ILNews

IBA: Shortridge High School Hosts Naturalization Ceremony

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

iba-naturalization-oath-15col The Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana administers the Oath of Citizenship to 82 individuals from 36 different countries at the Shortridge Naturalization Ceremony.

Students at Shortridge Magnet High School for Law & Public Policy experienced the final step to becoming an American citizen first-hand Thursday, May 2 as the school hosted a naturalization ceremony for more than 80 individuals seeking citizenship. The Honorable Jane Magnus-Stinson of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana presided over the ceremony, which was the result of a collaboration between the school, the court and the IndyBar Public Outreach Committee.


iba-naturalization-blomquist-1col IndyBar President Kerry Hyatt Blomquist congratulates the new citizens on behalf of the bar. The IndyBar and Indianapolis Bar Foundation present new citizens with copies of the United States Constitution at each Naturalization Ceremony in the Southern District of Indiana.

The Shortridge ceremony offered the opportunity not only for the entire student body of the school to observe along with the friends and families of the new citizens, but for some students to also play an active role in the ceremony, with the Presentation of the Colors by the Crispus Attucks Medical Magnet Color Guard and musical performances by the Shortridge Chamber Ensemble and the Shortridge Wind Ensemble. Students also presented table top American flags to the new citizens and led them in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.


iba-naturalization-coats-1col United States Senator Dan Coats was in attendance at the Shortridge High School Naturalization Ceremony and offered the new citizens his personal welcome to citizenship.

Naturalization Ceremonies, typically held weekly in Indianapolis in the Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse, feature the recitation of the United States Oath of Citizenship and provide newly naturalized citizens with a welcome to the United States, a brief overview of the justice system and the importance of citizenship, and greetings and congratulations from city and state officials and local organizations.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT