Thiesen v. United States
Before: Barnard
BARNARD, P. J. This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for naturalization.
The appellant, who is a Russian native, entered the United States with his parents in 1930, when he was about 4 years old. He is a member of the Mennonite Brethren Church, [275]and the family entered the United States as a result of aid furnished by that church and, apparently, as a part of a group which fled Russia to escape religious persecution. During World War II the appellant was classified 4-E as a conscientious objector, and assigned to the Civilian Public Service System, in which he served seven months at a forestry camp, and 11 months at a veterans’ hospital. He married a native-born American woman in October, 1947, and they have two children. On September 17, 1948, he filed a petition in the superior court of Tulare County for naturalization under section 310(b) of the Nationality Act of 1940.
On the day the petition was filed appellant was questioned by a naturalization examiner and answered a number of questions, among which were the following:
“ Q. In the event we should again go to war would you be willing to either enlist or be inducted into the armed forces to serve in the Medical Corps? A. (Note: hesitates several minutes before replying) If that would not have anything to do with killing I would be willing to enlist as a conscientious objector in the armed forces.
“Q. As a Medical Corpsman would you be willing to wear the uniform of the United States Army, that is, serve as first aid men on the front line if need be? A. Well, if it would be giving them first aid so they could shoot again, I can’t do that.
“Q. You are advised that from my own experience in the past war, that the medical corpsmen or first aid men did not carry arms, but their duty was to give first aid and to help any soldier who might be wounded on the field of battle. You now state that you would not be willing to serve in the armed forces in this capacity, if it means that the soldier you might be aiding would again be able to take up his own arms in order to kill the enemy, is that correct? A. That’s right.
“Q. Likewise then, would you be willing to serve in the capacity of transporting arms to the front line for the purpose of repelling the enemy and killing him if necessary ? A. Absolutely not.
“Q. It follows then that you are not willing to serve in the capacity of transporting food and other equipment to our forces in the front line if that meant that our soldiers would thereby be enabled the better able to repel the enemy and to kill him, is that correct? A. That’s right.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)