This is concerning this topic:
Court Decision for citizenship oathI protest against making the "Citizenship Oath" more strict.
1. Loyal Citizenship
When we the People apply for citizenship we already go through a bureaucratic process that ensures we're under the law and we are aware of the laws and social system. Therefore I consider all citizenship applications "loyal" to the region's laws and responsibilities of the People.
2. Unpractical Insurance
Forcing the People to swear an Oath to complete their application for citizenship will never insure to the law that the People will in fact follow it's laws, therefore having a judicial system to judge their "loyalty" to the law.
3. Land of Oaths
Considering that Oaths are obligatory to assume places of responsibility in the leading government, there is no need to have the prerequisite of a citizenship oath. These bureaucracies however are insignificant to the extent of rights and liberties of the People, and in no way require a legal document to ensure their responsibility to the law and society. Therefore, oaths are only required to assume places of responsibility over the People.
4. The Law
I suggest amendment to the concerning part of the law to:
- Free the People from taking Oaths to complete their citizenship applications
- Enforce that, when applying to citizenship, the People are also agreeing with the extent of rights, liberties and responsibilities under the law
- Ensure that all citizens have the right to run for office
- Obligate any citizen elected or nominated into an office to take the required oath in order to assume such responsibilities
Further changes and suggestions are acceptable, please post bellow your opinion and contribution.
