Woman Denied US Citizenship Unless She Joins Church

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

Ok, the title is a bit misleading, but you gotta put asses in the seats. It is actually an interesting problem.

An immigrant from the UK who had been in the US for over thirty years and going through the citizenship process had to answer a question about whether she would be willing to take up arms to defend the country and she answered no because she is 64 years old and a pacifist. Eventually she received a notice asking for proof of membership in a Church that is pacifist. The idea that someone could be a conscientious objector without religious motivation doesn't exist under the law at this point, it seems.

I'm sure some will see it as malicious, but I think it is more of a byproduct of a previous time. Much like the laws that were developed before the internet existed and the ensuing shenanigans that have cropped up. I would like to think that something can be worked out, but I've also seen bureaucracy in action before, so I won't hold my breath either.

Full Article

**Seaward**

Why doesn't she change her answer? Say she didn't understand the question or something. Voila. Problem solved. A 64 year-old female will not be getting a draft notice.

**Dreadclaw69**

Good to her for sticking by her beliefs. I would have liked to have thought that USCIS would have given her a waiver on account of her age. Sadly I'm still going through the process and USCIS's response surprises me not one bit. For my visa they neglected to tell us that for proof of meeting that they have primary and secondary evidence. We found out after they sent us a notice requesting more evidence (they said that itineraries, pictures etc. were all perfectly acceptable, but also wanted boarding passes). Had they told us this at the start then it would have sped the process up several months.

Now if only they could work on the forms we submitted in October that are only meant to take five months to process

Oh! And we got a charming letter from them about us changing address and not informing them....except for the fact that we didn't move, and they resent the letter to the correct address.

**Ouze**

Ahtman wrote:
Ok, the title is a bit misleading, but you gotta put asses in the seats.

I read this story earlier, but was delighted by the presentation nonetheless.

**d-usa**

As much as I believe that people can object to fighting in a war for a country that they were born in, I can see the point of the question.

Why do you want to become a citizen of a country you are not even willing to fight for (advanced age aside). They are under no obligation to give her citizenship, and she is under no obligation to take up arms for the country she wants to live in.

Permanent residency it is I guess.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also interesting it that despite claiming to be an atheist, she submitted this statement:

I deeply and sincerely believe that it is not moral or ethical to take another person’s life, and my lifelong spiritual/religious beliefs impose on me a duty of conscience not to contribute to warfare by taking up arms

Seems like you can't claim a religious objection to warfare, and then get mad when they ask for evidence of a religion that opposes war.

**Da Boss**

Not sure which side I come down on, for this, really. On the one hand, I don't believe that a 64 year old woman should be expected to fight to defend her country. On the other, I guess the US can put whatever restrictions they want on citizenship.

**Ahtman**

Perhaps she is an agnostic, but conflates agnosticism with atheism.

**Bullockist**

perhaps she is religious but not a member of a church. One doesn't always follow the other.

**djones520**

Given the source of the story, it's plain it's not impartial. I'd like to see the specific question on the form, and how she answered it initially That would very likely clear up a lot of issue of the governments response to the matter.

Also I like the point that D-USA made. Their making the case that she's not of religious persuasion, but she specifically said her deeply held religious beliefs lead her to that answer. Something is rotten in Denmark I think. It's why I don't read sites like that. They'll twist things worse then MSNBC if it makes religion look bad.

**Shadowseer_Kim**

The conscientious objector part of our law and several others does state something along the lines of "as part of a religious belief."

However our laws, and our bill of rights also recognizes freedom to practice religion, even if you are the only person in the country who believes as you do.

A not yet citizen has a tougher time to know all these things to make their argument and defend themselves against the sometimes absurd questioning of our government.

That is what she gets for trying to immigrate legally, rather than cross one of our borders, or overstaying a visitor visa forever.

**Kilkrazy**

Da Boss wrote:
Not sure which side I come down on, for this, really. On the one hand, I don't believe that a 64 year old woman should be expected to fight to defend her country. On the other, I guess the US can put whatever restrictions they want on citizenship.

I should have thought the USA was bound by its own constitution in putting restrictions on citizenship.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
But really it is one of those absurd situations where some petty minded bureaucrat has conflicted with a literal minded victim.

If the US was ever in the position that it needed to draft a pensioner, it would have been all over long since. The question is silly and deserves a silly answer.

