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.
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.
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
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.
The word "may" might be subject to verification?
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.
originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: queenofswords
He isn't, that is just what RightWingNews is saying.
Crazy right?
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)]
If you simply have a moral or conscientious objection WITHOUT a religious affiliation, you may opt out of the "bearing arms" part.
Wait...so, can a Ntural born Citizen refuse to register for the Selective Service now..?
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.