Uncle Sam Wants A Few Good Immigrants
This is a fantastic idea that will likely pay dividends for both the military and the recruits. It helps put legal immigrants with temporary visas on a path to U.S. citizenship and lets them put down roots here instead returning to their home country. And it helps reinforce the principle that there is no free lunch in U.S. immigration policy and that — whether we’re talking about legal immigrants joining the military or undocumented immigrants trying to legalize their status — those who benefit should contribute something in return.
And yet still, there is criticism. But it’s not coming from where you might think. One might expect that the left would resist the idea that immigrants are being lured into the military by the promise of citizenship and risk becoming cannon fodder. But there is little of that. Instead, most of the noise is coming from the right, where a nativist fringe is concerned that these immigrants are still loyal to their home country and not the United States.
Not that old song. Those suspicions date back to the late 18th century, when Benjamin Franklin began picking on German immigrants who, Franklin worried, would never adopt the language and customs of the English — and whose loyalty to the fledgling colonies was in doubt. In the 19th century, it was Chinese immigrants who were thought to be resistant to assimilation and thus disloyal. In the 20th century, similar things were said about the Irish, Italians, and Jews. Of course, perhaps the most notorious example of a group having their loyalty called into question didn’t involve immigrants at all, but the U.S.-born sons and daughters of immigrants — Japanese Americans interned during World War II. And now comes the accusation — from organizations such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars — that legal immigrants living in the United States on temporary visas may not be sufficiently patriotic to enlist in the military.
Baloney. Why not say that same thing about permanent legal residents who are now serving in the military? Or U.S. naturalized citizens who are serving but were born in other countries? Besides, the military has long welcomed legal immigrants with permanent green cards and many of these enlistees have gone on to win medals and serve our country with distinction.
In fact, many of these brave individuals never came home. Instead, their parents and spouses received folded flags “on behalf of a grateful nation.” It’s hard to imagine a clearer demonstration of patriotism than giving your life for your country. What does it matter that it was your adopted one?
yes true i dont think the enemy will not try and kill the no us citizens thats what makes america sutch a great country it can obsorb people from other countries and they can make a contribution.
What a repulsive piece of work — I’ve commanded many men and women AND DO NOT CONSIDER ONE PERSON CANNON FODDER. We don’t favor naturally-born citizens over immigrants. The inherent risk of military duty any immigrant takes is on par with the rest of us.
I notice that Silicon Valley and other high-tech industries readily recruit foreign-born persons, but you don’t make it look like a predatory practice that your article alludes to. This article displays contempt for the very military that keeps our nation safe and that by joining it a person has to be lured into it.
This article, overall, is pretty pathetic, and lacks substance; it’s more worthy as a NYT op-ed piece.
There’s no basis for the protests, of course. Foreigners have served in American armies in many wars in the past. Notably, during the Civil War there was one Confederate Major General who was a French national, and several foreigners (though mostly naturalized citizens) who served in the Union army. People just need something to pick on.
Where to begin. This article is par for the course with ruben. Aside from the fact that it illuminates his disdain for our fine men and women in uniform much less our military services in general. I just want to address this one “point” in his pointless screed. Since I doubt that as an American citizen ruben was ever a “domestic volunteer” for military service himself:
“In fact, in a stinging indictment of the quality of the domestic volunteer corps, military recruiters say they expect the temporary immigrants enlisted under the new program to have more education, foreign language ability, and professional experience than many of the Americans who now serve.”
Which recruiters said this ruben? Got any sources? Any names?
Better educated? How so? Did the “military recruiters” give you any data on what types of education?
Foreign language ability? Well gee I hope so, after all they are immigrants ruben.
Professional experience? Like what? Pilots, aircraft, helicopter, diesel, mechanics.
Maybe I can give you a pass on electronics, computers, and obviously linguistics. But I bet they are all doing it for love of country.
And your right illegals need not apply. The US military as a general rule frowns upon lawbreakers, its a personal character thing ruben. It reflects on the quality and personal honor of the recruit.
I am sure some of the immigrants are fine people and will make excellent recruits, the military will sort out the losers. But maybe you could have made that “point” in your screed without dissing our men and women currently in uniform. By the way I served 8 years, USAF. Proud to be a “domestic volunteer”. Oh yea junior, I see by your credentials above that you are a so-called columnist and regular contributer to CNN.com, but you do really excel as a “lecturer”.
Jerk
I wouldn’t want to serve with anyone who didn’t grow up in America. There’s a definite loyalty issue at play. Their heart definitely isn’t even into it. They just join to get citizenship. It’s almost exploitation in my opinion. A lot of these kids don’t belong in the combat zone. I’m not saying some of them wouldn’t make good soldiers. But it would definitely be odd to say the least to join the Marines and see that half the guys there can barely speak English. I’m totally opposed to it.
Two words: “Pennsylvania Dutch”
That wacky old Ben Franklin, what was he thinking anyway?
Non-US citizens serving in the militart may be new, within the last few years, but isn’t new, at all, within the last 40 to 50 years. When I was in the USAF, 1963 to 1971, I knew several enlisted guys who were not citizens – 2 from UK, 1 from Germany, 1 from Brazil, 1 from Chile and even 1 from USSR. Seems like there was some sort of deal, whereby they would be eligible for citizenship once they had an honorable discharge. I don’t know that any of my American born friends had any less confidence in these guys than in anyone else.
“Instead, most of the noise is coming from the right, where a nativist fringe is concerned that these immigrants are still loyal to their home country and not the United States.”
Just one quote, please? A recognizable name, maybe?
Anybody remember the “Lodge act”? If you go back to the 50′s there was a sizable influx of the “foreign born” joining the military (many from eastern europe). Many of the senior NCO’s and officers I had the honor of working with early in my career fit the category. Most of my peers have no problem working with committed people who have language and cultural skills that enable us to reach a level of rapport in many situations that the strictly “homegrown” might not achieve as quickly.
The Military has a history of assimilation that shames most of civilian society in it’s effectiveness and “inclusiveness”. But then again we know that our safety and effectiveness is more do to each of us supporting each other. It’s not like most of society where “s’all about me” seems the mantra.
Nothing to get upset about. This program has been in place for years.
All branches of the Armed services have been able to make their recruitment quotas throughout the War on Terror using native Americans. There has been no increased use of this program to do that.
What has been done is the placing of emphasis on this program to get more foreign language speakers into service. The DoD came to terms in the last few years that training people in Asiatic languages is too difficult to do quickly in numbers. Hence the increased recruitment of foreign language speakers.
The author of the article is simply misinformed.
Ruben, Ruben, Ruben.
How do you get away with writing this crap?
You make unsupported claims, use broad sweeping generalizations and your contempt for the institutions that keep you warm and free and able to continue spitting out this tripe is apparent.
Where are the citations for the “noise coming from the right”. Hey!, but WTF should I know? I was only a “domestic volunteer” not a “journalism graduate”.
I thought all the young liberals would be flooding recruiters’ offices to serve in the army of Obama?
I went through Boot Camp with 2 Canadians and who knows how many foreign born Hispanics in my platoon. I served in the Reserves with many Portuguese immigrants (living in Rhode Island / Southern MA). Never bothered me – this is a nation of immigrants. As long as they are squared away and loyal to their fellow Marines, they are good to go.
Amazing, a foreign-born non-citizen can be in the U.S. military and an America-loving Canadian like myself cannot even APPLY for a green card due to the restricted lottery system. Something is not right here…..
“Instead, most of the noise is coming from the right, where a nativist fringe is concerned that these immigrants are still loyal to their home country and not the United States.”
Just one quote, please? A recognizable name, maybe?”
We should indeed demand names and exact quotes from Ruben Navarrette Jr. Who in hell are these alleged nativists? My only concern about these foreigners is their loyalty to America. However, if they pass a reasonable screening process—then let them into the door. Who is saying anything to the contrary?
I take it Ruben has never cracked open a history book and familiarized himself with the evolution of the Roman Army from a mostly Italian force to a mostly Germanic force. While he has some good points, we must never, ever allow our military to be composed of more than a minority of non-Americans lest we run the risk of, at some point, becoming dependent on non-American warriors the way the Romans were toward the end of their empire in its last 200 years of existence.
Ruben’s fevered imagination never fails to disappoint.
I served with a Canadian in the early 70s. He was irked because the Marine Corps wouldn’t send him to Vietnam. Is there something new here? The only noise is coming from Reuben’s imagination.
I was born here, and I’m sure somebody, somewhere, doesn’t like something about me. My wife was born elsewhere, and the same thing is true about her. As long as we obey the law and pay our taxes, it doesn’t matter what anybody else thinks.
I really need to stop wasting my time with Reuben.
Would imagine I am from “the right” that Rueben de CNN writes about. And I welcome the brave that serve honorably under our flag. Who would possibly make for a better citizen than one who has served in the culture of our military.
Mr. Obama grew up in Hawaii with no understanding of the culture of mainland America while being mentored by the communist Frank Davis who instructed him not to fall into the American dream “propaganda.” We see how well those lessons took with the revealing comment about the people in the heartland “clinging” to guns and religion.
I’d thank every single one of these people serving today. And from what I’ve read about some in Michael Yon’s blog, they will make fine citizens too.
Ruben really needs to do a bit of fact checking — Army recuiting is up not down. As of the beginning of its fiscal year for 2009 recruits for the Army are at 105 % of goal and 112% for reserves. (http://www.militaryconnection.com/news/february-2009/army-recruiting.html) Recruiting has also been high among Special Forces, Chaplains, and Medical specialities. Even CNN is reporting that fact: http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/10/news/economy/military_recruiting/?postversion=2009021013 Though of course they like to spin it as a bad thing…
My father was a 16 year French jew who had barely escaped Vichy Occupied France alive. After two weeks at sea, he arrived in New York and was reunited his American father, who agreed to sign my father’s Naval enlistments papers when he turned 17, a few months later. My father could barely speak English, but he understood that freedom was something that must be defended and he served his new country with pride and diligence.
I don’t bother reading Ruben’s garbage anymore. The facts associated with his blogging are always in the comments section anyway.
This author while constantly fishing for proof that right leaning people are bigots, and intolerant seems to often find himself going home hungry. Questions or concerns about a governments old or new policies is allowed in a Republic, at least this one. It is certainly prudent that non-citizens who wish to enter the military are thoroughly vetted, because it is the duty of the United States Government to protect and serve it’s citizens, yes even it’s soldiers. Allowing a non-citizen soldier to serve alongside a citizen soldier without examining whether they are loyal to the United States is imperative. It’s only right, no pun intended.
Three questions I should question why the US military is recruiting foreign-born immigrants:
1 – Will these foreign-born immigrants recruited and trained by the US military look up, honor and follow the U.S. Constitution to the letter?
2 – Are these foreign-born immigrants intimately familiar with U.S. history, why and how we served and fought to keep the country free?
3 – In case of TSHTF, will these foreign-born immigrants turn their guns on native American citizen-patriots who supports USA 100% or veterans who have served the country in the past?
Well said Rob, #21.
It’s always good to know history if you don’t want to repeat it.
When the Roman Empire fell, 90% of the military was comprised of noncitizens. What did they care when the Visigoths marched on to Rome? Some probably waved and perhaps gave directions.
It wasn’t the wine drinking and orgies that brought down Rome. It was the lack of ownership from those that built it to those that were supposed to protect it.
There is nothing new about accepting foreign enlistees into our armed forces.
I served in army and was stationed in Germany from 1953 to 1955. My battalion had a specialized unit, the “alien enlistment section”. Our job was to interview, screen, and evaluate Eastern Europeans who escaped from their homelands. Those accepted, enlisted in the army for 5 years in order to gain US citizenship.
Frequently, some of these brave individuals had to fight gun battles with communist troops in order to cross boarders. While they went through a prolonged security investigation, we arranged housing and work for them at our army base.
Our enlistees were tough, brave, educated, and highly motivated to escape from the tyranny of communism. Many wee fluent in four to six languages in addition to English. After about 8 months, those approved enlisted and shipped to the States for basic training.
These alien soldiers became stalwart, loyal productive citizens. I am confident that renewal of alien enlistments will provides us with many deserving citizens who volunteer to serve in order to earn citizenship.
And Kevin in OK brings us to Heinlein . . . Those that serve the greater good and sacrifice earn the privilege of the vote, those that don’t still derive all the benefits of the society, they just don’t vote (like 45 to 70% of our population chooses not to depending on the election). The reason most of these immigrants join is they WANT to be Americans, they believe the dream and want to realize it. What Kevin, Blackwater and others fail to understand from the lesson of Rome is it was not the Legions that caused the collapse, it was the lack of coherent leadership. The Eastern Empire survived another 600+ years shrinking and finally falling not because only of the strength of an Islamic force that was (unlike now) dynamic, but mainly because of the rot from within. Belasarius was not a Latin, or Roman, his family came from the provinces now Slavic in nature. He was one of the greatest Generals the Empire ever produced (and one of Liddle-Hart’s “Great Captains). It is not our origin that defines us, it is our belief in the dream. Obviously some believe this dream is only for the “native born”. I’m not an “open borders, anything goes” guy, but I believe in the assimilation of those who want to help “build that dream”.
The writer is, at best, misinformed, and at worst, deliberately distorting the facts. The military has been able to maintain its recruit levels for combat troops in all services, the only problems have been in getting enough support (maintenance, technical, and clerical) troops.
There have been programs for foreign-born recruits for a long time, and if you take a look around the net, you can see the news reports of mass naturalization ceremonies (especially in Iraq) for the last several years.
I served with immigrants from several nations, and never knew anyone who had problems with any of them.
#’s 15 , 22, & 24. You beat me to it (your comments about the Roman Empire). There is a real risk to recruiting the foreign born, but there are some great rewards, too. America is all about accepting new immigrants. We are not a nationality, so much as an ideal.
I resent this article. Our military knows what they’re doing. It is ignorant not to recognize how this could be exploited, nor to face other realities. This is just the usual liberal playing of the race card. Right-wing racists! Bigots! Such a screed always comes from the most racist of individuals. Hey, Ruben, perhaps you could scream “Racist!” a little louder.
As per normal Ruben Navarrette Jr. tries his best to project his racist left wing agenda onto everyone else. The army has a very long history of recruiting non-US citizens to join its ranks. Some of the best soldiers came would flee from places like poland and other USSR “states” and would come to the US for the sole purpose of fighting against the USSR and hoping for freedom for their home countries.
This is classic racism and “sending all the poor blacks/insert other non-white race” to die in battle for the “white MAN”.
What ruben really fears about this is the fact that the army is going to be bringing in patriots and its going to be harder and harder for him to create strawmen about the US mil to further his goals.
Most posters here that are opposed to the recruitment of non-US citizens mention loyalty as one reason. I myself joined the Air Force in the 80s when I barely arrived in this country in 1977. I was a permanent resident at the time, and I took the oath when I was inducted in the service. I don’t see any reason not to allow anyone in this country who is willing and is fully qualified to serve in the US military. This what makes America great.
Another poster here questions the capability of a potential recruit to speak English properly to be allowed to join. The military administers the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery test to ensure each recruit is the right candidate for service. I did read somewhere that the Army just lowered the score to include more recruits.
I do have an issue with the writer of this article to question the education of native-born citizens in the military. This is the mantra of the left that always mentions that only the poor serve in the military. An article in the Heritage Foundation refutes many of the lies the left put out about the demographics of the miliary.
This brings to a boil the distrust and outright disrespect I (not saying this is a popular opinion amongst service-members) have for many civilian “institutions” The Military assimilates, builds teams and executes missions in the worst of conditions (and often t great risk to every individual involved), in the civilian world? You categorize, you file lives into a diversity matrix and claim some higher morality based upon that . . . We live (in the Military) in a society that is largely colorblind and culturally accepting, for many of you (about us) . . . it comes down to “who would deal with such discomfort and lack of privacy” and “they discriminate against Gays, Women, etc”. Meantime you practice obvious biases based upon race, gender, ethnicity, lack of social/political “correctness” etc. We bring all to the table if they play by the rules, you bend the rules based on spurious commitments to “diversity”. We live and die by our word and commitment, for most of you commitment is directly related to convenience. So most of us could care less about the national origin of someone who wants to become part of “us” so long as they believe in the dream, for many of you it comes down to seizing an opportunity to diminish us. Blackhawk (if he was ever military) learned the wrong lesson, I hope the majority reading this don’t believe that we feel as he does . . . we don’t. Some of the best Soldiers and Marines I have worked with come from places like Russia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Greece, England, The Phillippines, Australia, Mexico, etc.
SALTHERRING
#10
Once again well said, brother. We seem to share identical viewpoints vis-a-vis tne Annointed One.
Keep up your excellent commentary.
What a waste of five good minutes reading this article was.
I wonder if the Daily Kos is posting Rush Limbaugh’s views.
Has the “Fairness Doctrine” been enacted while I was asleep?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzz
What happens when the foreign enlistees get the orders to shoot Americans? Where exactly does it say in the Constitution that this is a nation of immigrants? Does anyone here understand the meaning of the word sabotage?
When the U.S. military becomes the U.N. military, I will cease to support it.
“Most posters here that are opposed to the recruitment of non-US citizens mention loyalty as one reason.”
Most posters? Am I missing something? The poster “Blackwater” seems to be the only one fitting this description. I merely desire a thorough and non-politically correct investigation of the individual’s background and values. Nothing more.
The French have done it for about a century. It’s called the Foreign Legion.
Rueben – I was subjected to your literary diahrea in my hometown paper and now I have to read your drivel on this site too. What a shame. You are a uninformed bigot, like many of the babbling teens that I teach who see racism as the excuse for all of their failings in life. Did not study and failed a test, must be racism. Did not go to class for an entire semester and failed, must be racism. Got cut from a team, must be racism. Suspended for selling weed, must be racism. When I request proof that someone is racist, the conversation usually ends because they realize they have no leg to stand on. Rueben, it takes facts to prove a thesis and, as usual, you are lacking in this department.
Recruiting is up, way up. So much so that one of my former students who aspired to become a SEAL was allowed to delist(?) because his eyesite was found to be less than 20/20. in addition he could not enter boot camp for nearly a year due to the swelling numbers of enlistees. You name no people, yet claim THOSE people on the Right are resisting attempts to increase the numbers in our military. Facts, boy, facts. They used to be a necessary tool for any good journalist.
There are two funny things in the comments section of this article. The article itself is neither funny, original, or that good.
First is the fact that many people have commented that they worry about the loyalty of non-citizen soldiers and talk of the fall of Rome while others here are wondering who the right-wingers who oppose this are.
But the real joke is that comment #1 is so barely literate that it only shows why the US might need soldiers who are better educated than Americans.
It is important to remember that the Goths in the Roman army (not Germans-Germany is a modern idea) bought the Roman empire many hundreds of years of more time. Bellisarius fought the Persians, the Vandals, and the Visigoths with gothic cavalry. Odoacer who took control of the Western Empire from Romulus Augustus was a general of the Empire, with his own Foederati soldiers. The final fall of the Empire was in 1453, some 1000 years after the Goths became a majority in the Roman army. Alas the Turks were also a Foederati, but converted to Islam to gain the benefit of LOWER TAXES.
I, too, take issue with Ruben’s statement about the unspecified “nativist right” complaining about this policy. Who has complained? Where and when?
I have justifiable concerns about the levels of immigration, legal and otherwise, as it does undermine loyalty to America, understanding of our history, and overall cohesion as a society when so many arrive so quickly. They have no time and no motivation to assimilate anymore. That’s a different issue than this.
But I have no problem with ANYONE who comes here legally, assimilates into American culture and gives faith and fealty to the USA, as millions of immigrants have before. If an immigrant is willing to put his or her life on the line fighting for America, then they truly are Americans. Maybe more so than many native-born, since they will have paid the cost of freedom for us all.
All you people supporting this should consider a scenario: Imagine you’re in an Apache attack helicopter. Would you want your wingman to be fresh off the boat from Brazil? What happens when you get in an intense combat situation and in a panic he starts warning you about an incoming RPG in his native Portuguse? Basic communication and trust are essential to protecting soldiers lives. Enough with this idealism crap. The military isn’t an immigration office.
#38 azpatriot: “I, too, take issue with Ruben’s statement about the unspecified ‘nativist right’ complaining about this policy. Who has complained? Where and when?”
#38 azpatriot, meet #39 Blackwater.
In a slightly more serious note, during the two World Wars in the 20th Century many Americans came north to Canada to join the Canadian Army because the US was several years late entering those wars. We had no trouble recruiting them. Also during the war in Vietnam some Canadians joined the US Army. Nobody thought anything was wrong in either case.
Just reading the comments here I have seen the nativist objections to this policy. There are those who question the loyalty of foreign soldiers. There are also those who worry that foreign soldiers won’t be able to speak American.
During the Vietnam war a great many young men, notably the sons of wealthy men, did everything they could to avoid combat. If an immigrant is willing to risk taking a bullet for his new country he is a better patriot than any “chicken hawk”.
Just remember, when America’s enemies are firing on the US military, they won’t be asking which soldiers have their citizenship papers.
As to the language question, it’s true that the US and Canada speak the same language (mostly), but during World War Two some of the bravest soldiers in the British Army were Polish soldiers who escaped Poland after the Nazis conquered it. They learned English quickly and they weren’t angling for British citizenship, they were doing what they felt was right. I never heard of a case where a Free Pole used the wrong language at the wrong time.
Most of the posters failed this real comprehension quiz: US soldiers, whether they are born in the US or in another country, would still follow orders pass down through the chain of command, straight from the President of the US.
Consider the fact that we have a latent Marxist in Obama as President, he would have no qualm or crisis of conscience in ordering the US military to shoot or arrest citizen-patriots who actually support the US Constitution and care about what America is really all about.
All of that talk about “remaking” America, which Obama has been espousing isn’t just rhetoric, he is dead serious about remaking America to something you WILL NOT LIKE. Already, the markets are responding very negatively to Obama’s stimulus spending and so forth. This is a pure indication that most Americans won’t stand for that kind of thing and the tarnishing of the American Dream as we know it.
And yet, the US military is required to follow the orders of the U.S. President. The question whether it would be lawful or unlawful is up to the officers and the soldiers on the field, leave the politics to the politicians and the idealism/social issues to the pundits. *sigh*
Who, exactly, on the “far right” is upset?
Uncle Scam (the liberal plutocracy,the poverty pimps,and their corrupt military enforcers )wants to import foreign mercenaries for the purposes os staging a gradual coup against euro americans.That’s what this is ultimately about;too many euro americans, and naturalized ethnics in the military;they can’t be trusted to reliably terrorize their fellow citizens in the cause of globalizing away their freedom;let’s get outsiders who will.These globalist Hessians will become the minions of the liberal police state,with Navarrete as their grinning, imbecilic,cheerleader.
As usual, Mr Navarette invents some animosity on the right and rides it into fantasy land. I have never seen any opposition to foreign born recruits anywhere on the right. There is, and I think rightfully so, some suspicion of granting high security clearances without proper vetting. But only on the left is there any criticism of people seeking citizenship through military service. Ruben and his friends aren’t worried about these recruits, after all they’re legal immigrants. They’re already here and going to stay. What he wants is to distract from the illegal immigrant situation.
We need legal immigrants, we don’t need illegals. And no amount of hocus pocus is going to change that.
#44 Ken Hahn.
If you want to see some opposition to foreign born recruits on the right you might look directly above your comment to #43 deguello.
My goodness, does anyone read the comments besides me?
If a man is willing to die for my country, I am proud to call him my fellow citizen.
