Taking The Oath
Petra
From the Handbook to Naturalization:
Changes to the Oath.
You may take the Oath, without the words “to bear arms on behalf of he
Unites States when required by law...” if you provide enough evidence
that you are against fighting for the United States because of your
religious training and beliefs.
If you provide enough evidence and USCIS finds that you are against any
type of service in the Armed Forces because of your religious training
and
beliefs, you may leave out the words “to perform noncombatant service
in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by law.”
What if I am against fighting in the military because of my beliefs?
If, because of your religious teachings and beliefs, you are against
fighting or serving in the military, USCIS may exempt you from these
requirements. You will need to send a letter with your application
requesting a modified oath and explaining why you are unable to take the
Oath as it is written above.
Lying.
If you do not tell the truth during your interview, USCIS may deny your
application for lacking good moral character. If USCIS grants you
naturalization and you are later found to have lied during your
interview, your
citizenship may be revoked.
Now my question.....
What if you are simply against war and weapons, and cannot base this on
religion? You can't lie...
I'm trying not to be totally unrealistic, and would be willing to
fulfill a non-combattant role in the army, if the law so requires.
Would you just accept and affirm the oath, because the chance that a
middle aged woman gets called up for active duty are slim to none?
Or be totally honest, answer the question with "no" and write an
explanation, and see what happens?
Even when this "what happens" results in a denial of naturalization?
Anybody any experience with this?
--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Petra
> Good question, and I would also like to know the answer. One of DH's
> concerns with becoming a citizen was that "bearing arms" bit in the
> oath. He's not a CO nor a pacifist, and can't honestly say his
> religious beliefs are why he objects to this, but he won't agree to do
> this here---nor would he
> agree in the UK, I'm sure. What would happen if one simply just did
> not
> repeat that part during the ceremony?
You are talking about the swearing in ceremony, but the problem
occurs way before you get to that point, it is a question on the N-
400 application, you have to answer honestly, put it in writing, and
sign for it.
Except for Israel, I know of no other country in the world that has a
draft for both men and women. This whole concept of "bearing arms on
behalf of he Unites States" is unique to me.
I guess the Dutch were much more liberal in this matter. When there
still was a draft, they gave people with conscientious objections to
serve in the military the chance to serve in a non combattant role, or
even the chance serve their country outside of the army (community
centers, hospitals, etc.)
Granted, the time to serve was prolonged, but that was the price to pay.
But there were no limitations on the grounds of the objection, like in
this case...
Rete
> Good question, and I would also like to know the answer. One of DH's
> concerns with becoming a citizen was that "bearing arms" bit in the
> oath. He's not a CO nor a pacifist, and can't honestly say his
> religious beliefs are why he objects to this, but he won't agree to do
> this here---nor would he
> agree in the UK, I'm sure. What would happen if one simply just did
> not
> repeat that part during the ceremony?
To Petra ... as a middle aged woman you are worried about nothing.
To psycho's husband, I hope you are and do give thanks to the men and
women in your country who fought and died in WWII to give your parents
the freedom and opportunity to deliver a son into a free country.
I do hope that there is something in life you value and respect enough
that you would be willing to place your life on the line for.
Apparently it is not your homeland or your family.
Rete
--
I'm not an attorney. This disclaimer is valid in NYS!
Posted via http://britishexpats.com
psychobabbler1
Good question, and I would also like to know the answer. One of DH's
concerns with becoming a citizen was that "bearing arms" bit in the
oath. He's not a CO nor a pacifist, and can't honestly say his
religious beliefs are why he objects to this, but he won't agree to do
this here---nor would he
agree in the UK, I'm sure. What would happen if one simply just did
not
repeat that part during the ceremony?
--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Rete
> You are talking about the swearing in ceremony, but the problem
> occurs way before you get to that point, it is a question on the N-
> 400 application, you have to answer honestly, put it in writing, and
> sign for it.
>
> Except for Israel, I know of no other country in the world that has a
> draft for both men and women. This whole concept of "bearing arms on
> behalf of he Unites States" is unique to me.
>
> I guess the Dutch were much more liberal in this matter. When there
> still was a draft, they gave people with conscientious objections to
> serve in the military the chance to serve in a non combattant role, or
> even the chance serve their country outside of the army (community
> centers, hospitals, etc.)
>
> Granted, the time to serve was prolonged, but that was the price to
> pay.
