"Obama Modifies Oath of Allegiance for New Americans, Removes Pledge to Defend the USA"

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

Yes, at this current time you are exempt from the Combat Arms fields if you choose to go in to the Marines or the Army, but that is going to change by the time this president is out of office. The jobs I listed are several of the MANY jobs that are available for people who are CO's that are not Combat Arms and do not see combat. The only people that have seen jail time are the people that knowingly and voluntarily join the Combat Arms field then do not want to deploy to a combat zone, which they then go AWOL and desert. That is why they go to jail. I have known several people that are CO's that are in jobs where they do not see combat, such as nurses, medics, dental assistants, and the list goes on.

But to flat out say I am not going to defend this country from attack is pretty unpatriotic in my book, and to flat out make an oath where you will not defend your new found country is pretty absurd. If you don't love this country and don't want to defend then go back to your home country. I am a Natural Born Citizen who has served and has seen combat, and in your fiance's country to boot. So to me it is like you are telling me it's ok for me to die for this country but it is not ok for you too. Yes, there are many other ways for you to serve in the military that does not involve combat at all, but you fail to grasp the complete picture of that and just want to spout off some mumbo jumbo about "loading bullets and counting tanks". Well sorry to tell you this but those bullets and tanks are the reason you are not speaking German right now, the reason why we are not under sharia law either, and the reason why we have not had a large scale terrorist attack on this country since 9/11.

I have met countless people when I served and after serving working as a defense contractor that came to this country as immigrants that love this country so much for the things that it has given them the ability to do, that they have joined up and served. They did not all want to go kill, "load bullets or count tanks", but they served in any way they could. There is a Marine I served with from Honduras who was a CO but he signed up for a administrative job and he got assigned to my shop. He did not want to hurt anyone and we respected that, but he did deploy with us twice to the Middle East and he did his job making sure that administrative and logistic issues with our communication equipment were good. So he served and he did not have to kill anyone.

Edited July 24, 2015 by cyberfx1024

[JohnR! 5,495]

It might seem that way but service in the military is voluntary, so in principle no one is expected to serve in the military. Service is voluntary and draft was never enforced. It's no different than someone claiming religious beliefs for other means. This revised oath goes along with the RFRAs currently en vogue in our country.

So apparently people want to come and immigrate here but not help to support and defend this country, am I getting this right? So if you do NOT want to help support and defend this country or join the Armed Forces in a time of need GO HOME.... It's really that simple to say the least. There have been plenty of Conscientious Objectors that have joined but in a capacity to help people such as Medics, Chaplains, Chaplain Assistants, Administration. So why can't other people do it as well?

Why would you want to immigrate to a country and take up citizenship of that country but you do not want to help support and defend it?

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

It might seem that way but service in the military is voluntary, so in principle no one is expected to serve in the military. Service is voluntary and draft was never enforced. It's no different than someone claiming religious beliefs for other means. This revised oath goes along with the RFRAs currently en vogue in our country.

I understand that it is voluntary and that is why we (Military and former Military) are at the lowest percentage of American population in almost a 100 years. The draft was enforced during the 60's and early 70's but it was done away with. Yes, there are people who do not serve due to religious beliefs and that's fine, but there have been people who did serve that had those same religious beliefs that have saved people's lives because that individual was a medic and helped save people's lives. He did not violate his religious beliefs but upheld the sanctity of life. The revised oath is because this president and this administration hates everything that's great about this country, and hates the USA in general.

[JohnR! 5,495]

And that is what is great about our military. Those who serve do so free from any objections because it's voluntary.

I understand that it is voluntary and that is why we (Military and former Military) are at the lowest percentage of American population in almost a 100 years. The draft was enforced during the 60's and early 70's but it was done away with. Yes, there are people who do not serve due to religious beliefs and that's fine, but there have been people who did serve that had those same religious beliefs that have saved people's lives because that individual was a medic and helped save people's lives. He did not violate his religious beliefs but upheld the sanctity of life. The revised oath is because this president and this administration hates everything that's great about this country, and hates the USA in general.

