Life is not that easy in real world. It is not that any country's citizenship can be just aquired when you need it. It is also impossible for anyone to just go back
in time by 10 years and restart a different path of life.
Agreeing to bear arms?
- Thread starter spicard29
- Start date
Life is not that easy in real world. It is not that any country's citizenship can be just aquired when you need it. It is also impossible for anyone to just go back
in time by 10 years and restart a different path of life.
Gandhi would say " you got to do what you got to do".
Gandhi himself was a war veteran, bearing arms (or bear arming, etc).
We are sure that we want citizenship of US but we are not sure if want to bear arms...Hmmmm. Easy solution...Live forever on green card, no rule against that.
I would say (instead of WWGS)..what would have happened if George Washington was a "pacifist"?
Gandhi would say " you got to do what you got to do".
Gandhi himself was a war veteran, bearing arms (or bear arming, etc).
We are sure that we want citizenship of US but we are not sure if want to bear arms...Hmmmm. Easy solution...Live forever on green card, no rule against that.
I would say (instead of WWGS)..what would have happened if George Washington was a "pacifist"?
The oath just show state of mind. Draft is not active. And once active, it only draft males between 18 and 26 among both citizens and PRs. If a war really need more manpower and not only draft is invoked but also fradfing age increase say to 50 and expand to females too it will also include both citizens and PRs plus illegal immigrants. So to completely elimiante theoretical possibility of requirement to bear arms, you need to leave this country or only live here as nonimmigrant aliens.
If drafting is invoked, I don't think you can be exempt from that simply because you do not
recite the "bear arm" part of oath. males PRs between 18 and 26 never take such oath but
are still subject to draft if draft in motion.
So the bear arm issue is purely a state of mind or make s tatement issue, which has nothing to
do with real world.
That is not fully correct. If there is a draft in the future, it will be very difficult for a naturalized citizen to claim Conscientious Objector status if they swore the full oath. However, having gone through the trouble of gathering evidence and having the oath modified is probative of a potential recognition of CO status if there ever was a draft. Nobody knows what this potential draft would look like and whether it would be limited to male citizens between 18 and 26 (the Selective Service registration is only an administrative process at this point), since it would take an act of Congress to reinstate it. I would highly doubt that LPRs and illegal immigrants could be drafted legally, though.
There are also some born citizens that make a handwritten notation on their Selective Service registration card that they intend to claim CO status if there ever was a draft again. How legally effective that is could only be tested then.
That is why I think you should answer Yes to at least one of Question 37 and 38. Both
(combat duty and noncombat duty) are about military services. Q39 is only about work
under cilivian direction. CO status means noncombat duty in the military not some civilian work
I would disagree with naturalization of applicants who answer No to
both Q37 and Q 38 because it is not fair to others.
About PRs being drafted, since draft was there bfore 1972, we can check it out if any PRs
or illegal immigrants were drafted for Vietnam War or not.
Last edited by a moderator:
No matter what you believe, the rules set by USCIS are pretty clear, and there is established precedent. Questions 37 and 38 are actually the equivalent of CO designations by the military. I answered No to both with sufficient non-religious documentation (and Yes to question 39), and my oath was successfully modified.
sanjoseaug20
Registered Users (C)
Could you not take the oath, and then after a few months, or a few years, decide to be a CO?
I am not talking about objecting when you are drafted, but objecting independent of any world events, and on a timeline you choose.
If you could not, I wonder why, since a natural born citizen would be able to claim this when he/she wanted, right?
I am not talking about objecting when you are drafted, but objecting independent of any world events, and on a timeline you choose.
If you could not, I wonder why, since a natural born citizen would be able to claim this when he/she wanted, right?
Well, in theory one could take the full oath and later change his/her mind. Even someone who took the modified oath is not yet recognized as a CO (although it is probative). That would take an event such as a draft and then the corresponding process to formally be designated a CO by a body such as the military or a draft board. So if you change your mind at some later point in time, there is currently no process that you can use to have your CO status recognized. The same applies to naturally born citizens.