> But there were no limitations on the grounds of the objection, like in
> this case...
The US does as well. It is not unique to the Dutch. Conscientious
objectors can serve in the military as corpmen/women, in roles in
military offices, hospitals, etc. I don't believe the length of service
is extended to compensate for the lack of physical jeopardy.
Rete
> Save your preaching and harsh judgments, Rete honey. My father
> served in the military for more than 30 years and was permanently
> disabled while on the job serving his country.
Not preaching about you, sweetie but your sissified hubby.
My dad was in WWII and a POW of the Japanese and my first husband was in
Vietnam and the love of my life was in Korea and my second husband in
Bosnia. I have the right to voice my opinion just as you and your
husband have a right to voice yours. Sit on it psycho.
Folinskyinla
> The US does as well. It is not unique to the Dutch. Conscientious
> objectors can serve in the military as corpmen/women, in roles in
> military offices, hospitals, etc. I don't believe the length of
> service is extended to compensate for the lack of physical jeopardy.
Rete:
If they can't take the oath on the terms prescribed, then they are
simply ineligible for naturalization. One need not become a citizen to
continue to lawfully reside in the US. This is not rocket science.
--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization
Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Rete
> Rete:
>
> If they can't take the oath on the terms prescribed, then they are
> simply ineligible for naturalization. One need not become a citizen
> to continue to lawfully reside in the US. This is not rocket science.
Mr. F. I wasn't talking about the naturalization aspects by about
the military.
psychobabbler1
> Not preaching about you, sweetie but your sissified hubby.
>
> My dad was in WWII and a POW of the Japanese and my first husband was
> in Vietnam and the love of my life was in Korea and my second husband
> in Bosnia. I have the right to voice my opinion just as you and your
> husband have a right to voice yours. Sit on it psycho.
Name calling is not what I would consider being respectful of others'
rights to their opinions...
psychobabbler1
> To Petra ... as a middle aged woman you are worried about nothing.
>
> To psycho's husband, I hope you are and do give thanks to the men and
> women in your country who fought and died in WWII to give your parents
> the freedom and opportunity to deliver a son into a free country.
>
> I do hope that there is something in life you value and respect enough
> that you would be willing to place your life on the line for.
> Apparently it is not your homeland or your family.
>
> Rete
Save your preaching and harsh judgments, Rete honey. My father served
in the military for more than 30 years and was permanently disabled
while on the job serving his country.
--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Petra
> Rete:
>
> If they can't take the oath on the terms prescribed, then they are
> simply ineligible for naturalization. One need not become a citizen
> to continue to lawfully reside in the US. This is not rocket science.
I was afraid that this comment would be brought up.
There is an inconsistency in the law, if you ask me.
Doesn't it look like that people without a religious belief
are discriminated against, because other reasons for objection are not
permitted...?
Petra
> Name calling is not what I would consider being respectful of others'
> rights to their opinions...
Okay, kids... can we go back to the original subject now? *S*
fatbrit
> Okay, kids... can we go back to the original subject now? *S*
Petra:
You will find plenty of useful resources here:
http://www.centeronconscience.org/
Folinskyinla
> I was afraid that this comment would be brought up.
> There is an inconsistency in the law, if you ask me.
> Doesn't it look like that people without a religious belief
> are discriminated against, because other reasons for objection are not
> permitted...?
Hi Petra:
Your comment is well taken and would seem to be consistent with the
"establishment clause" of the First Amendment. But the perceived
discrimination is caused by the "interference clause" of the First
Amendment. [There is an inherent tension between these two "freedom of
religion" clauses, but I digress.]
However, the issue is quite a bit broader than just naturalization.
First -- there is only ONE crime defined in the Constitution: Treason.
It applies only to US Citizens and is limited to waging war against the
United States. [Read the "Kawakita" case from the Supremes from the
early '50's. As an aside, Kawakita's death sentence was commuted by
President Truman and he was pardoned by President Kennedy and returned
to Japan. I understand that his war crimes would have been subject to
only a five year sentence if he had been tried by a war crimes
tribunal].
Second -- did you know that an alien has an absolute right to REFUSE to
serve in the military? In fact, an alien IN the military has a right to
be discharged at their own request simply because she is an alien? The
ONLY penalty for this is that one ceases to be eligible for
naturalization. It is not a crime and it is not a deportable offense.
