Swearing loyalty : should new citizens pledge allegiance in a naturalisation oath?

Abstract

In many countries, immigrants conclude their naturalisation by swearing a citizenship oath. In her kick-off piece, Patti Lenard defends naturalisation oaths as permissible on three grounds. First, even if mandatory, they are premised on individual consent to acquire a new citizenship. Second, such oaths express immigrants’ acceptance of citizenship responsibilities in exchange for protection offered by the state and they signal to existing citizens that new ones can be trusted to take their obligations seriously. Third, taking such an oath at a public ceremony is often a meaningful and valuable experience for immigrants. So long as the content of the oath and the procedure of the ceremony do not violate liberal constraints, such as respect for cultural and religious diversity, mandatory oaths are permissible (but not required) public policy. Many of the sixteen respondents disagree. Some question why only immigrants are asked to take such oaths, point to their historic roots in illiberal conceptions of allegiance, or ask whether demanding promises to obey the law makes immigrants specifically vulnerable to sanctions, including citizenship deprivation, that do not apply to native-born citizens. Others object that the content of naturalisation oaths is never specific enough to ground legal obligations or likely to violate freedom of conscience. Some contributions consider whether there is empirical evidence for Lenard’s claim that naturalisation oaths are a positive experience and enhance trust in new citizens. Finally, several authors consider justifications and effects of citizenship oaths in specific national contexts, where they have been used for contrasting purposes, or in the wider context of global democratic backsliding. Lenard addresses these concerns and objections in her concluding rejoinder.