These two are contradictory so which is correct?

"The vote was unanimous to allow non-citizens to apply for advisory bodies, such the city's planning commission"

"Three advisory bodies are exempt from the updated policy, as the city charter requires that they be composed of registered voters: the environmental planning commission"

I support the change that allows non-citizens to serve on some of our City Boards and Commissions.

I recommend that the current oath, which is really not relevant to the duties of these volunteers, be replaced with something relevant, such as "I swear that I will thoroughly read the staff memos, attachments, and communications from residents prior to every meeting I attend. If I ever fail to do this, I will formally acknowledge it at the start of the meeting."

An interesting move by the city council -- and one that is highly appropriate, given that this city is becoming more diversified (and that includes citizenship in this case).

The question that I would have is this: Would the non-citizens on these boards be resident non-citizens (what would once be called "green card holders")? The answer would probably be an obvious one, but a clarification wouldn't hurt.

Non-Citizens were already permitted to sit on boards and commissions and committees before this was passed. The complaint about the oath was made by a non-citizen that had been recently appointed BEFORE this change was adopted.

That then leave the matter of the oath itself. The oath merely requires a person to affirm that they will support the Consitution of the United States and the Constition of the State of California and defend them against all enemies foreign and domestic.

In other words, the person is promising to defend the Constitutions, NOT the United States of America. The Constitutions are the documents that guarantee the rights of everyone that lives here whether or not they are citizens and in many cases, regardless of legal residency status.

I still have not received an answer as to what is contained in either Constitution that someone would find objectionable. I also have been unable to find anything in the citizenship requirements of other countries that bans them from taking an oath not related to becoming a legal citizen of a foreign country.

For example, Mexican citizens CANNOT lose their citizenship by taking an oath. However, they CAN lose it be serving in a foreign government without the authorization of the Congress of the Union. Indian Citizen CANNOT lose their citizenship by taking an oath. Both countries also allow for dual citizenship under certain standards.

My wife is also a non-citizen, and when I talked to her about it before the meeting, she informed me that taking the oath would in no way affect her Italian citizenship.

While I realize that these examples do not cover every single country in the world, I would be very pleased if someone could provide me with the name of even one country where this oath would cause an irrevocable or even temporary loss of citizenship.

Also the question was asked, " I always wonder who decides who the enemies are that we have to defend against?". The answer to that is very simple, the oath applies to the person taking it, therefore they are the ones that decide. If they feel that the body on which they are serving is acting unconstitutionally, they can bring it to the attention of the body, and/or the public, or they can choose to resign. If they feel the body is acting Constitutionally and someone else on the body feels that it is not, there is nothing that compels them to support a position with which they do not agree.

The bottom line is, the oath does not require anyone to take up arms or defend the United States as a country in any way, even if we are at war. I would hope that anyone who wants to serve on a commission that makes recommendations for rules that affect the rest of us, would be supportive of the rules that guarantee our freedom and our civil rights.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Goodbye America

Great empires are not conquered. They rot from within.

Even when the rent-a-mobs are dragged in, there are always people to give feedback at the meetings