Those that do the least always complain the most. If you want to make that service to a greater good mean something more than “useless” sacrifice to the majority then there has to be a rationale beyond a paycheck. That rationale should be the vote, with national service you have it, without, you don’t (just pay your taxes and live your life as you wish to). The reason we are in the position we are is that most place no value on their freedom and free will, they place a much higher value on benefits and comfort (the “what have you done for me today” mindset). Mr Navarette and the complainers in this thread fill that last category. It must be tough to just be along for the ride.
To 45 Northern Light…
43 is hardly right wing… he’s just nuts and much of what his posted is really left wing talking point similar to rubens own talking point.
#45 Northern Light : Having been a” foreign -born recruit”myself, I have no opposition whatever,to legal immigrants who are fully naturalized ,serving in the military,but this is not what navarrette, the left, and the globalists want. Read my post more carefully next time.
Robotech master #48. Left Wing talking points? I oppose illegal immigration,re-imposition of the “fairness” doctrine;globalization,and governmental control by a camarilla of leftwing plutocrats(Soros ,Gates,Hollywood,et al),and their Hugo Chavez Wannabee puppet,while supporting the second amendment,and you call me nuts and left wing? You should rename yourself master of confusion.
If Uncle Sam Wants A Few Good Immigrants, then why doesn’t Uncle Sam want my friend?
He is a professor of Chemistry, his education, foreign language ability, and professional experience are tremendous, he is scrupulously honest. The only problem: he is Russian, and he is outside te U.S.
He is 48 years old, and wouldn’t be of much use on a battlefield, but in some office – that’s another story.
How about it, Uncle Sam?
What a beat-up.
You’re a jerk, Ruben.
Bob Murphy
As a survey I read through the comments on the New York Times article, there are more comments complaining about the program from the left as it looks to me, as well as a couple from those who are from other countries.
The program is explained more realisticly in the NY Times article, and targets specifically a few higly trained fields and those that speak specific foreign languages. The intent does not sound like it is to put them in as cannon fodder.
Navarrette’s writing style often takes his arguments from reality to his own extreme view of how things are. The wrong of this is that sometime he does raise valid questions, he just doesn’t give his audience the credit of reading through anything without an extreme point of view.
Thank you for pointing to the aritcle in the New York Times. Perhaps I am what you call the “right” though I am an independent, I am sure I fit the description in some ways. The program seems to be a benefit to both the US and the immigrants who are visiting here, lets hope it is, since that is the purpose of immigration.
If it came down to Civil War, the overwhelming majority of the military will come down on the side of the Constitution. Rest assured, our officers are loyal to the Constitution, and our enlisted corps isn’t stupid.
As for foreign born individuals joining the US military, I support it. I do, however, believe that all officers should be natural born citizens or Medal of Honor awardees (we could extend this to Service Crosses as well). Foreign nationals and naturalized citizens should be allowed to enlist, and they should even be able to become warrant officers, but I oppose commissioning them unless they are prior enlisted heroes who earned, at the very least, a Service Cross.
Hogwash. This has been going on for decades. For example, hundreds of thousands of Filipinos joined the US military straight from the Philippines, including my father who enlisted in the Navy in the late ’50s from a US base in the Philippines.
It is true that a lot of the legal immigrants who joined the US military, especially from the Philippines, are educated and even have professions in their home country. My father was a Navigation graduate and was an officer in the Philippine Merchant Marines, but because he wasn’t a US citizen, he could not get a commission when he enlisted in the US Navy. So, for his 1st years in the Navy, he was a steward in the messhalls, preparing and serving food for the all-white Navy officers on ships. He proudly served in Vietnam, on ships and patrol boats along the deadly Mekong Delta, and is now 100% disabled from Agent Orange. He didn’t get US citizenship until after he came back from his final tour in Vietnam in 1972.
A friend of mine married a Filipino surgeon who came to the US after marrying her. Although an experienced doctor, he enlisted in the Army because he also could not get a commission unless he was a US citizen. Once he got his citizenship through naturalization, he became a doctor and commissioned officer in the US Army. I saw them a few years ago in Germany, where he held the rank of Major and was a surgeon once again.
Here are a couple of pictures of early Filipinos serving in the US military:
http://filam.si.edu/curriculum/u3-part-06.html
http://filam.si.edu/curriculum/u3-part-06a.html