Another issue of citizenship oaths and moral/religious exceptions, this time for the US

[Mr. Ambien]

Jindal: USCIS Head Must Go For Diluting Oath Of Citizenship Requirements

GOP presidential candidate Bobby Jindal says the head of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services must go, following the agency’s move to water down the requirements for modifications to the citizenship Oath of Allegiance.

“I think the President needs to fire the director immediately. I think Congress needs to pass a law to stop them from changing the oath,” Jindal said in an interview with Breitbart News Wednesday.

“Let’s be honest here, immigration without assimilation is invasion. We’ve always said the people coming here have to want to be Americans otherwise why are they coming here in the first place?” he asked.

Tuesday, USCIS announced it was clarifying the eligibility requirements for modifications to the Oath of Allegiance.

While immigrants seeking to become citizens are usually required to declare they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” new guidance is now allowing for not only those with religious objections but also people with a strongly held beliefs to omit those portions.

Specifically the guidance says that citizenship candidates:

-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.

According to Jindal, it is “ridiculous” that those two lines would not be required.

“Nobody is making anybody come here. Nobody is making anyone become a citizen. So I don’t think it is too much to ask folks, if you want to be here, of course as part of your Oath of Allegiance you should say you’re willing to defend our country,” he stressed.

The Louisiana Republican argued that there should be expectations and requirements for those wishing to immigrate to the U.S.

“To me, if somebody wants to come to America, if they want to immigrate, they should come legally, learn English, adopt our values, roll up their sleeves and get to work. One of the things I’ve said is I no longer — I think we need to get away from hyphenated Americans. We’re all Americans. We should unify. To me this is the opposite of that,” Jindal said.

“It is ludicrous that we would allow people to come to our country, allow them to become, again, that’s just a form of invasion,” he added.

With less than two years left of Obama’s presidency, Jindal noted that he remains concerned about what could be ahead.

“What I worry about are these last 18 months. I worry this could be a pattern, who knows what other regulations or changes they’re going to try to force through,” he said referencing Obama’s Iran deal and EPA water regulations. “Who knows what else this administration is going to try to do in the last 18 months,” he said.

“You’ve got a lame duck president who, in my view, is trying to change the definition of America,” he said, going on to reference Obama’s focus on political correctness and avoidance of the idea of “radical Islamic terrorism,” Jindall added.

He noted that the modifications to the Oath requirements is another example of Obama’s lack of belief in “American exceptionalism.”

“This President took an oath to defend the Constitution, to defend America. It looks like he’s just given up on America,” Jindal said.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/22/jindal-uscis-head-must-go-for-diluting-oath-of-citizenship-requirements/

Of course, this is not a law that passed, just some random directive from an Obama cabinet member.

Like Jindal I'd be considered a second generation US immigrant (much of my family comes from Germany and Canada), and going through the process usually one understands that assimilation is part of the process. Anyone that immigrates to a country and doesn't want to partake in what the country is, needs to simply go back to where they came from.

[thejazz97]

If my uncle were American, he'd probably vote for this guy.

[poetica]

The vast majority of Americans never serve in the military, so saying that you don't want to serve in the military because of your beliefs is hardly proof that someone isn't assimilating into American culture.

Also, this is the kind of non-issue some people use to draw an imaginary line between "us" and "them." Born citizens never have to swear that they will take up arms or serve in the military and in fact many actively avoided it during the Vietnam war. Despite what some claimed, they weren't less American. They just had a differing opinion of what constituted an American.

A person not wanting to have to kill other people is hardly a reason to keep them out of your country!

[Mr. Ambien]

The vast majority of Americans never serve in the military, so saying that you don't want to serve in the military because of your beliefs is hardly proof that someone isn't assimilating into American culture.

Also, this is the kind of non-issue some people use to draw an imaginary line between "us" and "them." Born citizens never have to swear that they will take up arms or serve in the military and in fact many actively avoided it during the Vietnam war. Despite what some claimed, they weren't less American. They just had a differing opinion of what constituted an American.

A person not wanting to have to kill other people is hardly a reason to keep them out of your country!