[Boiler 43,397]

I understand that it is voluntary and that is why we (Military and former Military) are at the lowest percentage of American population in almost a 100 years. The draft was enforced during the 60's and early 70's but it was done away with. Yes, there are people who do not serve due to religious beliefs and that's fine, but there have been people who did serve that had those same religious beliefs that have saved people's lives because that individual was a medic and helped save people's lives. He did not violate his religious beliefs but upheld the sanctity of life. The revised oath is because this president and this administration hates everything that's great about this country, and hates the USA in general.

And those who serve a greater truth.

[Amhara 460]

But to flat out say I am not going to defend this country from attack is pretty unpatriotic in my book, and to flat out make an oath where you will not defend your new found country is pretty absurd. If you don't love this country and don't want to defend then go back to your home country. I am a Natural Born Citizen who has served and has seen combat, and in your fiance's country to boot. So to me it is like you are telling me it's ok for me to die for this country but it is not ok for you too. Yes, there are many other ways for you to serve in the military that does not involve combat at all, but you fail to grasp the complete picture of that and just want to spout off some mumbo jumbo about "loading bullets and counting tanks".

I never said it's okay for you to die. I am politically neutral, but I support the US Constitution. I don't support war. The world wars are not a point of pride; to me they are a shameful failure for humanity. I support Isaiah 2:4 - no matter the consequences.

I don't judge anyone else's choice in contentious alternative service. Someone with a medical background must ethically assist someone in need to the best of their abilities, regardless of who the patient is.

You are making two errors in your view. First, you seem to be suggesting that a natural born citizen can make a continuous objection and naturalized immigrants cannot. If that isn't your view, then why do you think they should go back to their country? Had you not seen previous comments or looked up the requirements beforehand? Second, you seem to think this is a change in the oath. This isn't a change - the option for a naturalized citizen to object based on moral or religious grounds has always been available. I checked it out before I started this process.

My mumbo jumbo was in tented to mean that I would not accept service that assists the military. For example, I would not clean weapons. Sure, I am not killing anyone, but I am taking part. If the duty was taking care of orphans, that wouldn't affect my conscience.

My brother served over there too. My younger brother enlisted full time this week. My fiance and his brother both worked besides you over there. My view isn't anti-American or hatred for the military. I believe that true Christians are supposed to be in subjection to whichever government they find themselves. (Mark 12:17; Romans 13:1; 1 Peter 2:13,14; Titus 3:1) I would report ANYONE that threatened others or wanted to take action against our government. My objection is a religious reason and I wanted to make sure that the man I will spend my life with respects if not accepts my views. If he was put in that situation, he would need to make his own decision as to what he would do.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Amhara

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

I never said it's okay for you to die. I am politically neutral, but I support the US Constitution. I don't support war. The world wars are not a point of pride; to me they are a shameful failure for humanity. I support Isaiah 2:4 - no matter the consequences.

I don't judge anyone else's choice in contentious alternative service. Someone with a medical background must ethically assist someone in need to the best of their abilities, regardless of who the patient is.

You are making two errors in your view. First, you seem to be suggesting that a natural born citizen can make a continuous objection and naturalized immigrants cannot. If that isn't your view, then why do you think they should go back to their country? Had you not seen previous comments or looked up the requirements beforehand? Second, you seem to think this is a change in the oath. This isn't a change - the option for a naturalized citizen to object based on moral or religious grounds has always been available. I checked it out before I started this process.

My mumbo jumbo was in tented to mean that I would not accept service that assists the military. For example, I would not clean weapons. Sure, I am not killing anyone, but I am taking part. If the duty was taking care of orphans, that wouldn't affect my conscience.

My brother served over there too. My younger brother enlisted full time this week. My fiance and his brother both worked besides you over there. My view isn't anti-American or hatred for the military. I believe that true Christians are supposed to be in subjection to whichever government they find themselves. (Mark 12:17; Romans 13:1; 1 Peter 2:13,14; Titus 3:1) I would report ANYONE that threatened others or wanted to take action against our government. My objection is a religious reason and I wanted to make sure that the man I will spend my life with respects if not accepts my views. If he was put in that situation, he would need to make his own decision as to what he would do.