In the asylum arena, there was a series of cases involving Jehovah's
Witnesses and conscription in El Salvador. It was finally resolved
after much litigation that since El Salvador did NOT allow for religious
objection, it was discrimination based upon religion.
Bottom line: US citizens are subject to a military obligation unless
the "interference clause" is implicated. Aliens are not. All the oath
requires is that one is clear on what one of the most important aspects
of citizenship happens to be.
If you are opposed to war -- then, as a Citizen, you get to participate
in the political process. Not that you will win, but you can take part
in the process.
Hawkslayer
"Rete" <Re...@britishexpats.com> wrote in message
news:35$308497$2490218$11187...@britishexpats.com...
I've sat back reading what's been said in this thread and finally had to
butt in and say something. I speak as someone who spent 14 years in the Army
serving on active duty for my country of birth. I consider it easy to sum up
this situation. An able-bodied man, or a woman, who objects to fighting for
the country to which they have pledged allegiance is a coward, pure and
simple. And someone who wants the pledge modified for the same reason is
also a coward. Pure and simple. There IS no other connotation on this. They
should be presented with the white feather.
Alfie
Petra
Thank you Fatbrit, that is very helpful!
And thanks so much, Mr. F., you struck an especially tender chord with
that last paragraph *S*
Actually, I have been politically active in South Carolina, over the
driver's license issue.
It was a very special feeling, to go before the state house committee
and plead my case, I can tell you that!
Immigrants throughout the state united and together we changed the law!
So.... who's to say that we wouldn't win this battle?
*grin* Hey, allow a girl her dreams!
HunterGreen
> You are talking about the swearing in ceremony, but the problem
> occurs way before you get to that point, it is a question on the N-
> 400 application, you have to answer honestly, put it in writing, and
> sign for it.
>
> Except for Israel, I know of no other country in the world that has a
> draft for both men and women. This whole concept of "bearing arms on
> behalf of he Unites States" is unique to me.
>
> I guess the Dutch were much more liberal in this matter. When there
> still was a draft, they gave people with conscientious objections to
> serve in the military the chance to serve in a non combattant role, or
> even the chance serve their country outside of the army (community
> centers, hospitals, etc.)
>
> Granted, the time to serve was prolonged, but that was the price to
> pay.
> But there were no limitations on the grounds of the objection, like in
> this case...
Petra,
Maybe it is a lingering thought in the back of your mind that they pile
up all the N-400's of people who answered 'yes (will bear arms)' to this
question and draft them regardless of gender or age, saying: 'you said
you would'?
While USC's don't have to put anything in writing and do have the
ability to claim 'conscientious objection', which a naturalized citizen
basically voids by putting it in writing on the N-400, putting
naturalized citizens at much more risk during a draft than natural born
citizens.
And then the problem for aliens wanting to naturalize would not be that
they don't want to fight for the US, but that they void a right that all
other USC's do have. Therefore making some more equal than others. Which
would be unconstitutional, I believe.
Just wondering about this.
Elaine
--
Help Find Jason!
Missing since 2001.
Read his story at
http://tinyurl.com/bvt4l
Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Rete
> Petra,
>
> Maybe it is a lingering thought in the back of your mind that they
> pile up all the N-400's of people who answered 'yes (will bear arms)'
> to this question and draft them regardless of gender or age, saying:
> 'you said you would'?
> While USC's don't have to put anything in writing and do have the
> ability to claim 'conscientious objection', which a naturalized
> citizen basically voids by putting it in writing on the N-400, putting
> naturalized citizens at much more risk during a draft than natural
> born citizens.
> And then the problem for aliens wanting to naturalize would not be
> that they don't want to fight for the US, but that they void a right
> that all other USC's do have. Therefore making some more equal than
> others. Which would be unconstitutional, I believe.
>
> Just wondering about this.
>
> Elaine
If claiming conscientious objection were so easy to make and obtain, why
did so many young male US citizens opt to run for the Canadian border to
avoid the draft.
If a draft ever came to pass, the naturalized US citizen has an option
the American citizen by birth and with only one citizenship does not
have, they can give up their US citizenship and return to country of
birth or in some cases choose which country out of the many
citizenships/passports they hold where they want to live next. They are
many US naturalized citizens who hold citizenship in the UK, Canada,
Ireland and the US or India, UK, Canada and the US, etc.
