Get PJ Media on your Apple

Rule of Law

Exploiting Illegal Immigrants, Army Style

May 27th, 2014 - 7:57 am

The Vietnam-era “Fortunate Son” narrative has come full circle: now Democrats like Congressman Gutierrez seek to fill the military with the uneducated, the poor, and the marginalized. He wants them to leave the shadows and go to boot camp. How can Congressman Luis Gutierrez, who champions having “a sense of solidarity with the undocumented,” exploit illegals in a way even the most wicked hotel or restaurant never could?

If Congressman Luis Gutierrez really feels a “human connection” to young men like Jose Gutierrez, recruiting them to the enlisted ranks of the military seems an odd way to show it.

To be clear, service in the armed forces isn’t something to be scorned or mocked as was so common during the Vietnam era. But those who still think the military preys on poor underprivileged minorities now have at least one example where it might be true, thanks to Congressman Luis Gutierrez.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
The purpose of having illegals in the military is to make the military more loyal to the government that pays it than to the people of the US. Its basically a mercenary army, if it is all or mostly illegals.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (32)
All Comments   (32)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Weird that the author brings up "fortunate son" as an argument against citizenship for undocumented (or illegal, whatever) aliens serving honorably in the US military. That "fortunate son" charge sprang entirely from the draft, i.e., involuntary military service ... which we haven't used since the end of the Viet Nam War.

We're much more indebted as a nation to the men and women who are foreign nationals, and who serve honorably and well in our military defending our nation, than we are to many tens of millions of non-serving citizens who only have had the lucky benefit of an American birthplace.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
DT - you might have overlooked the part of the piece that relates to a current narrative: "still pushed by the left". The article wasn't about whether citizenship grants to aliens was good or bad. The article was about how ironic it was given that the narrative left over from Vietnam (draft or no draft) was that the poor underprivileged people of color make up a disproportionate share of those sent off to war. if you were unaware of that narrative you can be forgiven as well as envied for not being subject to it. Nobody was criticizing the service of anyone. And to other points raised in the comments - it has NOT always been the case that illegal aliens who serve can get their family members citizenship. Charlie Martin and others must have missed that important distinction. Giving citizenship to aliens who serve is one thing. Giving citizenship to an illegal alien sister or uncle to an illegal alien servicemember is quite another.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
No "Fortunate Sons" on the battlefield? How about the officers that led us? Most all of them were college educated and many came from very well off families. Many of the Reservists called up had at least some College ed. and they were fighting right along side us. I don't know, don't care, how many illegal aliens were there beside me. All we cared about was if they did their jobs.

I was not a combat Marine, I was a radio repairman which took at least a high school education. (Didn't stop me from getting shot at a time or two) I served in Vietnam in 1969. We did not have Black Marines or White Marines or any other color besides Green and we were all Americans. I served with a man whose parents escaped from Cuba, another was from Mexico, another an American Indian. We, of course had Black Americans working beside us but I don't think any of them were less than three generations away from whatever country their Forefathers came from. We were friends, we were comrades and any of us would have put our lives on the line to protect the others.

If you have never been in a place like that please don't tell me you wouldn't support a man for citizenship that stood beside you in a time of war.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
VERY well-said, sir.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
Oh jeez, serving in the military has been a route to citizenship for a long time. And what better?
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
Charlie, you missed the part about extending citizenship to the illegal alien kin of illegal alien service members. That route hasn't been a route to citizenship.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
Damned Skippy. If there's anything that demonstrates that you give a Rat's Ass about this place, that'd be it.

"You know, this is a dangerous business" -- Anonymous soldier, Spanish Civil War
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
Four decades ago when I was in the Navy, about 1/5 of the entire US Navy was made up of Filipino nationals. Some stayed on after retirement and got green cards and eventual citizenship, while others took their military retirement pay back home with them to the Philippines. They served as well as anybody, as far as I could tell.

Go to any US West Coast Navy town and there will be a large ex-pat Filipino community, nearly all ex-Navymen and their families and descendants.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
I see. In 1974 "about 1/5 of the entire US Navy was made up of Filipino nationals." That's an amazing statistic. In 1974, 556,528 were in the US Navy. That means about 111,305 sailors were Filipino nationals. Just amazing.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
As one who served in the US Navy at the time, that was what I observed amongst my shipmates and others on other ships and bases at the time in the Pacific naval bases and ships.

