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.
“I will bet you that after they separate from the service, there is no talk of Aztlan, MEChA....”
I’ll take that bet. I know several hispanic veterans who openly proclaim their allegiance to the mythical Aztlan. For many hispanics La Raza trumps everything. Hell, just read some of MEChA’s tripe: MEChA advocates hispanics joining the US military to learn how to fight, with the sole purpose of using that training as a foundation for the (as they see it) inevitable conquest of the United States by Mexican interests. MEChA’s propaganda even called for killing all anglos, men, women and children. I’ve read some of MEChA’s vile tripe. It is hard-core marxism using ethnic cleansing (i.e., the elimination of all non-hispanics, especially anglos) as its tactic.
“So long as they aren’t gang affiliated, isn’t someone willing to die for this country exactly the sort of person we WANT to become an American citizen?”
That’s pretty much the way I see it. Unfortunately, the military isn’t screening out the gangbangers, just training them to be more ‘effective’.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1999411/posts
Tancredo Concerned Military Officials Unaware of Gang Infiltration in U.S. Army
(Latino)Gangs claim their turf in Iraq
May 03, 2006
http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/search?q=+%28Latino%29Gangs+claim+their+turf+in+Iraq
The Gangster Disciples, Latin Kings and Vice Lords were born decades ago in Chicago’s most violent neighborhoods. Now, their gang graffiti is showing up 6,400 miles away in one of the world’s most dangerous neighborhoods — Iraq.
Armored vehicles, concrete barricades and bathroom walls all have served as canvasses for their spray-painted gang art. At Camp Cedar II, about 185 miles southeast of Baghdad, a guard shack was recently defaced with “GDN” for Gangster Disciple Nation, along with the gang’s six-pointed star and the word “Chitown,” a soldier who photographed it said.
The graffiti, captured on film by an Army Reservist and provided to the Chicago Sun-Times, highlights increasing gang activity in the Army in the United States and overseas, some experts say.
Jeffrey Stoleson, an Army Reserve sergeant in Iraq, is seen in front of a barricade tagged with gang graffiti in March in Iraq. Stoleson, who has been in Iraq for almost a year, says he has taken hundreds of photos of gang graffiti there.
Click here for photo gallery »
Military and civilian police investigators familiar with three major Army bases in the United States — Fort Lewis, Fort Hood and Fort Bragg — said they have been focusing recently on soldiers with gang affiliations. These bases ship out many of the soldiers fighting in Iraq.
“I have identified 320 soldiers as gang members from April 2002 to present,” said Scott Barfield, a Defense Department gang detective at Fort Lewis in Washington state. “I think that’s the tip of the iceberg.”
Of paramount concern is whether gang-affiliated soldiers’ training will make them deadly urban warriors when they return to civilian life and if some are using their access to military equipment to supply gangs at home, said Barfield and other experts.
‘They don’t try to hide it’
Jeffrey Stoleson, an Army Reserve sergeant in Iraq for almost a year, said he has taken hundreds of photos of gang graffiti there.
In a storage yard in Taji, about 18 miles north of Baghdad, dozens of tanks were vandalized with painted gang symbols, Stoleson said in a phone interview from Iraq. He said he also took pictures of graffiti at Camp Scania, about 108 miles southeast of Baghdad, and Camp Anaconda, about 40 miles north of Baghdad. Much of the graffiti was by Chicago-based gangs, he said.
In civilian life, Stoleson is a correctional officer and co-founder of the gang interdiction team at a Wisconsin maximum-security prison. Now he is a truck commander for security escorts in Iraq. He said he watched two fellow soldiers in the Wisconsin Army National Guard 2nd Battalion, 127th Infantry, die Sept. 26 when a roadside bomb exploded. Five of Stoleson’s friends have been wounded.
Because of the extreme danger of his mission in Iraq, Stoleson said he does not relish the idea of working alongside gang members, whom he does not trust. Stoleson said he once reported to a supervisor that he suspected a company of soldiers in Iraq was rife with gang members.
“My E-8 [supervising sergeant] told me not to ruffle their feathers because they were doing a good job,” he said.
Stoleson said he has spotted soldiers in Iraq with tattoos signifying their allegiance to the Vice Lords and the Simon City Royals, another street gang spawned in Chicago.
“They don’t try to hide it,” Stoleson said.[snip]
“What hysterical, utter nonsense.”
You need to read up on the history of mercenaries. There are other types of mercenaries than Blackwater (which I assume is the example you were referring to). The Hessians were mercenaries. The French Foregin Legion is another example of a mercenary force (which knocks out your conclusion that mercs only fight on contract for employers and officers of their own choosing: If you knew anything about the FFL you’d know that its officers are French, and the enlistees have no say in who leads them; and unless the FFL has changed its policy, no non-Frenchman can become an officer in the FFL). As for your comment that recruiting illegals for our military is NOT mercenary, and the two concepts are unrelated, tell me, please, if — other than money — an illegal would join our military? Illegals certainly have no respect for our laws (they proved that when they broke our laws coming here), and they have no allegiance to the United States (in many instances they don’t even speak English, and have no intention of learning it; many — especially illegals from Mexico and Central America — have utter contempt for the United States and its citizens). The most basic definition of a mercenary is someone who signs a contract — usually for money — to fight for the interests of another, which usually means the interests of another country or government. Mercenaries do not, by definition, fight for their own countries or governments. Thus, illegals who sign a contract for money to fight for the United States are mercenaries.