The assimilation factor is avoiding the SSS -- the US government's ability to employ a military draft. No male, not even myself, could skirt this, even if a natural born US citizen. So it makes absolutely zero sense that an immigrant can just because "muh morals/religion". The oath has long been part of the citizenship process, so indeed it is a sign of non-assimilation.

[inane]

Are all these threads your weekly fox news updates?

[Edlerberry]

Are all these threads your weekly fox news updates?

if you think fox is any worse than cnn or nbc, you may be right, but you're a few layers back from where ambien is resonating

[Standing_Tall#37]

Isn't this guy the governor of Louisiana?

[Mr. Ambien]

Isn't this guy the governor of Louisiana?

Yep.

[poetica]

The assimilation factor is avoiding the SSS -- the US government's ability to employ a military draft. No male, not even myself, could skirt this, even if a natural born US citizen. So it makes absolutely zero sense that an immigrant can just because "muh morals/religion". The oath has long been part of the citizenship process, so indeed it is a sign of non-assimilation.

First, the draft hasn't been used in the US in almost half a century, so it's hardly something men have to "skirt" anymore. And if you think "no male could skirt" it you obviously need to pick up a history book. Or just google "conscientious objector."

Second, even if the draft were to be reinstated it would likely be men and women. Women have been proudly serving in the military for decades now so there would be no reason to assume that only men would be drafted. But, it's almost certainly to never be needed again, possibly baring another world war, because the US has a very large volunteer military, which by the way already includes a significant number of NON-citizens.

Third, combat is not what it used to be. Today, more and more fighting is done by drones and other similar technology that requires far fewer actual people and keeps them from any direct danger. As such, drafting people is not only unlikely to be necessary, the longer we go without a draft the less likely we are to have one because we need fewer and fewer people to wage war as new technologies are made and it's unlikely that we would be able to simply draft people with the skills we need for the specific jobs that make up much of modern warfare.

Fourth, serving in a military is not the same as assimilation, especially when the overwhelming majority of the very society you're talking about do not serve in nor have they ever had any chance of being drafted into the military. Born citizens say they wouldn't go to war all the time. Given that they adamantly protested the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is certain that had there been a draft there would have been many born citizens who would have refused to fight. Are they too simply failing to "assimilate"?

If anyone is disrespecting the US, it is you. The US is far more than its military or its military actions. It represents and means so much more. Its culture encompasses so much more. You are selling the US short by claiming that anyone with an actual religious or other conscientious objection to warfare is simply failing to "assimilate" by assuming that the willingness to kill other human beings is somehow an inherent part of being American. It's not. Killing people is not a part of the American Dream and not wanting to kill people doesn't mean people can't be committed to what the US stands for and what its culture is about. Rather, it means that they recognize the true meaning of the American Dream, where anyone can come and live in peace, making a life for themselves and their family without having to give up their religion or their sense of morality in order to replace it with whatever the government tells them. That is the very reason many of them come to the US to begin with!

[Mr. Ambien]

First, the draft hasn't been used in the US in almost half a century, so it's hardly something men have to "skirt" anymore. And if you think "no male could skirt" it you obviously need to pick up a history book. Or just google "conscientious objector."

Second, even if the draft were to be reinstated it would likely be men and women. Women have been proudly serving in the military for decades now so there would be no reason to assume that only men would be drafted. But, it's almost certainly to never be needed again, possibly baring another world war, because the US has a very large volunteer military, which by the way already includes a significant number of NON-citizens.

Third, combat is not what it used to be. Today, more and more fighting is done by drones and other similar technology that requires far fewer actual people and keeps them from any direct danger. As such, drafting people is not only unlikely to be necessary, the longer we go without a draft the less likely we are to have one because we need fewer and fewer people to wage war as new technologies are made and it's unlikely that we would be able to simply draft people with the skills we need for the specific jobs that make up much of modern warfare.

Fourth, serving in a military is not the same as assimilation, especially when the overwhelming majority of the very society you're talking about do not serve in nor have they ever had any chance of being drafted into the military. Born citizens say they wouldn't go to war all the time. Given that they adamantly protested the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is certain that had there been a draft there would have been many born citizens who would have refused to fight. Are they too simply failing to "assimilate"?