HunterGreen
> If claiming conscientious objection were so easy to make and obtain,
> why did so many young male US citizens opt to run for the Canadian
> border to avoid the draft.
>
> If a draft ever came to pass, the naturalized US citizen has an option
> the American citizen by birth and with only one citizenship does not
> have, they can give up their US citizenship and return to country of
> birth or in some cases choose which country out of the many
> citizenships/passports they hold where they want to live next. They
> are many US naturalized citizens who hold citizenship in the UK,
> Canada, Ireland and the US or India, UK, Canada and the US, etc.
I don't know.... did they run? I guess they did.
That's true, too. But they might not want to do that because they love
the US too much.
Now people will probably argue that if they love the US so much they
won't try to dodge the draft... so before that discussion even starts
I'm bowing out by saying that the things I wonder about do not
necessarily reflect my opinions. ;)
Rete
> I don't know.... did they run? I guess they did.
>
>
>
> That's true, too. But they might not want to do that because they love
> the US too much.
> Now people will probably argue that if they love the US so much they
> won't try to dodge the draft... so before that discussion even starts
> I'm bowing out by saying that the things I wonder about do not
> necessarily reflect my opinions. ;)
>
> Elaine
They ran, flew and drove to Canada. There is still an enclave of
Americans in the woods outside of Greenwood, NS, Canada who founded a
small village there in the 1960's. They are true mountain men and only
come to town twice a year for necessities. They provide their own food
by farming and hunting and outsiders are not allowed in. Even the RCMP
will not bother them.
fatbrit
> Please do not feed the trolls...
Sorry! I'll try not to enable as well. That was a bad move...
HunterGreen
> They ran, flew and drove to Canada. There is still an enclave of
> Americans in the woods outside of Greenwood, NS, Canada who founded a
> small village there in the 1960's. They are true mountain men and
> only come to town twice a year for necessities. They provide their
> own food by farming and hunting and outsiders are not allowed in.
> Even the RCMP will not bother them.
That sounds familiar... I think I heard about this before. Interesting.
Oh and btw Rete... that strawberry cake was very good. ;)
fatbrit
So if you don't believe that you're helping your country by invading
other sovereign countries on rather flimsy pretexts (= lies!),
practicing non-consensual sadomasochistic acts on the prisoners you take
and flushing their religious works down the toilet you're a coward.
Think I'll stand firm as a proud coward, then!
nettlebed
> So if you don't believe that you're helping your country by invading
> other sovereign countries on rather flimsy pretexts (= lies!),
> practicing non-consensual sadomasochistic acts on the prisoners you
> take and flushing their religious works down the toilet you're a
> coward. Think I'll stand firm as a proud coward, then!
Please do not feed the trolls...
--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com
SecretGarden
> Please do not feed the trolls...
Just so you know....Hawkslayer isn't a troll. He's been around quite
awhile and has been a valuable poster in the past.
~SecretGarden
Folinskyinla
Hi Alfie:
I find the term "coward" to be a quite loaded term. I strongly recall
that a good part of my basic infantry training involved taking cover and
how to avoid getting killed -- the root word of which is "cower". And
being a "coward" is often another word for self-preservation. Every
combat veteran I've ever spoken to has admitted to cowardice with the
difference being that they didn't let it TOTALLY overcome them.
I remember Robert Heinlein writing in "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress"
about "rational anarchy" -- the key question being is when is the
"state" worth more than YOU.
Hawkslayer
"Folinskyinla" <member4043@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:35$308497$2491714$11187...@britishexpats.com...
Mr F,
I always read and enjoy your posts and in this one you make a few good
points, but I'm afraid I have to beg to differ. I was in combat many times
when serving in Malaya during the communist insurgency in the 1950s and in
Africa too, when I was serving in Angola during the civil war. I was afraid
many, many times. Please note. I was afraid, maybe my hands were shaking and
my heart was pounding, maybe I was wondering if my luck was going to run out
in the next few minutes. But I didn't feel cowardly and need to run away. I
always got up from wherever I was taking cover and once more entered the
fray. Fear is a totally different emotion to cowardice. A coward will always
find a reason to excuse, in his eyes, the fact that he is not willing to
fight, for either his home country, or his adopted country. If such reasons
cannot be found easily, he will leave no stone unturned until he discovers
one, that in his eyes, excuses his cowardly stance. Why were all these young
men not finding excuses for refusing to join the military, before the war in
Iraq? They were then quite willing to take advantage of the benefits and
education that were offered volunteers. Now they aren't, I see only one
reason for this change in attitude.
