Modified Oath

[anon 1]

Hello,

My wife is strongly against warfare of all kind and is thinking of requesting a modified oath agreeing to perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law, but not to take part in the armed forces (see https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartJ-Chapter3.html). Has anyone applied for a modified oath where the basis was a strongly held moral conviction, rather than a religious one? What supporting documentation did you provide with your N-400? We were thinking of including an affidavit stating her convictions, as well as evidence of her support of and financial contributions to humanitarian organizations like Amnesty International, etc. Would this be sufficient?

Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide!

[squareleg 69]

" Must show opposition to clause (or clauses) based on religious training and belief or deeply held moral or ethical code. Applicant may provide an attestation or witness statement." - this is the requirement.

An applicant may request a modified oath that does not contain one or both of the following clauses:​

​

•To bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; and​

​

•To perform noncombatant service in the U.S. armed forces when required by the law.​ [1]

​

In order to modify the oath, the applicant must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that he or she is unwilling or unable to affirm to these sections of the oath based on his or her religious training and belief, which may include a deeply held moral or ethical code.​ [2] ​

​

There is no exemption from the clause “to perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law.”

Just asking no offense: isn't this hypocritical that other soldiers or even policemen are fighting against anti-social elements....which you are okay with if they subject themselves to danger but you don't want to do so even if the chance is remote?

[Doodles08 6]

Ditto.

[squareleg 69]

Thanks Doodles. I cannot understand, if you are not committed to protect or defend the nation (whatever country you belong to) when required, how can you call yourself to be its citizen. Nationalism or Patriotism is the underlying emotion....else oath or modified...etc. are just meaningless.

It is absolutely not okay to hide behind morals and especially religion.

Strong words not specifically directed at OP....just opinion.

[JimmyHou 613]

This is a right afforded to any of us under the law. You may not like that the OP's wife is a pacifist, but it's her right.

The U.S. government and the courts have determined that you cannot compel someone to act against their religious beliefs. Back to the revolutionary war, there was a great deal of uncertainty as to whether or not Pennsylvania would join the independence movement because of the large numbers of Quakers there. The Quakers wanted independence, but made it clear that their faith forbade them from fighting (although many did end up fighting).

USCIS interpreted these rules quite strictly and insisted on seeing a letter from a church or religious organization stating that the persons faith forbade fighting.

More recently, the Supreme Court ruled that such a letter could not be required. An English atheist had her naturalization delayed for two years until the court ruled in her favor that she had the right to take a modified oath.

It's important to understand that this modified oath exempts one from making promises he or she can't or won't keep. It does not exempt one from the consequences. There is no draft at the moment, but if one were to be reinstated, those who won't fight for religious reasons would have to face consequences set under any future draft law. Probably the most famous case of this was that of the boxer, Muhammad Ali, Who went to jail for four years for refusing to serve in Vietnam. On his side, he understood that he would go to jail and accepted that. On the side of the government, they knew that the law did not allow them to grab him and ship him off to Vietnam, but that he would have to except incarceration.

Hello,

My wife is strongly against warfare of all kind and is thinking of requesting a modified oath agreeing to perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law, but not to take part in the armed forces (see https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartJ-Chapter3.html). Has anyone applied for a modified oath where the basis was a strongly held moral conviction, rather than a religious one? What supporting documentation did you provide with your N-400? We were thinking of including an affidavit stating her convictions, as well as evidence of her support of and financial contributions to humanitarian organizations like Amnesty International, etc. Would this be sufficient?

Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide!

There might be some helpful info here. Look through this thread.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/531322-what-to-expect-at-the-naturalization-oath-ceremony/?p=7427176

Edited June 17, 2016 by JimmyHou

[squareleg 69]

This is a right afforded to any of us under the law. You may not like that the OP's wife is a pacifist, but it's her right.

The U.S. government and the courts have determined that you cannot compel someone to act against their religious beliefs. Back to the revolutionary war, there was a great deal of uncertainty as to whether or not Pennsylvania would join the independence movement because of the large numbers of Quakers there. The Quakers wanted independence, but made it clear that their faith forbade them from fighting (although many did end up fighting).

USCIS interpreted these rules quite strictly and insisted on seeing a letter from a church or religious organization stating that the persons faith forbade fighting.

More recently, the Supreme Court ruled that such a letter could not be required. An English atheist had her naturalization delayed for two years until the court ruled in her favor that she had the right to take a modified oath.

It's important to understand that this modified oath exempts one from making promises he or she can't or won't keep. It does not exempt one from the consequences. There is no draft at the moment, but if one were to be reinstated, those who won't fight for religious reasons would have to face consequences set under any future draft law. Probably the most famous case of this was that of the boxer, Muhammad Ali, Who went to jail for four years for refusing to serve in Vietnam. On his side, he understood that he would go to jail and accepted that. On the side of the government, they knew that the law did not allow them to grab him and ship him off to Vietnam, but that he would have to except incarceration.

There might be some helpful info here. Look through this thread.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/531322-what-to-expect-at-the-naturalization-oath-ceremony/?p=7427176

Jimmy - I agree with what you noted. However, if you can see the logical fallacy. Pacifist is awarded that right because others put their lives in harms way. Why have a nation then? Citizenship is not just having a passport and driver's license.

Also nation is tangible...faith isn't which is the basis of such modification. Anyways, that's just my opinion.

