Agreeing to bear arms?
- Thread starter spicard29
- Start date
If you do that, you would still be challenged on question 37. Question 38 actually refers to a different categorization of Conscientious Objector in parallel to what is done with COs in the armed forces, i.e., someone who would still be in the armed forces but not in a combat role.
You still need a supporting letter from either a religious organization (who knows how to write them, see my earlier links) or an organization that supports COs (such as the Center on Conscience & War). "Religious" in this case can also mean "sincere, meaningful and deeply held beliefs". You can bring the letter to the interview, no need to send it with the application. However, as I said, you will need to be prepared for some head wind and do your homework, since most IOs know very little and sometimes also get incorrect advice from their supervisor (as in my case). So you need to be prepared to tell them politely but firmly that they are wrong in their interpretation of the rules. Needless to say, the rest of your case should be straightforward, since you will likely antagonize the IO.
From the Adjudicator's Field Manual:
(2) Under current statute; exemptions . (I) Prerequisites . To qualify for the exemption from the
promises to bear arms and to perform noncombatant service, a petitioner must show each of the
following; 19/ (1) that he is "opposed to any type of service"; 19a/ (2) that his objection is grounded in
religious principles, as construed by the Supreme Court in Welsh v. U.S. , 398 U.S. 333 (1970), and
U.S. v. Seeger , 280 U.S. 163 (1965); and (3) that his beliefs are sincere, meaningful, and deeply held.
19b / The three tests are cumulative and each must be satisfied. 19c/
Last edited by a moderator:
From the Adjudicator's Field Manual:
(5) If the law requires it, are you willing to perform work of national importance under civilian direction?
The answer to this question has bearing upon the applicant's attachment and favorable disposition to the good
order and happiness of the United States, and ability to take the oath of allegiance. If the applicant has already
answered “yes,” to the other questions in this part of the N-400, he or she will probably answer “yes,” to this
question, as well. However, if the applicant has answered “no,” to any of the previous questions in this section,
his or her answer to this question is crucial. If the applicant cannot answer “yes,” to this question, he or she will
not be eligible for naturalization.
cafeconleche
Registered Users (C)
It isn't too much to ask, but I'd rather not have to take an oath because I would NOT want to participate in an unnecessary and badly calculated war (like Vietnam). When self-defence is concerned, I know war is often necessary, and I will most probably participate (grudgingly) if it turns out my services are needed.
The rule explicitly refute this kind of thinking when grating a person CO (concientious objector)
status.
To be an conscioents objector, you need to oppose all wars not just wars you think to be wrong.
There is a practical reason for that because the government want to prevent a person from getting
all benefits by joining the military and then refuse to fight every single war by giving an excuse that
he think that particular war is wrong. The military authorty does not want that to happen. So either
you refuse to fight all wars or you have a duty to fight all wars as ordered.
For the same reason, you either unconditionally answer Yes to question 37 or unconditionally answer
No to that question. You can not answer Yes and then add a footnote :"Only when I think the war
is just" or answer No and add a footnote :"Only when I think the war is unjust".
Last edited by a moderator:
cafeconleche
Registered Users (C)
I understand that. I'm just saying I'd rather not be asked to swear that (leave it out). This way, i can just be a conscientious citizen.
i think WBH said well, you can not have it both ways....
Other silly questions to ponder about.
-If you refuse to bear arms will they cut your limbs off at interview?
-If you shot and hunt a bear, will bringing the bear's arms to interview increase your chances of success?
-If you refuse to bear arms, but are later caught poaching bears will you be denaturalized?
Other silly questions to ponder about.
-If you refuse to bear arms will they cut your limbs off at interview?
-If you shot and hunt a bear, will bringing the bear's arms to interview increase your chances of success?
-If you refuse to bear arms, but are later caught poaching bears will you be denaturalized?
Can the bear be denaturalized...?
sanjoseaug20
Registered Users (C)
Where is Al Southner? He would have had something to say about bearing arms I guess.
What about arming bears?
Or how about picking berries with your arms..oh wait, that's a whole other topic.
spicard29, let me put this question to you.
Given the choice between shooting or being shot, which would you choose?
He or anyone will not have that situation at individual level.
Lets wait for OP's response, because a real pacifist would rather be shot than shoot. In which case, OP should answer NO to the question without regard to what happens with their citizenship.
Otherwise they're betraying themselves for what? Visa free travel to most countries? In that regard, Canadian Citizenship is better, so they should head north.
If OP will shoot, then how is bearing arms to protect oneself any different than bearing arms to protect your country?
I think Quakers came to America at the right time because if they did several centuries later, they would never receive US citizenship
I think Quakers came to America at the right time because if they did several centuries later, they would never receive US citizenship
And as I mentioned earlier on a different thread, George Washington would have been banned for his part in overthrowing a government by force.
cafeconleche
Registered Users (C)
Haha. Yeah, the questions are unconstitutional, because Americans have the right, if their government fails them, to revolt and set things right.
I think Quakers came to America at the right time because if they did several centuries later, they would never receive US citizenship
By modern moral standard, this continent would have been left for the natives so only native
Americans are legitmate residents