Facing problem with not wanting to take full oath

I think it is tough to base the case on religious ground, as there are plenty of hindu warriors that I know of from my indian friends. and many hindus had participated in historical wars so I am not sure if if your stance can be defended from that point of view.

You are in between a rock and a hard place. you want to be a citizen of the US but your personal value conflicts with the tenent of the US. so you will have to make a decision if you will stick with your value system, or change your value system and to be part of the US. that is your only way out, I believe.

It is not morally correct, tho. I am not sure how that matters to you at this point, to take the oath if you don't intend to take up your responsibilities associated with your newly acquired citizenship.
 
I'm sorry, but that is completely wrong advice.

The Supreme Court and the INS have ruled that Conscientious Objectors can become citizens even if it's personal, moral or ethical concerns which prevent them from serving in the armed forces and taking the parts of the oath which say this. The only condition that one must accept is to serve a role of "national importance" should the country call upon you.

Read the link I posted above for more details.
The problem is most INS officers don't know the law surrounding this because MOST INS officers do not encounter people who do not want to take the full oath.


I'm not an attorney. This is just my opinion.
 
stat said:
The Supreme Court and the INS have ruled that Conscientious Objectors can become citizens even if it's personal, moral or ethical concerns which prevent them from serving in the armed forces and taking the parts of the oath which say this. The only condition that one must accept is to serve a role of "national importance" should the country call upon you..
Click to expand...

I am curious how you came to that conclusion from the link you had provided.

I am under the understanding that certain exemptions can be made (on religious ground), but objections on non-religious grounds may be approved on a case-by-case basis.

So I guess the use of the term "Conscientious objectors" in your quote kind of assumed the conclusion itself. In this particular case, i am not sure if the original poster qualifies as a conscientious objector as defined in the law.

if he isn't qualified, then your quote is pretty much moot.
 
no, I have not heard back...what do you mean by "national importance"??

stat said:
I'm sorry, but that is completely wrong advice.

The Supreme Court and the INS have ruled that Conscientious Objectors can become citizens even if it's personal, moral or ethical concerns which prevent them from serving in the armed forces and taking the parts of the oath which say this. The only condition that one must accept is to serve a role of "national importance" should the country call upon you.

Read the link I posted above for more details.
The problem is most INS officers don't know the law surrounding this because MOST INS officers do not encounter people who do not want to take the full oath.


I'm not an attorney. This is just my opinion.
Click to expand...


Hi,

I am back. Schools are over and once again I am investigating on my case. I have not heard anything from USCIS even though they were supposed to send me a letter within a month. I went to charlotte and they said that the case is under review. It is been under review for almost 5 months now. My fingerprints are going to expire in June. Not sure what to do. help!!!
 
sue them.
patel,being a gujju how can u forget gandhi!
stand your ground.it is not a crime for u to denouce violence whether it is for protecting your country.
do not change your vision of life just to accomodate some one else's necessity.
end of the day america will definitely appreciate you for being sincere.
 
sam c,
no where in hinduism does it says that all hindus are obligated to take up arms for protecting india.hinduism has a lot of castes,being a country of 1.4 billion 20% follow the path of non-violence (not just anti-war and definitely not just brahmins).A substantial no. of people living in india are budhists and jains ,the sole reason their religion was founded is on the base of non violence(fyi the founders of buddhism and jainism were hindus who founded new religion to denounce violence even at times of war or being attacked).
Gautham buddha was sick and tired of wars,that is the sole reason he came up with budhism.
And then there are people who thrive on vegetarian diet the sole reason being them not wanting to hurt living beings and for respect to mother nature.do u think such people would hurt a human?
next,the india today u r seeing on the map is only a spec for what it was.Ancient india started from afghanistan all the way to china.over the period of time arab kings invaded india and converted hindus forcibly to follow islam,sole reason being hindus did not want to retaliate.if we hindus we so open to self defence we would have kicked out britishers long ago.The muslims u see today in pak,afghan,india,bangladesh have their roots to hinduism who were forcibly converted to islam.so ur assumption that india has survived invasions is not entirely true.We hindus have lost a major chunk of our country to invaders sole reason our early generations being non-violent.now we do not have a choice but to defend ourselves.
that does not make it mandatory for every hindu to take up arms.As a result of majority of hindus not prepared to take up arms a beautiful religion in the name of sikhism took the moral obligation to protect india in the early part of 20th century.
P.S; just google around for hindukush mountains,its geographical location and meaning of hindukush.You will get a better picture as to how far east the hindus were put up in asia.
sam_c said:
Vaippatel - good luck with your case. Hope it works out for you but I fully agree with vulpasin that you should know when not to speak too much.

