WASHINGTON -- An attempt to revise the citizenship oath to make it more meaningful for new Americans has been stalled after conservatives complained it weakened a pledge to serve in the military and eliminated a promise to bear arms.

The Wednesday debut of the new oath was postponed as immigration officials scrambled for another rewrite.

Earlier this month, immigration officials said they were revising the oath for the first time in 50 years to give it more meaning to new citizens -- and reworking the language so it would make "more sense to the brain."

The revision, which was shorter, removed a line pledging to "renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty." It also eliminated a vow to "bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law," and rewrote a section pledging to serve in the Armed Forces when required by law.

That rewritten section would say: "Where and if lawfully required, I further commit myself to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, either by military, noncombatant or civilian service."

Legal loophole

Critics said the rewrite would create a legal loophole for serving in the military. Edwin Meese III, the Reagan administration attorney general who now works for the Heritage Foundation, appealed to the Bush administration to reconsider the problematic changes.

"The real shift is the old oath was an absolute commitment. You took an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. That's an absolute commitment," said Matthew Spalding, director of the Hudson Institute's Center for American Studies.

"We don't think that should be an option," said Marty Justis, director of the American Legion's Americanism division. "We believe everyone has the obligation to serve their country. Not everyone will, but we believe everyone does have the obligation."

Tim Edger, legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said that that argument has no merit, that military service is an issue of federal law, not an oath.

"I think some are confused about this new oath, maybe trying to invent controversy for the purpose of casting doubt on the loyalty of new Americans and on the dedication of the immigration service, and I think that's a shame," said Edger.

Tamar Jacoby, who specializes in immigration at the Manhattan Institute think tank, had cheered the introduction of the new oath and expressed disappointment over the controversy.

Mixed signals

"The question to be asked here is what are these people trying to signal? Are they upset about the wording of the oath or do they not want the oath to be more inviting?" Jacoby said. "Is it that they want citizenship to be less inviting? Do they want the country to be less inviting."

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said any changes to the oath should be made by Congress.

He introduced legislation Wednesday that would place the current oath into law, and he hopes to hold hearings on revising the wording.

The Citizenship and Immigration Service bureau isn't commenting on the criticisms except to call all the comments "positive feedback."

Spokesman Russ Knocke said the agency is looking at possible revisions, and a formal public comment process will be held later.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said any changes to the oath should be made by Congress.

He has said he wants to introduce legislation placing the current oath into law. He also hopes to hold hearings on revising the oath.

The Citizenship and Immigration Service bureau isn't commenting on the criticisms except to call all the comments "positive feedback."

Spokesman Russ Knocke said the agency is looking at possible revisions, and a formal public comment process will be held later.

"The entire process and feedback we've gotten is very American in nature," Knocke said.

------

On the Net

Customs and Immigration Services: www.bcis.gov