Alfie..
Folinskyinla
Alfie:
I don't think that we are that far apart in our thinking. I was
fortunate enough never to have been in a situation where I got shot at
-- and every solider has the potential to become an infantry man. [A
good friend of mine was commissioned in the Corps of Engineers and
served as an infrantry platoon leader in Vietnam. He broke the rules to
proudly wear the CIB which he was not authorized to wear although he had
earned it]. Having received the training, I have the utmost respect for
those who have experienced combat.
My feeling about conscientious objection is that one should be willing
to go to jail rather than serve in the armed forces. That is not
cowardice in my book.
Among my personal heroes are the members of the World War II 442nd
Regimental Combat Team. The US pissed on them and they EARNED their
citizenship. [Google "442nd" or "442nd/100th" or "Go For Broke" and you
will see what I mean] In one of those ironies of history, the 522nd
Field Artillery of the 442nd was the American unit that liberated the
Dachau Concentration Camp. As a Jew I am cognizant of the Passover
Liturgy where TODAY we are to place ourselves in the place of the slaves
in Egypt and "with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm" we were
rescued by God. I consider these brave men to have been the "mighty
hand and outstretched arm" in 1945 who rescued me five years before I
was born. I have personally thanked some of them from time to time and
they look sheepish and say "You are very welcome."
Rich Wales
people that I honestly don't know which posting to "follow up" on,
so I'll just pick one at random . . . .
The exemption from (potential) military duty in the citizenship
application (and the naturalization oath) is in line with the
exemption from ordinary military duty for "conscientious objectors"
in the Selective Service Act (the US draft law, which is still on
the books even though no one has actually been drafted since 1973).
The Selective Service Act allows exemption from normal military
service for any person who, "by reason of religious training and
belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any
form". [50 USC App. sec. 456(j).]
Congress's original intention here appears to have been to cover
members of traditionally pacifist organized religions (such as
Quakers, Mennonites, and Seventh-day Adventists). However, in
the 1960's, the Supreme Court held that the law could not be
interpreted so strictly. In fact, in a 1965 case, the Supreme
Court ruled that a conscientious objector need not belong to a
church at all -- and needn't even believe in a Judaeo-Christian-
style personal "God" -- if his life is governed by a belief that
occupies the same central place in his life that a devoutly held
"conventional" religious belief would. [U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S.
163 (1965).]
A merely personal "moral code", however, does not qualify one for
conscientious objector status in the US. Nor does a completely
non-religious sociological or economic philosophy suffice (e.g.,
a desire not to get involved in war because one has decided that
wars are waged only by corrupt, greedy governments, or simply
because one feels war is distasteful, is not enough to qualify
someone as a conscientious objector).
Also, in order to qualify as a C.O., one must be opposed to
participation in =all= wars, regardless of the circumstances.
Adherents of a so-called "just war" philosophy (i.e., that war
is sometimes OK, and sometimes not, depending on the situation)
do =not= qualify as C.O.'s under the definition in the US law --
even if, as is the case sometimes, a "just war" advocate believes
that it is his sacred duty to decide for himself if a given war
is appropriate for him to participate in or not.
If you don't like this law -- either because you think completely
non-religious opponents of war ought to be covered, or because
you want believers in a "just war" philosophy to be covered, or
perhaps because you think Mennonites and Quakers are cowards and
ought to be forced at gunpoint to bear arms on the front lines
in some future war -- then by all means write your Senators and
Congressmen, but don't hold your breath waiting for anything to
change in the foreseeable future.
Or, if you think "C.O." can only be the first two letters of
"coward" or "communist" (!), you could try to get on one of the
local draft boards that would be re-established across the US in
the unlikely event of a reinstated draft -- and you could help
turn down C.O. applications from lifelong Quakers, Mennonites,
and SDA's, just as many adherents of these religions were refused
C.O. classification during the Vietnam war despite their very
deeply and sincerely held beliefs.
The Selective Service Act also distinguishes two different kinds
or degrees of conscientious objection. Some C.O.'s are willing
to serve in non-combatant roles within the military; for example,
many Seventh-day Adventists were drafted in past wars and ended
up serving as medics -- often on the front lines, but unarmed.