I never said anything about Immigrants not being able to be CO's at all, in fact I gave you a direct example of a fellow Marine who I served with. He was in fact a naturalized citizen and he was a CO as well. We did not object to it because he did his job and he deployed with us, and we respected his views for it.

No individual who cares about their safety want someone else cleaning their weapons, that is just commonsense.

I gave you several examples of jobs that CO's do that do not involve killing people or taking part in it. In face the only way that medics can kill people is in defense of their self or their patients.

[Amhara 460]

I never said anything about Immigrants not being able to be CO's at all

So then you agree with what is already in the naturalization oath?

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

So then you agree with what is already in the naturalization oath?

The USCIS oath states this:

that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic

1. A. Bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; or

   B. Perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; or

   C. Perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law.

Yes, I agree with the oath and what it says above. If you do not want to support and defend the USA, which also means noncombatant work such as what I stated in the previous posts then you do not need to immigrate here plain and simple as that.

[JohnR! 5,495]

The oath is only required for those seeking US citizenship. There is no presumption that a permanent resident should become a citizen at any point. One can live in the US for one's entire life on a greencard, never having to take the oath, therefore your suggestion is completely out of place, not to mention out of character in an immigration forum.

Regardless of what it represents, what really bothers me in the oath is the 'when required by law'. As it stands, our Constitution does not grant any government - state or federal - powers to require 'by law' that I should bear arms, serve as a non-combatant or even perform work of national importance. As a citizen I have every right to question the decisions made by my government and even without taking the oath there are several situations in which I would refuse to comply with A, B or C.

Our military is what it is because it is comprised of volunteers. Ask anyone who served and they will tell you their commitment is to defend our country come what may for all of us, citizens and non-citizen alike. They don't discriminate and neither would anyone worthy of their uniform suggest that anyone not wiling to serve the military should go home. Show me someone in uniform who shares your opinion and I'll show you a person who wasted their time and our money by volunteering for a job they aren't suited for.

The USCIS oath states this:

that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic

1. A. Bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; or
   B. Perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; or
   C. Perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law.

Yes, I agree with the oath and what it says above. If you do not want to support and defend the USA, which also means noncombatant work such as what I stated in the previous posts then you do not need to immigrate here plain and simple as that.

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

The oath is only required for those seeking US citizenship. There is no presumption that a permanent resident should become a citizen at any point. One can live in the US for one's entire life on a greencard, never having to take the oath, therefore your suggestion is completely out of place, not to mention out of character in an immigration forum.

Regardless of what it represents, what really bothers me in the oath is the 'when required by law'. As it stands, our Constitution does not grant any government - state or federal - powers to require 'by law' that I should bear arms, serve as a non-combatant or even perform work of national importance. As a citizen I have every right to question the decisions made by my government and even without taking the oath there are several situations in which I would refuse to comply with A, B or C.

Our military is what it is because it is comprised of volunteers. Ask anyone who served and they will tell you their commitment is to defend our country come what may for all of us, citizens and non-citizen alike. They don't discriminate and neither would anyone worthy of their uniform suggest that anyone not wiling to serve the military should go home. Show me someone in uniform who shares your opinion and I'll show you a person who wasted their time and our money by volunteering for a job they aren't suited for.

I am not talking about those that are here on a greencard such as my wife. I am talking about people who come here and naturalize as citizens. My comments have NEVER been about people that are here on a greencard at all, but people who are wanting to become citizens. If you are not willing to support and defend this country and swear an oath to such. Then why are you wanting to become a citizen of a country you are not willing to support and defend?

[JohnR! 5,495]

I think the reason is because in the last century the concept of 'defending' our country has acquired a much broader meaning. In a post-WWII world I can see how the oath would be a no brainer for anyone taking it. However, it is still a hard sell for anyone trying to explain how the Vietnam war had anything to do with defending America. At the moment we are dealing with a post-apocalyptic Iraq, after a campaign many might argue did the opposite of defending our country. I'm not arguing the merits of either - and other proxy wars in which we've engaged in the past - but I do argue that anyone who wants to become a US citizen may have reservations as to how we go about our business sometimes. Ironically, I see that as something very American. Our country speaks from both sides of its mouth. We support dictators when they are our friends and depose them when they no longer interest us. We put up with the likes of Putin, all the while showing outrage at lifting the Cuban embargo. In a way wanting to become a US citizen and not necessarily feeling compelled to bear arms is no different.