Our largest overseas naval base in the 1970s was at Subic Bay, not far from Manilla. That is where most of our Filipino sailors were recruited.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
See my reply to yam below for the numbers.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
The number seems to have peaked at just above 2,000.

But have had some interesting arrangements with the Philippines: http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/filipinos.htm
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
Actually, yam thanks for the citation but I think you misread the report a bit. There were two tables in the 1976 report, one showing annual enlistment numbers, which appears to be what you referred to in your comment ... but actually your cited number is wrong .. the highest annual enlistment total was over 5,500.

Given that most Filipinos sought and served full careers (20+years) in the US Navy, their actual numbers in the ranks were much higher than indicated in the tables, which refer only to Filipino nationals and does not included naturalized US citizens of Filipino birth or descent. Most of us in the Navy in the 1970s were not career Navymen - or "lifers" in military slang - but rather served minimum 4 or 6 year enlistments and went back to the "real world" as we called it. So total Filipino national membership was much higher than the annual enlistments might suggest.

The "Tab B" table in the 1976 report you cited shows a total Filipino national number in the ranks of just under 17,000 in 1976. However, even that number significantly understates the numbers of Filipino nationals who served at that time, since a fairly large proportion of Filipino career navymen sought and achieved US citizenship, meaning their numbers drop out of the table which reports only non-citizen Filipino nationals. Also many of the Filipino nationals in the Navy were family men and many of their children also enlisted in the Navy as first generation US Citizens.

Given my experience of serving only in Pacific-based ships (out of Pearl Harbor, San Diego, and Bremerton), which (naturally) is where most of the Filipinos served (so that they could visit home from time to time on Pacific deployments), that is where I came up with the figure of about 1/5 of our members being Filipinos. I overstated the numbers of Filipinos in terms of the entire Naval membership covering both Atlantic Fleet and Pacific Fleet.

I didn't conduct a study - I was just a sailor, remarking on my observations as a sailor.

But apparently J. Christian Adams is so much more knowledgeable than I, being as he is a lifetime civilian, attorney, and that he was about 6 years old when I was serving in the Pacific.

26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
...the highest annual enlistment total was over 5,500

I took that to be a cumulative figure but I don't know. The link in my second reply more supports your numbers if that site is reliable.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
But then, there may have been some high numbers by 1992 when the arrangement apparently ended: http://philusnavy.tripod.com/
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
Not for illegal aliens.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
Once they enter US military service, they are no longer "illegal". They have "documents" as non-US citizens.

By definition.

And as Charlie states above, this is nothing new.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
What better, Charlie? So every mercenary we hire should receive full citizenship, whether they entered the country legally or illegally? I like you a lot, Charlie, but I disagree. Legally is way better.

I also believe that the fewer the mercenaries the better.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
I disagree....those are people who want to be citizens so badly they will risk their lives in the military to do so. They will most likely be good citizens, especially after the military gets through with them.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
How about granting citizenship to all the Phillipino's who served in the Navy, took the same risks of hitting mines, dying or getting injured on the flight deck/well deck/in engineering etc. as the US citizens they served with. You know, the folks who were around during the last amnesty (supposedly the final one), legally serving our country who were denied citizenship while folks who could produce evidence (by any means-- wink, wink, nudge, nudge) they'd successfully violated the laws for 7 years were made citizens.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
J Christian,

One thing I learned from this article is that you know very little about those who serve in the US military and put their lives on the line to protect you and your loved ones. This leaps out because you refer to Marine LCpl Gutierrez as a "soldier". While soldier is a proud title it is used to designate members of the U.S. Army. Marines are very clear that they refer to themselves as "marines". Another clue is that the rank, "lance corporal" is unique to the USMC.

More importantly, you also display very little knowledge about the motivations of those who serve. The reality is that most enlist and re-enlist for a several reasons including securing the economic welfare of themselves and their families and a sense of adventure ("... see the world"), as well as patriotism. Of course we don't know the mixture of motives of LCpl Gutierrez. But we do know that there are safer and more comfortable ways he could have served in the military which would still have yielded the same emigration benefits. Instead, he volunteered to serve as a marine, likely in combat arms or combat support. The fact that LCpl Gutierrez choose to serve in the marines at the "tip of the spear" testifies to his honor and patriotism.