If anyone is disrespecting the US, it is you. The US is far more than its military or its military actions. It represents and means so much more. Its culture encompasses so much more. You are selling the US short by claiming that anyone with an actual religious or other conscientious objection to warfare is simply failing to "assimilate" by assuming that the willingness to kill other human beings is somehow an inherent part of being American. It's not. Killing people is not a part of the American Dream and not wanting to kill people doesn't mean people can't be committed to what the US stands for and what its culture is about. Rather, it means that they recognize the true meaning of the American Dream, where anyone can come and live in peace, making a life for themselves and their family without having to give up their religion or their sense of morality in order to replace it with whatever the government tells them. That is the very reason many of them come to the US to begin with!

That's a whole wall of crap text and saying nothing at all.

It's actually a very simple thing.. just like the Canadian oath requires people's faces to be visible and for them to be visibly reciting the oath, if an oath to serving in the military should the US require it is required for citizenship, they either say it or they don't get citizenship. OTOH, one cabinet member wishes to skirt this, which is why people are calling for his resignation. The head of USCIS doesn't get to decide what is and isn't law. Unfortunately it's no surprise to see an Obama cabinet member think he's above the law, especially the history of Naturalization Acts that have been in place since around the time the Constitution itself was.

[Realtor Rod]

I am not sure I see anything wrong with people going to another country and learning the language and going to work. Am I missing something?

[poetica]

That's a whole wall of crap text and saying nothing at all.

It's actually a very simple thing.. just like the Canadian oath requires people's faces to be visible and for them to be visibly reciting the oath, if an oath to serving in the military should the US require it is required for citizenship, they either say it or they don't get citizenship. OTOH, one cabinet member wishes to skirt this, which is why people are calling for his resignation. The head of USCIS doesn't get to decide what is and isn't law. Unfortunately it's no surprise to see an Obama cabinet member think he's above the law, especially the history of Naturalization Acts that have been in place since around the time the Constitution itself was.

It's only a "wall of crap text" if you're reading it with crap covered lenses. Or are just unable to actually answer any of the salient points.

The history of the Naturalization Acts doesn't include a requirement that citizens serve the military. It does, however, include the fact that citizenship was only available for a significant period of time to free white men of "good character". Not sure you should be crowing about respecting a tradition specifically rooted in savage racism and sexism.

Furthermore, being a conscientious objector is a human right according to the United Nations. And it's such an important issue for so many people throughout the world that there's actually a International Day on Conscientious Objection (May 15) to celebrate it.

Seriously, clean those glasses and maybe you can see past your own nose.

[Mr. Ambien]

It's only a "wall of crap text" if you're reading it with crap covered lenses. Or are just unable to actually answer any of the salient points.

The history of the Naturalization Acts doesn't include a requirement that citizens serve the military. It does, however, include the fact that citizenship was only available for a significant period of time to free white men of "good character". Not sure you should be crowing about respecting a tradition specifically rooted in savage racism and sexism.

Furthermore, being a conscientious objector is a human right according to the United Nations. And it's such an important issue for so many people throughout the world that there's actually a International Day on Conscientious Objection (May 15) to celebrate it.

Seriously, clean those glasses and maybe you can see past your own nose.

Another long winded tirade about terrible people from yesteryear and nothing as to what that has to do with the subject at hand. But it's a salient point.. because I wrote it.

Whether someone is a conscientious objector means nothing when it comes to requirements of naturalization. It also doesn't address assimilation either. Carry on with the wild tang-- I mean.. "salient points".

[poetica]

Another long winded tirade about terrible people from yesteryear and nothing as to what that has to do with the subject at hand. But it's a salient point.. because I wrote it.

Whether someone is a conscientious objector means nothing when it comes to requirements of naturalization. It also doesn't address assimilation either. Carry on with the wild tang-- I mean.. "salient points".

So, more weak insults instead of actual substance?

If you don't even understand how someone being a conscientious objector might relate to someone asking that the parts of the naturalization oath relating to military service be removed, or if you can't see how someone not wanting to serve in a military against their religious beliefs doesn't mean they aren't assimilated into a culture that actually has nothing to do with the military or that they can't be active, helpful members of that society I can't help you.

None is so blind as he who will not see.