**Orlanth**

The OP and link fails to mention that being a conscientious objector for non-religious groups does NOT debar anyone from US citizenship. It means she cant qualify for one of the categorised reason for objection.

This is fair. US law states that applicants for citizenship must be willing to defend the state, a reasonable stipulation.

US law also expects that those who wish to register as conscientious objectors should forward a reason, not all those reasons are quantifiable however membership of a religion that preaches peace is. Thus relgious based conscientious objection can be quantified and thus should be documented.

This doesnt mean that she will be discriminated against because she cannot document reasons for conscientious objector status. However for those that want to go out of their way to bash religion the facts get in the way of a good scare story.

**azazel the cat**

Seaward wrote:Why doesn't she change her answer? Say she didn't understand the question or something. Voila. Problem solved. A 64 year-old female will not be getting a draft notice.

That's not the point at all.

As a side note, I thought the conscientious objector was a recognized standing, even since WWII.

**Dreadclaw69**

Seaward wrote:
Why doesn't she change her answer? Say she didn't understand the question or something. Voila. Problem solved. A 64 year-old female will not be getting a draft notice.

The problem with that is that a lot of forms relating to immigration and citizenship have a stipulation that if you give a false statement it is a crime for which you may be charged, and which may affect your lawful status in the US. Given the petty nature of USCIS's conduct in this case I personally wouldn't want to give them more cause to flex their bureaucratic muscles.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

azazel the cat wrote:
As a side note, I thought the conscientious objector was a recognized standing, even since WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector

A conscientious objector (CO) is an "individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service"[1] on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, and/or religion.[2] In general, conscientious objector status is only considered in the context of military conscription and is not applicable to volunteer military forces
. . .
A 1971 United States Supreme Court decision, Gillette v. United States, broadened U.S. rules beyond religious belief but denied the inclusion of objections to specific wars as grounds for conscientious objection.[46]
Currently, the U.S. Selective Service System states, "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims."[47] Current Selective Service law requires and allows only registration. It does not allow for making claims of CO. The SS has stopped returning the registrants cards that hand write it on but they are simply registered in the system without note. In the US, this applies to primary claims, that is, those filed on initial SSS registration. On the other hand, those who apply after either having registered without filing, and/or having attempted or effected a deferral, are specifically required to demonstrate a discrete and documented change in belief, including a precipitant, that converted a non-CO to a CO. The male reference is due to the current "male only" basis for conscription in the United States.
In the United States, there are two main criteria for classification as a conscientious objector. First, the objector must be opposed to war in any form, Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437. Second, the objection must be sincere, Witmer v. United States, 348 U.S. 375. That he must show that this opposition is based upon religious training and belief was no longer a criterion after cases broadened it to include non-religious moral belief, United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 andWelsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333. COs willing to perform non-combatant military functions are classed 1-A-O by the U.S.; those unwilling to serve at all are 1-O.

http://www.mcc.org/stories/news/mcc-us-offers-guide-immigrant-conscientious-objectors

MCC U.S. offers guide for immigrant conscientious objectors

Saulo Padilla and Titus Peachey
June 9, 2009
AKRON, Pa. – It is not unusual for new immigrants to the United States who are conscientious objectors to war to face obstacles in the citizenship process. This is true despite the fact that the Supreme Court made a clear ruling more than 50 years ago allowing conscientious objectors to become U.S. citizens.

When Mukarabe Makinto-Inandava applied for U.S. citizenship after emigrating from Burundi, Central Africa, she included a statement about her pacifist convictions: "When you eliminate a person by killing, you have not eliminated the cause of the conflict, but murdered a father, mother or child loved by their family. I experienced war firsthand in my country. ... Therefore I do not promote war as a way to resolve problems."

Makinto-Inandava supplemented her statement with a letter from her Mennonite Church USA conference minister and indicated that she could not participate in war or military service. During her citizenship interview, the immigration officer told her that her conscientious objector position could prevent her from gaining citizenship. He asked her to change her position and rewrite her statement.

A new resource from Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) U.S., "Immigration and Conscientious Objection Packet/Guía de Inmigración y Objeción por Conciencia," addresses the issue faced by Makinto-Inandava.