Before you offer and further speculation on what you refer to as the "true goal" of dead heroes please feel free to enlighten your readers with your own record of service since your country was attacked on 9-11. Perhaps you were too old to serve in uniform (although I am sure that the enlistment age ceiling was raised to 40 for a while circa 2005/2006) but there were was a big demand for civilian attorneys such as you to volunteer for a tour as an embedded civilian attorney-advisor with DoD, DoS, DoJ in Iraq or Afghanistan working on missions such as rule of law, counter-corruption, counter-insurgent finance, etc. I'm familiar with some of those folks and their work While it was not the infantry, it was often uncomfortable and dangerous and they served with honor and patriotism.

Thank you Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez, USMC, for your heroic service to the United States of America.



26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
The "soldiers" nit is picked. One of the more annoying of the nits. Writing a piece that says, solider, marines, sailors, and airmen doesn't usually work so well. So an edit is made that wipes out any branch recognition. The Republic is safe.

And new MarchH, I think you got stuck on soldier, the article is about someone unrelated to the motivations of those who serve. It's about a narrative 50 years old that is feeding on itself, thanks to Rep. Gutierrez. See Empire Sentry, below.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
To those that serve or served it's not a "nit". There is a vast difference between all the services and their members, all of whom are rightfully proud of who and what they are. It's not that hard to come up with a pronoun to refer to them all as a group. Maybe service members, GI's, something else.

Sir, I honor your service in the Justice Department, and even more so the service you've provided since leaving the DOJ, please accord us former and current service members the same respect.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
New MarcH is a lot more coherent with his response than you were in your original post or your response to him.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
Thank you for your service, March. I must say that is a very nice looking saddle there on your high horse. I hear Marines called soldiers quite often, especially in the media. I guess you could spend most of your free time calling out this common error.

This is related to the error of calling "Special Operations," with members of many branches, "Special Forces," which is strictly an Army group. I have made such corrections myself in various places using the comments section of blogs. I have even sometimes used a mocking tone to do it. However, I don't recall that I have ever questioned the patriotism or service of a man who has done and does everyday work to improve our country's politics. Such a man is J.C. Adams
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
Which doesn't make him always right. See my note above. I honor his efforts very much...he's one of the one's fighting the good fight. But when he's wrong he deserves to know so he can make it right and be right thereafter. He's demonstrated a desire to make things right so I believe he'd make a good faith effort when an error has been pointed out to him.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
new MarcH,
I do not know if you missed the point of the article because you went radar focus on one item that means little without the main point....or, if you seriously have a lack of understanding of any history.

With that in mind, let me add some detail. In the 1960's, minorities demanded to be enlisted at higher numbers. They felt they were not participating and had been blocked from great benefits and opportunity. In response, minorities were recruited at higher number while a percentage of the white population stayed home in college or whatever.

As a result, minorities suffered death and losses at higher percentage of participation. Never mind they demanded to participate at higher % or that they were required to under law. This was called racist.

Now it will be repeated. Worse, you overlook the VERY thing you pointed out and then wave a flag over it: that persons who sacrifice the greatest thing will NOT get what they seeked nor will his family...as in the case of Gutierrez.


26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
You completely missed new MarcH's point, and then you spout off on "history" citing some unsupported and inane points about what "minorities demanded".

There was not a significant difference between the black membership in the US military during the Viet Nam War (about 12.6%) compared to the black population of the USA (about 11%). Most of whatever difference there was reflected the fact that few blacks attended college and college deferment was the principal means used to avoid the draft. There was no big social movement or social experiment or anything going on that ratcheted up black enlistments or black draftees. So much for your historical prowess.

new MarcH's point - that you clearly don't get - was that in military service, warfare, especially battle, race and national origin mean next to nothing to the warrior.

I served on nuke submarines in the mid-70s chasing Ruskie nuke missile boats under the ocean, with crew members from all over the US and several foreign nations. We had white, black, Chicano (including illegal immigrants from Mexico), and Filipinos. If a guy did his job and could be relied on not to hurt or kill his shipmates, or cause unnecessary BS to fall on his shipmates, that was all that anybody cared about.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
Isn't this what eventually became of the ancient Roman army, and caused the radical cheapening of the value of Roman citizenship?
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
Great catch, Christian. Every peacenik in the States in the late 60s and early 70s was wailing about the poor minority "kids" being shot at in the military, and then running off to Canada when the draft started to zero in on them.

And cortez pegged it. Gutierrez wants more mercenaries in the military. Every American knowledgeable about history and the military wants few if any.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
This is nothing more than another progressive plan to weaken our military.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
The purpose of having illegals in the military is to make the military more loyal to the government that pays it than to the people of the US. Its basically a mercenary army, if it is all or mostly illegals.
26 weeks ago
26 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All