Posted on 04/27/2008 2:00:26 AM PDT by Antonio C
CLEARWATER — This month's death of Army Spc. Arturo Huerta-Cruz in Iraq cast a spotlight on troops serving in the U.S. military who are not American citizens.
Huerta-Cruz, 23, was born in a small town in rural Mexico and moved to Clearwater with his family when he was 10. He was a legal permanent resident, or a "green card" soldier.
That made him an exception. Noncitizens account for about 5 percent of the troops in all the branches of the U.S. military. Noncitizens now must have green cards to enlist.
But as the nation fights wars on two fronts, some wonder whether the military should recruit more heavily among immigrants here — even undocumented ones — as well as foreigners in their own countries.
Yes, say some intellectuals at Washington, D.C., think tanks.
"Those of us who support recruiting foreigners believe they are often very skilled, motivated, and in the great American tradition of immigration," Michael O'Hanlon, a Brookings Institution senior fellow on foreign policy said in an e-mail.
The "Dream Act" bill that failed in Congress last year would have done more than legalize undocumented high school students who aspire to college. It also would have given green cards to undocumented high school students who served in the military.
Such students "are well educated, they are not troublemakers, they are bilingual," said Jorge Mariscal, a professor of Latino studies at the University of California, San Diego.
"The military wants to get their hands on those folks," added Mariscal, a Vietnam veteran.
The nonprofit CNA Corp. based in Virginia has recommended mining the legal immigrant community more heavily for military recruits.
"One overlooked source of military manpower is immigrants and their families," according to a 2005 report by CNA, which advises public employers on issues ranging from national security to international affairs.
"In fact," the organization concluded, "much of the growth in the recruitment-eligible population will come from immigration."
• • •
Along with immigrant groups who have fought for the United States — Irish-Americans in the Civil War, for example — noncitizens also have enlisted since the Revolutionary War.
Green card soldiers have received widespread publicity during the Iraq war because some of the first casualties were Latin-American immigrants.
One was Lance Cpl. Jose Antonio Gutierrez, 22, from Southern California.
Gutierrez was an orphan in Guatemala. Fleeing poverty, he came to the United States illegally. In Southern California, he entered the foster care system and got a green card.
He joined the Marines.
He was killed on March 21, 2003, by enemy fire as American troops tried to secure Umm Qasr. A movie about him, The Short Life of Jose Antonio Gutierrez, was released last year.
After the war started, President Bush signed an executive order allowing immigrants in the military to apply for citizenship immediately. Congress followed with legislation that shortened the time that immigrants in the military have to wait during peacetime to apply for citizenship, from three years to one year.
As of February, there were 20,326 immigrants in active duty in all branches of the military. Another 13,151 were in the Reserves.
• • •
It's a small slice of the military, but CNA recommends that the armed forces should target more legal immigrants as recruits.
The foreign-born population in the United States at the time of the CNA report — 12 percent — was at least twice as high as their representation in the military.
Also, a third of the world's population is younger than 15, and many of those young people will make their way to the United States, where some will become legal residents.
For the military, the linguistic and cultural diversity of noncitizens are especially valuable, the CNA authors said.
They add that many immigrants are interested in the expedited process for citizenship that enlisted immigrants receive.
Meanwhile, O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution and Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Max Boot have called for a "new chapter in the annals of American immigration."
Their proposal: give foreigners recruited from other countries as well as those already here citizenship after four years of military service. That, they believe, could create a path toward assimilation for undocumented immigrants without green cards. Besides, they note, the military already relaxed age and other restrictions, including those accepting enlistees with criminal records, to meet recruiting goals.
"The idea of offering citizenship to foreigners who first join the armed forces should be a winner for everyone," they wrote in the Washington Post in 2006. "It is good for immigrants. … It is good for a beleaguered American military that is simply too small for the tasks it has been handed."
• • •
Not surprisingly, others oppose the idea of increasing the number of noncitizens fighting for American ideals.
The military would become a low-wage occupation like other industries now dominated by immigrants, warns Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors more restrictive immigration policies.
"If enlisting were a way to get legalized or a way to get into the United States," Krikorian said, "soldiering would become a job Americans would not do very rapidly."
Some in the Hispanic community, already weary of recruitment among its youths, agree.
Said Mariscal: "It would be another example of the exploitation of cheap labor."
Even now, American citizenship is not guaranteed for immigrant serving in the military, Mariscal said. Meanwhile, some countries strip their nationals of citizenship if they serve in foreign militaries.
"Those people who did it would have no country," Mariscal said.
In Clearwater, Huerta-Cruz — one of 144 immigrants who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 — was buried Tuesday.
Calvary Catholic Cemetery on U.S. 19 is his final resting place.
And one day, the United States could become his home country.
That's because Army officials have said they will seek posthumous citizenship for Huerta-Cruz.
Right out of the ancient Roman playbook; Rome was well on its way to falling when it began to rely heavily on non-citizen soldiers.
Our army going the way of Rome with the legions made up of foreign mercenaries ?????????????
Isn't that known as a mercenary?
Here we go again! All "immigrants" are NOT illegal and ALL immigrants are NOT Latino (as some on this thread seem to believe). I have a (now) 21 year old step son who has taken (and passed) the entrance exam for the U.S. Army. He is not allowed to enlist even though is is a LEGAL immigrant, he does not have the green card he applied for 3 years ago. He is Russian! He was told that his application would be processed in about 3 months. It has now been 3 years ans is still counting.