It provides information and guidance to conscientious objectors who are applying for U.S. citizenship including instructions for submitting a conscientious objector claim. It also provides sample letters and stories of people who have been through the citizenship process as conscientious objectors. All materials are in English and Spanish.

The packet also provides an explanation of the Oath of Allegiance that immigrants must take as a part of citizenship. This oath says that an applicant must declare her or his loyalty to the U.S. government, and support and defend the United States Constitution against enemies through military service, noncombatant service or work of national importance under civilian direction. Although applicants must declare allegiance to the United States, it is permissible to become a citizen without agreeing to military service.

Arthur Jost v. The United States legalized citizenship for conscientious objectors. Jost moved to the United States from Canada in 1927 with his Mennonite Brethren family. He performed alternative service as a hospital attendant during World War II. When he applied for citizenship he faced obstacles from judges who were hostile toward pacifism.

This 1954 Supreme Court case clarified that conscientious objectors can be granted citizenship and established the right of individual conscientious objectors to become citizens whether or not they belong to a group that supports their beliefs.

Gaining citizenship can be an intimidating process. Immigrants work hard to complete the paperwork, study for the exam and present a strong case for their citizenship. Many times immigrants are reluctant to even file a statement of conscientious objection, fearing that it will jeopardize their citizenship application.

Makinto-Inandava gained her citizenship without retracting her commitment to peace. She is now a West Coast MCC church community worker in Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif.

"Conscientious objectors need to know that it is okay to stand firm on their belief and refuse to give in to fear and trust God to work it out for them. That's what I did and God honored my commitment to his peaceful ways," she said.

It is important that immigrants understand their options for conscientious objection as the U.S. Army has become more aggressive in its recruitment within immigrant groups. In the past only legal permanent residents (green card holders) or U.S. citizens were able to join the Army. However, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Army began a new pilot program in February that takes applications from foreigners who are on temporary visas or who have been granted asylum. The stated goal of the program is to recruit people with special language and medical skills.

This timely packet from MCC U.S. can reassure immigrants about their rights as conscientious objectors by explaining laws and documents, giving sample letters for people, and telling citizenship stories. It will help individuals and their counselors gain a better understanding of the laws and procedures for filing a conscientious objection statement with their citizenship application.

To obtain the packet, go to mccstore.org, or phone toll free (888) 563-4676. The packet is $6.99 plus shipping and handling.

For more information on peace education and immigration go to mcc.org/us/programs.

Saulo Padilla is director of the office on immigration for MCC U.S. Titus Peachey is director of peace education for MCC U.S.

**azazel the cat**

Yeah, thought so. Sounds like the immigration requirement as outlined in the article goes against that SC ruling.

**Dreadclaw69**

azazel the cat wrote:
Yeah, thought so. Sounds like the immigration requirement as outlined in the article goes against that SC ruling.

Yup. So to challenge it her best bet might be to have her Congress Person, or Representative, write USCIS a nice letter asking why they feel they are not beholden to the rulings of the Supreme Court.

**d-usa**

But at this point she have a sworn statement saying that she is a CO because of her religion. So it's on her to put up the proof that she is following a religion that forbits her to fight.

She didnt claim a personal moral reason, she chose her faith as the reason. If that was not true from the beginning then she already lied on her application and should be denied based on that.

You can't say "my religion is making me" and then get mad because they want proof of that statement.

**KalashnikovMarine**

This is really stupid. She's 64!

**Dreadclaw69**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
This is really stupid. She's 64!

Common sense, rationality and logic, allow me to introduce you to bureaucracy

**d-usa**

azazel the cat wrote:
Yeah, thought so. Sounds like the immigration requirement as outlined in the article goes against that SC ruling.

It doesn't go against it though. They are not forcing her to have a religious reason. She filed that she has a religious reason and they are simply saying "okay, please show us a statement by your clergy that backs up your sworn statement".

**Grey Templar**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
This is really stupid. She's 64!

Yeah, but then again she put herself in the situation. She could have either kept quiet, knowing she would never EVER get called up, or given another reason.

Don't feth up your paperwork and then get annoyed that it causes issues.

**LordofHats**

d-usa wrote:
But at this point she have a sworn statement saying that she is a CO because of her religion. So it's on her to put up the proof that she is following a religion that forbits her to fight.

She didnt claim a personal moral reason, she chose her faith as the reason. If that was not true from the beginning then she already lied on her application and should be denied based on that.