[JimmyHou 613]

Jimmy - I agree with what you noted. However, if you can see the logical fallacy. Pacifist is awarded that right because others put their lives in harms way. Why have a nation then? Citizenship is not just having a passport and driver's license.

Also nation is tangible...faith isn't which is the basis of such modification. Anyways, that's just my opinion.

I think it's a pretty tough issue.

I don't disagree with what you said at all; but there are examples that stop me from agreeing with you wholeheartedly.

If you look at someone like Gandhi, no one can deny that he was an Indian patriot, but he was a staunch pacifist and didn't want anyone to fight. He almost starved himself to protest violence by some of his supporters.

I think there are other ways to support your country, to defend it, and to support it. A pacifist immigrant from certain countries could, for example, be of far more use to the nation working as a translator of terrorist communications than by picking up a gun.

Regardless of personal views, though, the law is what it is and is unlikely to change. Logic aside, a huge part of the reason for the founding of the country was religious liberty.

I worry about questioning whether someone can be considered a real American because I know that many would not consider us, as naturalized citizens, real Americans. I prefer to define nationality by the law and leave it at that.

[yuna628 9,820]

A clear ruling by the Supreme Court also overturned Ali's unlawful conviction.

Conscientious objecting has been around for an exceedingly long time and you cannot compel someone to do something against their firmly held religious or moral beliefs. Those such as Mennonite and Amish were imprisoned and physically abused or killed for their beliefs. Beliefs that the Supreme Court has ruled on many times and found in the objector's favor. A pacifist is no less American than you or I, and is utilizing their protected freedoms as you or I. Quaker beliefs, of which pacifism is a strong part has a robust tradition in the founding of our states. The freedom to express religion or non religion (firmly held beliefs) is enshrined in our Constitution. Pacifists have other ways of valuable contributions to our American society during wartime. As a woman, the OP's wife is unlikely to be called up for fighting (if that ever happens again), unless she is young enough to be forced into signing for the draft (women may be forced to do so if legislation for an equal select service stands). But even during previous wartimes of old, pacifist women served their country in other non-violent ways - be it charity, translation, contributions to science, medical work, food, shelter, and caring to the needs of the many broken men who returned to them. Pacifist men did much the same, and helped to keep this country running.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/opinion/sunday/what-is-pacifism-good-for.html?_r=0

[JimmyHou 613]

I was not aware that all convictions were overturned. That's an interesting bit of information. Thanks!

Also worth mentioning that this week, the Senate passed a bill to require women between 18 and 26 to register for selective service. It still has to pass the House (not sure much passes the House these days), but if it does, the President will almost certainly sign it into law.

Edit: You said Ali's conviction. I read it as All convictions. :-) I remember reading about that recently... he still served time in prison and wasn't released until 1971 I think.

Edited June 17, 2016 by JimmyHou

[yuna628 9,820]

I was not aware that all convictions were overturned. That's an interesting bit of information. Thanks!

Also worth mentioning that this week, the Senate passed a bill to require women between 18 and 26 to register for selective service. It still has to pass the House (not sure much passes the House these days), but if it does, the President will almost certainly sign it into law.

Edit: You said Ali's conviction. I read it as All convictions. :-) I remember reading about that recently... he still served time in prison and wasn't released until 1971 I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali#Vietnam_War_and_resistance_to_the_draft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_v._United_States

Clay v. United States.

''The Supreme Court of the United States found the government had failed to properly specify why Ali's application had been denied, thereby requiring the conviction to be overturned. A unanimous decision (8-0), "the court said the record shows that [Ali's] beliefs are founded on tenets of the Muslim religion as he understands them."

Yes he did have to serve time., and wrongly so The Supreme Court pretty much found that his beliefs were sincerely held and that the government had failed to discredit or consider those sincerely held beliefs, thus wrongly convicting him.

[JimmyHou 613]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali#Vietnam_War_and_resistance_to_the_draft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_v._United_States

Clay v. United States.

''The Supreme Court of the United States found the government had failed to properly specify why Ali's application had been denied, thereby requiring the conviction to be overturned. A unanimous decision (8-0), "the court said the record shows that [Ali's] beliefs are founded on tenets of the Muslim religion as he understands them."

Yes he did have to serve time., and wrongly so The Supreme Court pretty much found that his beliefs were sincerely held and that the government had failed to discredit or consider those sincerely held beliefs, thus wrongly convicting him.

Got it! Thank you. Looks like I was wrong on what it takes for a conviction. Edited June 17, 2016 by JimmyHou

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

Also worth mentioning that this week, the Senate passed a bill to require women between 18 and 26 to register for selective service. It still has to pass the House (not sure much passes the House these days), but if it does, the President will almost certainly sign it into law.

Actually it has already passed the House and it passed the Senate with YUGGGGEEEE margin of 85-13 and thus the President can not veto the bill as he said he would.

[JimmyHou 613]

Actually it has already passed the House and it passed the Senate with YUGGGGEEEE margin of 85-13 and thus the President can not veto the bill as he said he would.

The House passed a different version, so now both versions have to go into reconciliation now. But you're right, it's likely to pass. I wasn't aware that the House had already passed a similar version. Thanks for the correction.

Just to clarify, the president supports this measure, but he did want to veto the larger bill which included this amendment because of defense spending issues. But as you say, it's likely to end up with a veto proof majority.

Some time soon, women are going to have to answer that selective service question on the N400!

[akihon 129]

PHEW good thing I've aged out.

[squareleg 69]

PHEW good thing I've aged out.

Is it that bad to serve the nation in combatant service?