By the way - may I also add that your belief that hinduism disallows bearing of arms is misguided IMO. I know from a reliable source whom I asked (a good friend who is a professor of religion in NY and a Hindu) that you are definitely allowed to defend yourself if attacked - the religion only says don't go out and attack/kill people unprovoked. Think about it - if it weren't for defending oneself, would the Hindus in India have survivied thousands of years and dozens of foreign attacks?

Anyway, you are welcome to believe whatever you want and I respect that, but again an INS officer is probably not the best person to share the details of your belief with.

Hmmm, this is getting to be more of a religious forum than one on immigration :) so let's keep our focus. Sorry!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
since ur hubby is a citizen,all it takes for u is patience and u will definitely win!
next time u talk to them be more specific about ur caste not hinduism!
i am sure they will understand.
like sam,when u talk of hinduism lot of ppl are misguided.so be specific about ur caste!

vaippatel said:
Now,
I am a woman and my husband is a US citizen. when I filed for citizenship, I had denied to take the full oath since I believe in non-violence. I had an interview today and I had a discussion about this with my officer. She was asking me if I had problem with war and killing because I am a hindu? I said that is part of the reason but even if I was not hindu and I was christian I still would have a problem with killing anyone. It is part of the morals. Anyway, She got off from her seat (may be to talk with someone) came back and had me sign on the last 2 parts of the N-400 and told me that I would hear from them in a month. All she saw was greencard and passport. She did go over entire N-400 with me but that was it.... Did anyone had such problems? what should I expect?????? I am 99% sure that I am not getting it.........but is this what you get for telling the truth???
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for being supportive...

I know what I have gotten into is difficult but not impossible and thank you for supporting me and helping me be patient.
 
Vaip,

A friend of mine (who is Jain) got a letter from the local Jain Temple about non-voilence and not taking arms etc, and submitted that with the N-400 (and did not check the box where it says "are you willing to take arms for US?"). She was able to breeze through her interview and oath without any problems. You may want to look into that option. Hope this helps.

Jeevs
 
http://www.uscis.gov/lpbin/lpext.dll/inserts/afm_redacted/afm-95-redacted-491-1/afm-9

Two areas in the N-400, the modified oath and Selective Service, pertain to attachment; review them before conducting the examination:



• Modified Oath. Before you begin the examination, review the questions on the N-400 addressing the applicant’s allegiance to the United States. Most applicants will check "Yes" to all of these questions. In some cases, however, an applicant will check "No" to these questions, indicating that he or she is unwilling to bear arms on behalf of the United States or is unwilling to perform noncombatant services in the armed forces of the United States.



An applicant who cannot promise to bear arms or perform noncombatant services in the armed forces of the United States because of religious training and belief may be allowed to take a modified oath. If an applicant has checked "No" to any of these questions, discuss this issue with him or her during the examination. Also, the applicant may have to provide documentation to establish eligibility for the modified oath. To determine whether an applicant is eligible for a modified oath, see Chapter 73.7. [See also 8 CFR 316.11 and sections 316(a)(3) and 337 of the Act.]
 
Help!

Could you please give me the link to "the Supreme court and the INS have ruled that Conscientious Objectors can become citizens even if it's personal"? Can you cite the name and file number of the Supreme court case?

My wife and I are in the same situation. I was born here in the US and I'm a citizen and she's applied for her citizenship but in her interview they told her she had to get a letter from a pastor in order to have a modified oath. She is Christian but doesn't attend any one congregation nor does she go to church regularly. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find a pastor to write her a letter but we don't want to mislead anybody and or lie making the situation worse.

