Basically: In some countries, the pledge is with the constitution or the people, but in others (like constitutional monarchies), its a pledge to the (constitutional) monarch and their successors.
What is your opinion on this loyalty pledge? Do you believe it’s a reasonable request?
(For context: My mother and older brother had to do the pledge to gain [US] citizenship so the idea of deportation isn’t looming over our heads. I didn’t have do it because I was under 18 and my mother’s citizenship status automatically carried over to me according to the law.)
Then should it no longer be automatic for people who were just born there, or to citizen parents, as the case may be?
In the US, children are made to participate in the pledge of allegiance daily at school. To answer your question more broadly, in many cases, if a citizen commits certain crimes against a country, then it is considered treason. Maybe it’s considered that a citizen born in the country understands that, but someone naturalising must acknowledge it.
Espionage also carries heavy sentences, and everyone knows you can be prosecuted for plotting a coup or whatever.
By OP’s logic, then, that’s good, and if they refuse they should become a non-citizen.
A spoken oath is a pretty ineffective enforcement mechanism, for what it’s worth.
Tbf, the school pledges are voluntary under the first amendment. The naturalization oath is manadatory, you aren’t officially a citizen until you take the oath.
If only someone had told that to my schools in the 70s and 80s. I spent so much time in trouble for refusing to participate. It wasn’t even that I was raised that way, it just seemed really creepy and antithetical to everything the US is/was supposed to stand for.
Voluntary does not mean there isn’t a heavy amount of pressure to conform, from what I’ve heard and read.