The system is broken! There is no reason why he should not be allowed to enlist. He has been cleared by a FBI background check that was done before he was allowed to immigrate. He has been legally in this country for over 3 years and hasn't blown anything up in that time. He has nothing illegal to prevent him from becoming a permanent resident (and citizen) since entering this country.
So, allowing immigrants (LEGAL immigrants) to enlist regardless of their "permanent residence" status seems perfectly o.k. to me! Once they voluntarily raise their hand an swear allegiance to the U.S. thereby putting themselves under the rules and regulations of the U.S. military, there is absolutely no reason they should not be allowed to serve in our military.
More MSM propaganda for the Dream Act and stealth amnesty. We don’t need mercenaries to fight for our country.
Lousy Headline and premise. DoD already heavily recruits foreign born, non-American citizens and has for quite some time. This makes it sound like there should be some breakthrough from an oppression that doesn’t exist.
We are not France. We don't need or want military service to be the vehicle for amnesty. It demeans those who currently serve or have served. As a veteran, I find your suggestion offensive.
American citizens are going to volunteer to serve in units full of illegal aliens? Right. Why don’t we make them gay illegal aliens and go all the way?
There a so many holes in this line of thinking that it makes cheesecloth appear impermeable. Talk about a slippery slope.
Oh yeah, that’s the ticket. Let’s hire mercenaries, Goths, Vandals and any other trash to patrol the empire for us. Seems to me I’ve read that story before.
Hand me another grape, won’t you?
He must have a green card [legal permanent resident] before he can be accepted by the Army. It does take more than three years to get a green card under many circumstances. Your son may be a LEGAL immigrant, but he is not a legal PERMANENT resident. He can't obtain a SS number until he becomes a LPR.
"Some intellectuals." Jeeze, not even a consensus as in "global warming."
How do these idiots manage to make a living. Oh, yeah, grants by equally "intellectual" agenda driven rich idiots.
WRONG!
He has had a LEGAL SS# since the time he legally immigrated over three years ago. All you have to have is a legally recognized "A" number (visa) to get the SS department to issue a card. It states "employment not authorized without proper documentation" on the face of the card. Proper documentation is a "work permit" which is purchased (now $340.00 year) through USCIS. He has has that work permit ever since he arrived here in the U.S. A legal immigrant can get that work permit the day after arriving on U.S. soil.
So, he can legally work for (and pay taxes and even get his "rebate" check) any company in the U.S. EXCEPT the U.S. gov't! Like I said - broken system!
> We are not France. We don’t need or want military service to be the vehicle for amnesty. It demeans those who currently serve or have served. As a veteran, I find your suggestion offensive.
Then as a Veteran you have a very thin skin and should probably toughen up as you are far too easily offended.
The French Foreign Legion model works extremely well and has withstood the test of time. If the suggestion is to recruit foreigners into your armed forces (which is, after all, the subject of this thread) then their model would be a good mechanism to adopt.
This wouldn’t be the first time America had help from France on matters military — just ask the Marquis de Lafayette.
Hand me another grape, won’t you?
I understand your thinking, but my opinion is that anyone who is willing to fight and possibly die for his new country has earned the right to citizenship.
This does not demean the contributions of natural-born citizens who enlist, but it certainly demonstrates the loyalty of those who choose to serve.
We have plenty of homegrown welfare drones with no patriotism. I would much rather live & work next to a man who earned his citizenship, than someone who spent his life learning Jeremiah Wright's treasonous poison.
I will bet you that after they separate from the service, there is no talk of Aztlan, MEChA, or going on welfare from these newly-minted citizen veterans. These are the kind of good solid contributors to our nation we need.
BTW, the Roman civilization you are so disparaging about lasted millennia. I have always learned that one of the reasons for this great success was their practice of granting citizenship to veterans. This summer, the USA will be 232 years old, at best. Get back to me in a thousand years or so and lets do a comparison of longevity of countries...
> Our army going the way of Rome with the legions made up of foreign mercenaries ?????????????
That’s hysterical. France has done just fine with its Foreign Legion, for just about as long as there has been an America.
Rome fell for many other reasons aside from their foreign troops.
> Isn’t that known as a mercenary?
No. A mercenary is an irregular, who fights on contract under officers of his own choosing. That is not the proposition being put here.
> We don’t need mercenaries to fight for our country.
It is not the proposition of this thread to have “mercenaries” fighting for your country.
(BTW: you already do employ mercenaries, in Iraq.)
You are advocating a mercenary army. Such an army has allegiance only to the highest bidder. Recruiting illegals for our military means they are just that: mercenaries. And mercenaries are very bribable. I don’t know about you, but I am not comfortable with a mercenary having access to sensitive security information who can be easily flipped with an offer of cash. No thanks. I want a military whose allegiance and loyalty is to the United States, not to a currency.
> You are advocating a mercenary army.
No, a Mercenary army fights on contract for employers and officers of their own choosing. That is not the proposition here. That is also not how the French Foreign Legion works.
(BTW: a “Mercenary” army looks more like Blackwater than it does the French Foreign Legion. Think about it...)
> Recruiting illegals for our military means they are just that: mercenaries.
Non-Sequitir. The two concepts are unrelated and you know it.
> I don’t know about you, but I am not comfortable with a mercenary having access to sensitive security information who can be easily flipped with an offer of cash.
What hysterical, utter nonsense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.