I don't understand how we're supposed to have freedom of religion here in the US but they base the litmus test for being a sincere pacifist based off of your religion? In particular Christianity. I saw the INS hand book and it clearly states that an "INS officer may ask for proof by having you submit a letter from a pastor". Of course the lady asked my wife to submit a letter from a pastor. What if you're buddhist, Hindu or agnostic as I am?

From my personal experience Christians are the least pacifist of all the religions that I know of so why do they do this? Not trying to offend anybody but I'm judging from my personal experiences and I'm just a little perplexed about how they can rationalize using a letter from a pastor as a litmus test? No pastor knows my wife better than myself and her family. How is his word better than mine? If they did a survey I'm sure that they would find a higher percentage of atheists and agnostics being pacifists and far less violent then Christianits due to the fact that politicians manipulate support for war by preying on religious doctrine, xenophobia and demonizing other religions. What this means is that they didn't base the requirements for a modified oath to favor truly non-violent pacifists but rather to favor Christians. Utterly ridiculous!

The other more important issue to me is that American women do not have to register for selective service which means that NO American woman in modern history has ever had to sign such a ridiculous statement about bearing arms or participating in non-combative support for the military on behalf of the US so what this means is that any women that become an American citizen and do so by signing this oath against their moral convictions are actually 2nd class citizens. This is not fair!


What can we do? Has anybody ever experienced this and what was the outcome?

Sorry for the long post, just frustrated and believe it or not I actually shortened it a little. Lol!




stat said:
I'm sorry, but that is completely wrong advice.

The Supreme Court and the INS have ruled that Conscientious Objectors can become citizens even if it's personal, moral or ethical concerns which prevent them from serving in the armed forces and taking the parts of the oath which say this. The only condition that one must accept is to serve a role of "national importance" should the country call upon you.

Read the link I posted above for more details.
The problem is most INS officers don't know the law surrounding this because MOST INS officers do not encounter people who do not want to take the full oath.


I'm not an attorney. This is just my opinion.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pacifist said:
Could you please give me the link to "the Supreme court and the INS have ruled that Conscientious Objectors can become citizens even if it's personal"? Can you cite the name and file number of the Supreme court case?

My wife and I are in the same situation. I was born here in the US and I'm a citizen and she's applied for her citizenship but in her interview they told her she had to get a letter from a pastor in order to have a modified oath. She is Christian but doesn't attend any one congregation nor does she go to church regularly. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find a pastor to write her a letter but we don't want to mislead anybody and or lie making the situation worse.

I don't understand how we're supposed to have freedom of religion here in the US but they base the litmus test for being a sincere pacifist based off of your religion? In particular Christianity. I saw the INS hand book and it clearly states that an "INS officer may ask for proof by having you submit a letter from a pastor". Of course the lady asked my wife to submit a letter from a pastor. What if you're buddhist, Hindu or agnostic as I am?

From my personal experience Christians are the least pacifist of all the religions that I know of so why do they do this? Not trying to offend anybody but I'm judging from my personal experiences and I'm just a little perplexed about how they can rationalize using a letter from a pastor as a litmus test? No pastor knows my wife better than myself and her family. How is his word better than mine? If they did a survey I'm sure that they would find a higher percentage of atheists and agnostics being pacifists and far less violent then Christianits due to the fact that politicians manipulate support for war by preying on religious doctrine, xenophobia and demonizing other religions. What this means is that they didn't base the requirements for a modified oath to favor truly non-violent pacifists but rather to favor Christians. Utterly ridiculous!

The other more important issue to me is that American women do not have to register for selective service which means that NO American woman in modern history has ever had to sign such a ridiculous statement about bearing arms or participating in non-combative support for the military on behalf of the US so what this means is that any women that become an American citizen and do so by signing this oath against their moral convictions are actually 2nd class citizens. This is not fair!


What can we do? Has anybody ever experienced this and what was the outcome?

Sorry for the long post, just frustrated and believe it or not I actually shortened it a little. Lol!
Click to expand...


See my answer to your post in the other thread about modified oath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top