Woman denied US citizenship for being Atheist

[Mediobogdum]

Don't see what the problem is the phrase "bear arms" in her case would not mean that she would actully be required to hold a weapon necessarily but rather to be a behind the lines gal like a clerk, cook etc.

[The Blaatschapen]

Don't see what the problem is the phrase "bear arms" in her case would not mean that she would actully be required to hold a weapon necessarily but rather to be a behind the lines gal like a clerk, cook etc.

The problem is that her objection requires a church to vouch for it.

[IshCong]

There is, however, the mandatory Oath of Allegiance, which includes "that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law".

Although the parts about bearing arms and performing noncombat military service can be excluded in some cases.

I'm familiar. I don't recall the part that says "unless I have a note from a supreme being." Refusal to fight is refusal to fight, if this is strictly practical then it shouldn't matter what the reason is.

The part that says 'unless I have a note from a supreme being' would be Girouard vs. United States, actually. =T

[Arglorand]

...
So apparently, you aren't allowed to maintain that killing other people is disgusting without having the excuse of being in an organized religion that says it is?

Screw that noise.

[IshCong]

...
So apparently, you aren't allowed to maintain that killing other people is disgusting without having the excuse of being in an organized religion that says it is?

Screw that noise.

No, you can. US vs. Seeger and Welsh vs. US established that.
I'm guessing, if this report is accurate, that the INS is just playing catch-up for some reason.

[Ifreann]

Fuck me this thread went up its own arse quickly.

[The Blaatschapen]

Fuck me this thread went up its own arse quickly.

And this is different from other threads in which regard?

[Priory Academy USSR]

all candidates are asked if they’d be willing to take up arms in defense of the United States of America

Except for the fact it does.

Except for the fact that it doesn't.
It says they are asked if they are willing to take up arms in defense of the United States of America.

Which you have to answer 'yes' to to become a citizen, or have a religious background. As I said, you have to be willing to bear arms to defend the state to become a citizen.

If they are, cool. If they're not...also cool, they can still become citizens, with the requirement that their objection be for religious reasons, apparently.

Which means that 15% of the population (or however many atheists/agnostics there are emigrating to the US) are must be willing to bear arms in defense of the state. If you refuse, then apparently no citizenship. Which is my objection.

[Arumdaum]

She wouldn't defend the nation she wishes to call home? She can get the fuck out.

Yes, because obviously we should kill ourselves over some artificial concept which exists only in our minds, and for the people who govern us.

[IshCong]

Except for the fact that it doesn't.
It says they are asked if they are willing to take up arms in defense of the United States of America.

Which you have to answer 'yes' to to become a citizen, or have a religious background. As I said, you have to be willing to bear arms to defend the state to become a citizen.

Except that you don't. You even just said that you don't.

If they are, cool. If they're not...also cool, they can still become citizens, with the requirement that their objection be for religious reasons, apparently.

Which means that 15% of the population (or however many atheists/agnostics there are emigrating to the US) are must be willing to bear arms in defense of the state. If you refuse, then apparently no citizenship. Which is my objection.

It sounds like we're in agreement here. No, a person should not require a religious reason to be a CO and if they want to immigrate to the US.

Emigrating from, immigrating into.

[Arumdaum]

Don't see what the problem is the phrase "bear arms" in her case would not mean that she would actully be required to hold a weapon necessarily but rather to be a behind the lines gal like a clerk, cook etc.

Why should people be forced to contribute towards a war effort?

[IshCong]

Don't see what the problem is the phrase "bear arms" in her case would not mean that she would actully be required to hold a weapon necessarily but rather to be a behind the lines gal like a clerk, cook etc.

Why should people be forced to contribute towards a war effort?

Some of the same reasons you pay your taxes and have to obey the laws. National stability and social order.
Loyalty would be nice, but I'll settle for the former two.

[Arumdaum]

No, just no. Compulsory conscription is a bad thing.

I love the reasoning behind that statement. So well-thought-out and thorough. "nuh-uh thats bad"

As if your reasoning that "if she doesn't want to fight gtfo" is any better.