The difference is that a natural born citizen never had to make a declaration one way or another. However, a naturalized citizen is expected to make an explicit commitment with the oath, and so the hurdle to prove a change of mind later would be significantly higher.
sanjoseaug20
Registered Users (C)
So let's say you are drafted, and then you object saying you are a CO. Will you be treated at part with natural born citizens, or can they sue you saying you took an oath. I believe they would treat you at par ... if your defense / story is good, you get by.
You would probably be treated similarly to a soldier right now who first volunteered for service and then decided to file for CO status later. It is not easy to do but possible. The vast majority of these applicants get rejected, but a small fraction succeed.
If, on the other hand, you swore the modified oath and then get drafted, you have a very good case of consistent behavior that would not guarantee recognition as CO at that time, but it would increase your chances significantly.
I call complete BS on this train of thought. Taking the Oath of citizenship is NOT equivalent to joining the armed forces.
Of course it is not, and my argument was more subtle than that. However, taking the full oath indicates your willingness to join the armed forces when required.
BTW, I will not respond to uncivil posts going forward.
sanjoseaug20
Registered Users (C)
#1. So people are allowed to get married to a citizen, get citizenship and then divorce them. Arent' they taking an oath and then changing their mind? And in many cases their naturalization oath is based on some factors which are actually not true. What can the government do about it? Unless there is serious fraud visible, nothing. How is it different?
#2. Yes, if you took the modified oath, you have a track record of being a CO. However, how hard is it to develop such a track record post-naturalization - assuming draft does not happen within months of naturalization. I say if someone wanted to do it, they could?
#3. Yes, agreed that a majority of the applications get rejected. However, I say that the percentage of rejection of natural born citizens and naturalized citizens will be within the margin of error.
I see your point, but I think a naturalized citizen should be able to go back on the oath to bear arms as easily as a natural born citizen.
Ad #1: True, but a marriage vow is not a legal oath, and violation of that vow typically does not have criminal consequences. Not to open a whole new line of argument here, but these two items are qualitatively different.
Ad #2 and #3: You are correct in principle. However, the US government (and most governments) have a track record of counting any action of an applicant for CO status that is not in line with a consistent pattern of action against that person, since their interest is to make it as difficult as possible to qualify. Interestingly, there is currently no option to just choose either the full or the modified oath, but one has to provide significant supporting documentation to have the oath modified. So while it is theoretically possible to be recognized as CO at a later time, it would be very difficult to do in practice.
Ultimately, it is up to everyone individually to make that decision and also take the corresponding risks (which are quite small at the moment, since there is no draft). If there were a greater chance of being drafted, I would suspect that the number of applicants for modified oaths would increase significantly.
Triple Citizen
Registered Users (C)
Bears have much more travel freedom than us. They can cross the US-Canadian border at will.
Can the bear be denaturalized...?
Folks, I am troubled by this.. As i posted earlier, OP wants to enjoy full benefits and freedoms of being US citizen, however, IP do not want to take a responsibility for defending this country ....is it too much to ask?
Just imagine this...OP wants to become part of “new country " with all benefits and rights but OP does not want to protect his/her new country when needed/asked for or when the country is under attack from enemies (foreign, domestic)....If this is OP's true intent, I wonder why, OP should be eligible for citizenship.
Yes, you may say that some wars could be unjust/etc and but the world is not perfect..you take risk with everything (job, marriage, etc)...The difference here is that as the citizen you will have a right to influence the government decision/politics by voting and being elected.
Just imagine this...OP wants to become part of “new country " with all benefits and rights but OP does not want to protect his/her new country when needed/asked for or when the country is under attack from enemies (foreign, domestic)....If this is OP's true intent, I wonder why, OP should be eligible for citizenship.
Yes, you may say that some wars could be unjust/etc and but the world is not perfect..you take risk with everything (job, marriage, etc)...The difference here is that as the citizen you will have a right to influence the government decision/politics by voting and being elected.