• donutaud15@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    13 days ago

    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? 🤔

  • wiccan2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    13 days ago

    Naturalized citizens should be treated no differently to any other citizens, we don’t need or want different classes of citizens.

  • PonyOfWar@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    No more and no less than any other citizens. Once they’ve reached citizenship, there should be no differentiation whatsoever.

  • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    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)

    • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      12 days ago

      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.

      • DasFaultier@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 days ago

        English is my second language, but it says “the people”, as in " this very specific group of citizens", not “people” in general.

        • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          12 days ago

          It says “the people” as in “this very specific group of citizens people, 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.

  • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    12 days ago

    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.