazis and facsist the signs were there and people knew whats coming. Just like with USA rn or britain
Wonder what you consider “the signs” to be?
Yeah, but then they are in the same boat as other citizens.
I think the idea of national states is utterly silly and should be abolished. Just look at the maps and how many straight lines they have, there is nothing natural or normal about those artificial lines of most countries.
On top of it nationalists use national states, which contain highly diverse groups of people, to make them to go to war against their neighbors by telling them lies about how they all are some special group.
As an example, is there anything a Bavarian has more in common with a person from Schleswig-Holstein compared to his neighbor from Austria? It’s not culture, nor language, not even blood. It’s only artificial things like the football national team, laws, taxes, etc.
You’d still need some sort of local government that reflects local values. The same set of laws applied to the whole world would cause instant war
Just look at the maps and how many straight lines they have, there is nothing natural or normal about those artificial lines of most countries.
You’d need more war to solve that. In Europe, borders usually run along a natural defensible lines, like rivers and mountains.
Or battle lines: Belgium netherlands
I think the idea of national states is utterly silly and should be abolished.
Perhaps…
But like it or not, states are the current reality, because being stateless is really a bad idea. 🤷♂️
I keep thinking that, but then I think in a much more universal sense. Different countries allows different types of policies to be battle tested and we can find out which ones actually best.
I keep flipping between “conflict is fucking stupid we should be better than this by now” and “we need constant war with ourselves to keep improving for survival incase aliens.”
Meh. I don’t think it’s a big ask to gain citizenship someplace. Obviously I’m getting something out of it, that’s why I’m applying
That’s like saying it’s not a big ask to become a part of some random family.
What OP meant is that it’s not a big ask to be loyal to the country you’re becoming citizen of.
Following your analogy, it wouldn’t be a big ask for a family adopting you that you swear to protect the interests of said family (health, wealth, well-being, affection and safety).
If the smoke alarm starts beeping and you run away from the family house without even looking back and making any attempts to make sure that everyone got out safely, then you wouldn’t be a good family member.
It’s silly. The oath means nothing (particularly if it’s to a British socialite like it is here) which is wrong for an oath.
Allegiance to countries should be earned by that country anyway, not demanded or unconditional.
unconditional
I mean it is conditional.
I see it as a “social contract”. The state/society gives me a status and certain protections, in exchange for me promising not to be a terrorist, spy, etc… that’s essentially what I see it as.
If the state/society start treating me like some foreigner, then I’d consider them violating their “end of the bargain”, aka: it’s them violating the social contract and I’d act accordingly.
If they pull the Japanese-American “Internment Camp” bullshit on me, don’t expect me to have any “allegiance” lmao
As an example: PRC tried to “terminate” me for being the second-born, because they wanted to fullfill their fantasy of a “birth control” and forced sterilization policy, and also they tried to deny giving the legal papers proving I exist until their BS “fines” got paid (meaning, essentially: I didn’t legally “exist” for the first few years of my life), not to mention, the various fucked up things regarding censorship, cant even playing a fucking online game, so yea I have zero “allegiance” with the PRC. In fact, I dispise PRC.
It’s a meaningless formality.
Allegiance to a country is such a nonsensical concept anyway. What is inferred is an allegiance to a government. A government is delimited by time, so in theory you should need to reaffirm your allegiance each voting cycle. Furthermore, what does allegiance encompass? I do not know of a single government I would align myself so deeply with, that I would go to war for it for example. That doesn’t mean I dont like my country.
I think there is nothing wrong when one decides to move abroad to be asked by the people welcoming them to not spit on what makes that country, well, a country where one wanted to move first.
Obviously, it all depends what the pledge is all about. If it means to respect, say, the Constitution, laws, and usage and maybe also show one has a basic knowledge of that new country too, that seems obvious to me. If it’s being required to shut the fuck up (not criticize anything), not so much.
edit: typos
Totally acceptable. Then again, if the world went the way of Starship Troopers, I would be one of the masses like Johnny’s parents.
It all depends on the details. If I have to be loyal to a dictator, I would not pledge, and I would not move to such countries anyway.
I’m not Canadian, but I glanced over their oath, the official government explanation is that you’re not pledging to King Charles, but rather, the personification of Canada.
In Canada, we profess our loyalty to a person who represents all Canadians and not to a document such as a constitution, a banner such as a flag, or a geopolitical entity such as a country. In our constitutional monarchy, these elements are encompassed by the Sovereign (Queen or King). It is a remarkably simple yet powerful principle: Canada is personified by the Sovereign just as the Sovereign is personified by Canada.
If you were an immigrant to Canada, would that’ve been okay with you?
Anyways, here in the US, the citizenship oath is a pledge to the constitution, which by the way, is distinct from the silly US school pledge to the “flag” lol.
I don’t feel loyalty to any particular country, not even my own. We all live on this small planet called Earth.
That said, I wouldn’t mind taking the pledge for immigration purposes, as long as I respect the country’s values (democracy, laws, and so on). Canada seems cool.
It’s a little tradition and a bit of a promise, even though vague and breakable if we’re honest.
I wouldn’t have done that personally, I would’ve had it required that immigrants sign a doctrine as to whether the immigrant is going to uphold the laws of the country they’re migrating. Failing to do so would be automatic deportation.