(If some people choose to believe that people such as those por-
trayed in M*A*S*H were all a bunch of yellow-bellied cowards, I
suppose they have a right to their opinions.)
Other C.O.'s are unwilling to serve in any uniformed military
role, even a non-combatant one. The law says such people may
be assigned to perform "civilian work contributing to the main-
tenance of the national health, safety, or interest". During
the Vietnam era, many C.O.'s worked as hospital orderlies; I
personally knew one such person who worked for a non-profit
business which produced large-print versions of textbooks for
visually impaired students. Civilian C.O.'s worked for two
years -- the same length of time as someone drafted into the
military would have served at the time.
A C.O. who is unwilling even to perform civilian work in lieu
of military service -- whether because he feels even this is an
unacceptable compromise with the evils of war, or for any other
reason -- is =not= granted any recognition under the Selective
Service Act. I understand a fair number of Jehovah's Witnesses
were refused C.O. classification during the Vietnam era and
went to prison on this account.
With that as background, the alternatives offered to applicants
for US citizenship should make more sense. The Immigration and
Nationality Act closely parallels the Selective Service Act's
provisions for conscientious objectors. One may agree to regular
military service (i.e., not a C.O.); non-combatant military
service; or civilian work of national importance -- depending
on how one's stance would (or would not) square with the classi-
fications in the draft law.
Note, however, that NO ONE AT ALL has been drafted in the US
since 1973. The Selective Service Act is still on the books,
and we do have a "standby registration" procedure for potential
draftees, but there is currently NO authority to draft ANYONE,
and an actual resumption of the draft would require explicit
approval via an act of Congress -- and there is currently NO
realistic prospect of, or significant movement favoring, any
resumption of the draft.
Further, if a draft were to be reauthorized by Congress, the
conscientious objection provisions in the current law would apply
as much (no less so, but no more so) to naturalized US citizens
as they would to other Americans. Note that all the clauses in
the naturalization oath relating to military service (or substi-
tutes for same) contain the qualification "when required by the
law" -- a law which explicitly exempts religiously motivated
conscientious objectors from ordinary military duty.
And it should also be noted, for what it may or may not be worth,
that women (I believe the original poster was female?) have NEVER
been drafted in the US, so the issue is even less likely to ever
come to a head in her case than if she were male.
Rich Wales ri...@richw.org http://www.richw.org/dualcit/
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.
HunterGreen
Thank you for taking the time to write that very interesting and long
reply, mr. Wales. That was good readin'. :))
Petra
WOW now, there's an anwer...
Thank you so very much, Rich!!
Hawkslayer
Mr. F.
Thanks for the suggestion to look up the 442nd. My oh my. That is some story
and to think that I had never heard about it. I had of course read about the
Japanese being placed in camps at the outbreak of war, but never knew about
the 442nd. I guess there are many people out there who haven't heard of them
and yet, from the research I've currently done, they were amongst the
bravest of the brave. I intend to carry out further research on what I
consider a very interesting subject.
In a remote way I have a link to the story in my past. When I was in Malaya
and Borneo my group used dyaks (headhunters) as scouts and rangers, and
Ibans as trackers when we were out in the jungle. The Iban tribesmen are
recognized as being the finest trackers in the world. This was only eight
years after the end of world war II, and during that conflict, the Japanese
infantry had used those very same tribesmen in the same way we were using
them. Not much of a link, I know, but it is there. :) With both an Iban and
a Dyak on point, we really moved through the ulu. The Iban found the trail
and the Dyak removed any light opposition. He also did you the honour of
presenting you with the opposition's head.
Alfie..
CaliforniaBride
> If claiming conscientious objection were so easy to make and obtain,
> why did so many young male US citizens opt to run for the Canadian
> border to avoid the draft.
>
> If a draft ever came to pass, the naturalized US citizen has an option
> the American citizen by birth and with only one citizenship does not
> have, they can give up their US citizenship and return to country of
> birth or in some cases choose which country out of the many
> citizenships/passports they hold where they want to live next. They
> are many US naturalized citizens who hold citizenship in the UK,
> Canada, Ireland and the US or India, UK, Canada and the US, etc.
Not India.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_nationality_law#Automatic_Terminati-
on_of_Indian_citizenship