Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
Sat Mar 1, 2014, 08:43 AM Mar 2014

Adriana Ramirez Denied U.S. Citizenship Because She Is An Atheist

By Jared Keever, Fri, February 28, 2014

A California resident applying for citizenship has had her application for citizenship denied because she is an atheist, according to the American Humanist Association. Officials at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office in San Diego rejected her application because they did not accept as valid her reasoning as a conscientious objector to ”take up arms in defense of the United States.”

In answering the question on the application Adriana Ramirez gave a lengthy response that cited the likes of Martin Luther King Jr., Einstein and Gandhi. In her answer, she said she is personally and deeply committed to non-violence.

“My commitment to non-combatancy is based on deep moral conviction,” Ramirez wrote. "Accordingly, I respectfully request that the U.S. government honor its statutory exemption and allow me to take an alternate affirmation."

She also objected to the phrase, in the oath she would have to take to become a citizen, “so help me God,” claiming she does not “hold such religious beliefs.”

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/adriana-ramirez-denied-us-citizenship-because-she-atheist

More:

http://americanhumanist.org/news/details/2014-02-us-immigration-services-denies-applicant-based-on-se

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/02/27/once-again-an-atheist-is-denied-u-s-citizenship-because-of-her-secular-ethics/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/margaret-doughty-atheist-citizenship_n_3469358.html

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/28/womans_citizenship_application_rejected_because_she_objects_to_war_isnt_religious/

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Jim__

(14,045 posts)
1. Is INA 337 unconstitutional?
Sat Mar 1, 2014, 09:04 AM
Mar 2014

A brief excerpt from INA 337 (my bolding):


...

(5) (A) to bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law, or


(B) to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law, or


(C) to perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law. Any such person shall be required to take an oath containing the substance of clauses (1) through (5) of the preceding sentence, except that a person who shows by clear and convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that he is opposed to the bearing of arms in the Armed Forces of the United States by reason of religious training and belief shall be required to take an oath containing the substa nce of clauses (1) through (4) and clauses (5)(B) and (5)(C), and a person who shows by clear and convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that he is opposed to any type of service in the Armed Forces of the United States by reason of religious training and belief shall be required to take an oath containing the substance of clauses (1) through (4) and clause (5)(C). The term "religious training and belief" as used in this section shall mean an individual's belief in a relation to a S upreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code. In the case of the naturalization of a child under the provisions of section 322 of this title the Attorney General may waive the taking of the oath if in the opinion of the Attorney General the child is unable to understand its meaning. 1/ The Attorney General may waive the taking of the oath by a person if in the opinion of the Attorney General the person is unable to understand, or to communicate an understanding of, its meaning because of a physical or developmental disability or mental impairment. If the Attorney General waives the taking of the oath by a person under the preceding sentence, the person shall be considered to have met the requirements of section 316(a)(3) with respect to attachment to the principles of the Constitution and well disposition to the good order and happiness of the United States.


(b) In case the person applying for naturalization has borne any hereditary title, or has been of any of the orders of nobility in any foreign state, the applicant shall in addition to complying with the requirements of subsection (a) of this section, make under oath in the same public ceremony in which the oath of allegiance is administered, an express renunciation of such title or order of nobility, and such renunciation shall be recorded as a part of such proceedings.

...


Not being a lawyer and just reading the text of the law (if I found the current version of the law), I can see how an employee processing the application would think that the law states that you need a religious reason to be exempted. That sounds unconstitutional to me, but if it is, the law needs to be changed. Low-level employees, reading the law, are going to accept the text as written.
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
2. The Selective Service Act had similar language which was ruled unconstitutional forty years ago.
Sat Mar 1, 2014, 09:18 AM
Mar 2014

I don't know if this section of the statute has had a direct challenge. This may be it. If I find anything I'll post it.

goldent

(1,582 posts)
3. I think religion is given special status in the constitution
Sat Mar 1, 2014, 10:23 AM
Mar 2014

in that

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof


I reckon that forcing you to bear arms could be viewed as prohibiting the free exercise of your religion.

madrchsod

(58,162 posts)
4. this issue will be reviewed in court
Sat Mar 1, 2014, 12:13 PM
Mar 2014

seems to me she has the right to apply and be granted a citizenship.

struggle4progress

(118,041 posts)
5. It's a case of poorly trained USCIS personnel, not a matter of USCIS policy
Sat Mar 1, 2014, 04:41 PM
Mar 2014

IIRC Margaret Doughty won a similar dispute last year by sending a letter and without ever landing in court

arely staircase

(12,482 posts)
7. this christian gags at the notion that someone could be denied anything (other than the holy
Sat Mar 1, 2014, 09:32 PM
Mar 2014

sacraments) for lack of religious faith or because of it.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Adriana Ramirez Denied U....