[Arumdaum]

Hold the immigrants to a higher standard than the 'natives'?

I don't see how you got that. People who are born citizens should be subject to conscription as well.

Where's your rationale, sir?

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Why should people be forced to contribute towards a war effort?

Some of the same reasons you pay your taxes and have to obey the laws. National stability and social order.
Loyalty would be nice, but I'll settle for the former two.

Apple pie. Never forget apple pie. From Mom.

[Arumdaum]

I love the reasoning behind that statement. So well-thought-out and thorough. "nuh-uh thats bad"

I love the people who scream "CONSCRIPTION IS SLAVERY!" And then argue that taxation is just part of the social contract.

There's a difference in that conscription is forced labor, forces you to kill people, and gives you the possibility of being killed.

Does that happen in taxation?

[Ifreann]

Fuck me this thread went up its own arse quickly.

And this is different from other threads in which regard?

Some threads manage to stay relevant to the actual topic of the OP for a while. This went straight to "We must all tenderly service the puckered anus of the State and like it!" by page 2 and stayed there until...well, I stopped at 22 or so.

[Arumdaum]

No one should be forced to serve the state in the military.

Why? The State is the only reason that country exists. The State provides order, security, and guarantees freedoms and privileges. You owe everything to the State. If the State asks you to give your time/life, so be it.

You forget that the state itself only exists due to the individuals who live in it.

[Arumdaum]

Taxation doesn't involve being torn to bits by shrapnel and drowning in your own blood they fill up your lungs.
So yeah, not the same thing.

The state has the right to demand military service.

States have rights?

[IshCong]

I love the people who scream "CONSCRIPTION IS SLAVERY!" And then argue that taxation is just part of the social contract.

There's a difference in that conscription is forced labor, forces you to kill people, and gives you the possibility of being killed.

Does that happen in taxation?

According to Diopolis? Probably.

[Suicune]

Why should people be forced to contribute towards a war effort?

Some of the same reasons you pay your taxes and have to obey the laws. National stability and social order.
Loyalty would be nice, but I'll settle for the former two.

Can't remember the last time a war Americans fought in was for national stability and social order....

Is this "bear arms" shit required to become a citizen of any other country, or is America just backwards again?

[Ifreann]

The state has the right to demand military service.

States have rights?

Course not.

[Little Flowers]

United States ex. ref Knauff v. Shaughnessy

Non-citizens applying to immigrate to US have no entitlement or constitutional rights during time of application.

Except she is already in the US.

Applying for citizenship is a process of immigration genius. You would do well in a courtroom with your lame ass semantics. You wanted to know why. That is the precedent. It is because US government considers anyone within the immigration process to lose any rights normally guaranteed to anyone normally within the US or without. Part of Emergency War Times powees act or something.

A little common sense would have told her that it isn't the smartest policy to offer an agency such as US Immigration any excuse. They don't need one. So actually giving them one was pretty stupid. Discretion would have been the wise course. I thought prospective citizens were supposed to know something about the US. If she did she would know you don't be a pompous ass until after you got the papers you need. All she had to do was sign the paper and get her citizenship. If the government decided to give her a gun and order to start shooting she could object then and the US could do nothing! She got what she deserved. Like my brother's wife when she giggled when asked if they were bringing guns or drugs into the country.

[Arumdaum]

Why should people be forced to contribute towards a war effort?

Some of the same reasons you pay your taxes and have to obey the laws. National stability and social order.
Loyalty would be nice, but I'll settle for the former two.

Killing people and getting killed always contributes to national stability and social order?

[Arumdaum]

One owes one's safety, and the safety of one's family, to the state, at the very least. In reality, it's probably quite a bit more than that. It is reasonable for the state to be able to demand service in return, to help it guarantee the safety of it's citizens.

Exactly. You owe your life to the State. The State has every right to request you serve it for a period of time.

Ridiculous. This assumes that without the state, you would definitely have been killed, which is quite literally, bullshit.