It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Changes Oath of Allegiance for New Americans

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Looks like the USCIS (the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) has changed the oath that people take when becoming a U.S. Citizen.

No longer is it necessary to swear an oath to defend the nation !!!

I wonder who's idea this was, and why it seems so important to change the Oath?

It seems to be based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection.

Why *NOW* all of a sudden ???


Obama Changes Oath of Allegiance for New Americans, Takes Out Pledge to Defend the USA


Newly naturalized Americans will no longer have to pledge to defend the USA thanks to the Obama administration’s decision to remove the lines requiring new citizens to bear arms on behalf of the United States or perform noncombatant duties in the armed forces in times of war.


Obama’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ruled that effective on July 21 of this year, some candidates for naturalization will skip the services clause while taking the oath to become Americans.

So that means that in an age when people are streaming here to pretend to become Americans in order to commit acts of terror, now Obama won’t even ask them to voice the words that they will defend the USA.



Hmmm




+2 more 
posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Oh my gosh, how so incredibly politically incorrect!

He isn't even changing it, just offering people that don't want to say it, a process to apply for that.

A candidate may be eligible to exclude these two clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection. The new guidance clarifies that a candidate


Strange how RightWing News left that out.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
It seems to be an antiquated pledge to make and aligns more with conscription than the freedom to choose in the case of pacifists etc

Should make it a choice to add in if the person wishes to make that oath though.


Edit: Sigh... It is a choice, classic X. Classic.
edit on 22-7-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

The word "may" might be subject to verification?

but still, why *NOW* ?

how 'bout last year or 5 years ago ?

there *must* be a hidden meaning to this.

what recent events made this "correct" all-of-a-sudden?




posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

edit on 22-7-2015 by slapjacks because: garbage



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
We already had the option to modify the Oath of Allegiance regarding this, didn't we?


If you are unable or unwilling to promise to bear arms or perform noncombatant service because of religious training and belief, you may request to leave out those parts of the oath. USCIS may require you to provide documentation from your religious organization explaining its beliefs and stating that you are a member in good standing.


So, why, now does Obama want to remove it altogether rather than offer the option to waive the clause?



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




The word "may" might be subject to verification?


So you knew this but still posted the OP with out that information?

The hidden meaning is obviously a psy-op.

Who knows why he is doing it now, maybe just to piss off people because he is on his list that is titled with a phrase that rhymes with bucket.

At the end of the day it is a choice, not forced.
Which I have no issue with, I hate nationalism and people shouldn't be forced into it.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

That is one hell of a spin they put in that article.

Here is what will actually be affected.



Effective July 21, 2015, new guidance (PA-2015-001) in the USCIS Policy Manual clarifies the eligibility requirements for modifications to the Oath of Allegiance.

Reciting the Oath is part of the naturalization process. Candidates for citizenship normally declare that they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by the law.

A candidate may be eligible to exclude these two clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection. The new guidance clarifies that a candidate:

-May be eligible for modifications based on religious training and belief, or conscientious objection arising from a deeply held moral or ethical code.
-Is not required to belong to a specific church or religion, follow a particular theology or belief, or to have had religious training in order to qualify.
-May submit, but is not required to provide, an attestation from a religious or other type of organization, as well as other evidence to establish eligibility.


The biggest ramification from the changes is that it has removed the religious requirements to citizenship.

Woman Was Almost Denied Citizenship For Being Atheist
edit on 22-7-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

He isn't, that is just what RightWingNews is saying.

Crazy right?



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Imagine that. More knee-jerk, outrage fodder from the emotional drama queens on the extreme right.

This is getting old and some people never learn.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: queenofswords

He isn't, that is just what RightWingNews is saying.

Crazy right?


Okay...I had to re-read and re-research it because LeftWing or RightWing, I do NOT like to be manipulated. LOL!

What it appears to be doing is removing the requirement in the Waiver to be connected to some official religious organization. If you simply have a moral or conscientious objection WITHOUT a religious affiliation, you may opt out of the "bearing arms" part.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Wait...so, can a Ntural born Citizen refuse to register for the Selective Service now..?

Doesn't look like it, and that's the major issue I have with this...why are changes from immigration to citizenship benefiting everyone but the natural born citizen.

What's the goddamn point of it all..? Obama is so Linear in his thought process that he's now become the biggest Tool in town.

I agree with Charlie in that's it's become an antiquated process, but if that's the case, make changes that affect everyone, not a select group.

Dumb ass President.





posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
But, they're still required to say "so help me God ".

So, a conscientious objector can opt out of war, but an atheist still has to pledge to God.

Got it.

EDIT: actually that does have an option:


Substitution of the words “solemnly affirm” for the words “on oath” and no recitation of the words “so help me God”​ [​8 CFR 337.1(b)​] ​ ​

edit on 22-7-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
If it happened and then they went to register, I wonder what they'll think of that mandatory selective service thing?



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords




If you simply have a moral or conscientious objection WITHOUT a religious affiliation, you may opt out of the "bearing arms" part.


Which I agree with completely.

Our military is a volunteer service
a reply to: BestinShow

So do you just want the same thing extend to natural born citizens?
Or make the new ones do it since we have to?

Think it is easier to make a change to the immigration process then to do it for the natural born.
Maybe it is just the first step towards that.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: BestinShow




Wait...so, can a Ntural born Citizen refuse to register for the Selective Service now..?


I am pretty sure you still have to register, but you can still opt out of service based on religious and now non-religious conscientious objection just like the previous Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney did.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Why is the thread title "Obama changes..."

And then in the OP the question is posed "I wonder who's idea this was?"

Are we blaming Obama but also trying to blame somebody else?

I'm not sure who we're supposed to blame yet.

Bush? Is Bush available for blaming? Perot?



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: xuenchen

Oh my gosh, how so incredibly politically incorrect!

He isn't even changing it, just offering people that don't want to say it, a process to apply for that.

A candidate may be eligible to exclude these two clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection. The new guidance clarifies that a candidate


Strange how RightWing News left that out.


Does that mean that other Natural Born Citizens have an opt out clause too? Or is this just for the new citizens?



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Who cares? Oaths are just words anyways. What really matters is actions anyways.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So, I wonder which ones will be allowed to skip that portion? Sorry, but if they can't even defend the country, seems to me that they don't really want to be a part of it. What sort of person doesn't defend their home?

Add this in with groups of Muslims being brought into neighborhoods, and it's even more suspicious.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join