You can't say "my religion is making me" and then get mad because they want proof of that statement.

Since when is church membership a requirement for holding religious beliefs? What is this Pennsylvania circa the 1600's

**Grey Templar**

I believe the government requires it to be a registered religion, or something that can be proven to be sincere.

Something to do with people making up religions to get tax exempt status. "I'm going to start up a new religion worshipping Mat Ward. Worship involves playing games of Warhammer. I can also claim all my warhammer related purchases as tax write-offs."

For this reason, they do kinda have to have real sincere demonstrable religious beliefs and apply said definitions across the entire government to have consistency.

**LordofHats**

Grey Templar wrote:
Something to do with people making up religions to get tax exempt status. "I'm going to start up a new religion worshipping Mat Ward. Worship involves playing games of Warhammer. I can also claim all my warhammer related purchases as tax write-offs."

When the government allows tax exempt status to the Church of Body Modification, I think it gave up the right to be critical about people making up religions

**KalashnikovMarine**

My "Ye Olde Church of Buxom Wenches and Beer" is going well. Soon we'll be tax exempt on our booze and strip club visits.

**Jihadin**

Nnnnnnooooooooo ccooommmmmmmmeeeennnnnnnttttttt in this household

**Tye_Informer**

LordofHats wrote:
d-usa wrote:
But at this point she have a sworn statement saying that she is a CO because of her religion. So it's on her to put up the proof that she is following a religion that forbits her to fight.

She didnt claim a personal moral reason, she chose her faith as the reason. If that was not true from the beginning then she already lied on her application and should be denied based on that.

You can't say "my religion is making me" and then get mad because they want proof of that statement.

Since when is church membership a requirement for holding religious beliefs? What is this Pennsylvania circa the 1600's

They haven't said church membership is a requirement, they have just asked her for proof of a statement that she has made.

When I initially read this I agreed that this was dumb, (she's to old to fight!) however re-reading it and the comments here I don't think so anymore. There are certain requirements to become a US citizen, one being a willingness to fight for your new country. I can understand that requirement, if you are going to become a new friend of mine I would like to think you would help me if some random guy came up and started punching me in the face! Why would the US not have a similar requirement and because they are a government, have forms to fill out about it. The Supreme Court has allowed an exemption to the fight for your country rule, if you are against violence in general, and she claims she is because of "spiritual/religious reasons". So, either she is spiritual/religious or she lied. All she is being asked is to prove a statement on her form, and it wouldn't be the first item she's been asked to prove (and probably won't be the last in her path of the American Citizen, wait till she does taxes!)

If she is not an official member of a pacifist church then she is going to need to show some other proof that she is practicing a pacifist religion (as she claimed in her citizenship form), that's going to be harder than a letter from her "church", but it's the road she's on.

**Bran Dawri**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
My "Ye Olde Church of Buxom Wenches and Beer" is going well. Soon we'll be tax exempt on our booze and strip club visits.

That sounds like an awesome church! Providing I don't have to believe in a deity, I'd like to join!

**Mannahnin**

d-usa wrote:
Also interesting it that despite claiming to be an atheist, she submitted this statement:

I deeply and sincerely believe that it is not moral or ethical to take another person’s life, and my lifelong spiritual/religious beliefs impose on me a duty of conscience not to contribute to warfare by taking up arms

Seems like you can't claim a religious objection to warfare, and then get mad when they ask for evidence of a religion that opposes war.

If that's the quote, she could have meant "spiritual" in the sense that perhaps she believes that there is or might be some kind of spirit or soul, and that her belief in the existence or possibility of a world beyond the purely physical is part of why she can't justify taking life. Perhaps she put some stock in the concept of karma, or the reciprocity of the universe, and of there being negative spiritual repercussions for such an act.

Most people believe that killing other human beings is wrong, and quite a lot of them believe so for more than purely material reasons. She may have been more agnostic than atheist at the time of answering this question and earlier in life, and perhaps she has become more atheistic since. But her spiritual beliefs (or openness to the possibility of their being spiritual repercussions for killing) might have legitimately been the basis for her desire not to kill.

And none of that is necessarily dependent on being a member of any established religion or church.

**Kovnik Obama**

... Wouldn't it have been much simpler to lie?