My take on this is the same as my take on the pledge of allegiance. I couldn't give a rat's as to what people say or swear or pledge. When the rubber meets the road, what really counts are actions. Just look at women during WWII. Those unable to serve, went out en masse and got themselves busy keeping the country in one piece while their men fought on both fronts. In the end it's how one lives one's life that really counts. The real oath is that which we all do silently and everyday with our actions.

I am not talking about those that are here on a greencard such as my wife. I am talking about people who come here and naturalize as citizens. My comments have NEVER been about people that are here on a greencard at all, but people who are wanting to become citizens. If you are not willing to support and defend this country and swear an oath to such. Then why are you wanting to become a citizen of a country you are not willing to support and defend?

Edited July 24, 2015 by JohnR!

[TBoneTX 43,020]

I'm surprised TBoneTX hasn't had to lock his own thread yet! LOL! I was certain that this would explode and it would need to be shut down in a matter of minutes!

A handful of truly off-topic posts have been removed. Please continue to keep the on-topic discussion respectful, with attention to the forum in which it's occurring.

[Amhara 460]

I am not talking about those that are here on a greencard such as my wife. I am talking about people who come here and naturalize as citizens. My comments have NEVER been about people that are here on a greencard at all, but people who are wanting to become citizens. If you are not willing to support and defend this country and swear an oath to such. Then why are you wanting to become a citizen of a country you are not willing to support and defend?

This is where I'm losing understanding of your opinion. You agree that contentious objection should be available to naturalized citizens the same as it's available for born citizens. Then why are you considering it "not willing to support and defend"? To me, the US Constitution REQUIRES the oath to have such modifications that I listed earlier. It grants us the freedom of religion, which can be applied as freedom from religion. Someone don't agree with acknowledging a Creator, so you don't need to say that because the Constitution protects you. Some won't swear to take up arms, so you don't need to swear to do that because the Constitution protects you.

Where are you seeing the difference?

I think it's because I'm saying my conscience is more sensitive and I would not agree to help aid in a military act. But from what I am reading from your posts, you agree with the fact of the matter. This article is SEVERELY skewed and seems like propaganda hate towards our President. In fact, he had very little to do with this as CO was adopted into our legislation many years before he was in school. This is an article designed to take a statement from the USCIS, which clarified previously established rules, and try to make it look like our President is trying to subjugate the United States of America.

That's what I see. What do you see?

[Amhara 460]

I think the reason is because in the last century the concept of 'defending' our country has acquired a much broader meaning. In a post-WWII world I can see how the oath would be a no brainer for anyone taking it. However, it is still a hard sell for anyone trying to explain how the Vietnam war had anything to do with defending America. At the moment we are dealing with a post-apocalyptic Iraq, after a campaign many might argue did the opposite of defending our country. I'm not arguing the merits of either - and other proxy wars in which we've engaged in the past - but I do argue that anyone who wants to become a US citizen may have reservations as to how we go about our business sometimes. Ironically, I see that as something very American. Our country speaks from both sides of its mouth. We support dictators when they are our friends and depose them when they no longer interest us. We put up with the likes of Putin, all the while showing outrage at lifting the Cuban embargo. In a way wanting to become a US citizen and not necessarily feeling compelled to bear arms is no different.

My take on this is the same as my take on the pledge of allegiance. I couldn't give a rat's as to what people say or swear or pledge. When the rubber meets the road, what really counts are actions. Just look at women during WWII. Those unable to serve, went out en masse and got themselves busy keeping the country in one piece while their men fought on both fronts. In the end it's how one lives one's life that really counts. The real oath is that which we all do silently and everyday with our actions.

I really liked your comment here, so I just wanted to repost this again.