U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied a woman’s applicant for naturalization based on her stated reasons why she would not be willing to “bear arms on behalf of the United States.” Federal immigration law allows a naturalization applicant to decline to take an oath to bear arms if he or she can demonstrate a religious objection. The woman stated in her application that she is an atheist with significant personal convictions against war and violence, and USCIS denied her application. It reversed its decision after secular advocacy groups, such as the American Humanist Association (AHA) intervened on her behalf. The woman’s case is the second in the past year involving the denial of a naturalization application based on religion.
The applicant, who is originally from Colombia, became a permanent resident of the United States in 2008. She applied for naturalization in October 2013. In her Form N-400, she identified herself as an atheist and provided a statement explaining her unwillingness to take the full oath of allegiance. She described her own history of advocacy for non-violence, and drew on Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Albert Einstein, and Jiddu Krishnamurti to provide a secular explanation for her principles. She also noted that it was unlikely that she would ever be called to serve in the military, but that she wanted to provide an honest answer. On January 29, 2014, USCIS denied her application, reportedly solely because of her opposition to bearing arms.
Federal immigration law requires applicants for naturalization to state their willingness to take an oath of allegiance to the United States, including an oath “to bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1448(a)(5)(A). The statute allows a person to omit the “bear arms” provision if they show, by clear and convincing evidence, that they are opposed to military service “by reason of religious training and belief.” The statute also specifically states that this term refers to “belief in relation to a Supreme Being” but not “political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code.”