To admit illegal aliens into the military is insane. Already foreigners and felons are admitted. A sure way to destroy the military.
Hey what did good old George Washington do? Fought for his citizenship. So long as they aren’t gang affiliated, isn’t someone willing to die for this country exactly the sort of person we WANT to become an American citizen?
////////////
hey and we could probably get the illegal alien wives to be surrogate mothers upper east side Manhattan types too. just like american soldiers wives do now.
The US should create an offshore foreign legion somewhat like the French Foreign Legion. Possibly a private company like Blackwater Security. It has all sorts of advantages.
To start with, we can recruit the best and brightest of citizens from other countries for this light infantry regiment. We can have Gurkhas, Sikhs, you name it. And not only would they cost a lot less than US personnel, they could be sent to military duties that we don’t particularly want our soldiers to do.
Put them on a Caribbean island, under US military officers and NCOs, they can do things like peacekeeping duties, disaster relief, and other crap jobs in nasty places like Darfur, where we don’t want to send our people.
The US military would provide their transportation and logistics. And best of all, we would have no objections to their being under UN or friendly foreign command.
More than anything else it would give the President more options to handle foreign policy situations. And if they were a private company in the Caribbean, it would mean that they could tell a leftist congress or Democrat President to go fish if they wanted to send them on some stupid adventure that would get them killed.
> 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.
Built along the French Foreign Legion lines, this idea could work quite well.
///////////
it worked so well more and more algerians are coming to france. hey the algerians earned the right to come to france. if the french lose france its tough titty to them.
> The French Foregin Legion is another example of a mercenary force
What arrant nonsense! The French Foreign Legion is an elite force within the Regular French Army. It is not a mercenary force. Most (not all) of its senior officers are of French birth. All of its soldiers are subject to French military law.
Mercenaries are irregular soldiers who fight on contract for employers of their own choosing and led by officers of their own choosing.
> As for your comment that recruiting illegals for our military is NOT mercenary, and the two concepts are unrelated, tell me, please, if — other than money — an illegal would join our military?
Let’s see: the opportunity of Citizenship after a term of service? (possibly the best reason) The chance of adventure? The opportunity to get a new start in life? The opportunity to receive training and a career path? All of those reasons apply to the FFL, very few join the FFL for the pay (it is notoriously low).
For the removal of doubt on what a “mercenary” soldier is, refer to the Laws of War, Article 47:
Art 47. Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
Note that each of 2a-2f must apply for a combatant to be considered a “Mercenary” and thus an unlawful combatant. Members of the French Foreign Legion and the Gurkhas fail this test in 2a,c,d,e,f and are thus considered to be lawful combatants ie NOT MERCENARIES.
> it worked so well more and more algerians are coming to france. hey the algerians earned the right to come to france. if the french lose france its tough titty to them.
Algerians coming to France has nothing to do with the French Foreign Legion and everything to do with how France mis-managed its dissolving empire. Rather the same with the British, sadly.
Same thing Rome did during their decline.
Just like when Rome enlisted Gauls to protect their northern border?
Unfortunately, your argument is weak because the United States is not a signatory to the protocol you cited, nor are many other countries. In fact, the protocol you cited as it relates to mercs is not universally accepted, though many nations do subscribe to it.
Sure! Then I'll play another tune on my violin.
We The Sheeple just don't get it these days, do they?
Yeah, burning cars and all.
> Unfortunately, your argument is weak because the United States is not a signatory to the protocol you cited, nor are many other countries.
(groan!)
Most civilized countries are signatories to the Geneva Convention, and most recognize Protocol I (1977). The principles of Protocol I are, for the most part, encapsulated adequately in US military law.
The French Foreign Legion would certainly qualify as “lawful military combatants” under US Law. So would the Gurkhas. If captured by the US, they would be entitled to be treated as POWs.
Mercenary forces would be deemed “unlawful military combatants” under the US Military Commissions Act of 2006 and, as such, would not be entitled to be treated as POWs.
No matter how you try to wiggle out of it, the French Foreign Legion is a unit of the French Armed Forces, and it is not a mercenary unit.
> Yeah, burning cars and all.
When has the French Foreign Legion been known for “burning cars?”
> Yeah right they stopped Hitler and N Vietnam in their tracks
And the US Armed forces did, I take it?
The French Foreign Legion certainly compares favorably with other elite Armed Forces worldwide: I’ve never heard it credibly argued otherwise.
The “Geneva Convention” is a misnomer, as there is not one all-encompassing doctrine. In fact, there are a multitude of “Geneva Conventions” dealing with a wide variety of issues. A nation can sign or ratify all of them, some of them, or none of them. Some nations who are not signatories can voluntarily adopt one or more of them on an ad hoc basis for political or economic reasons, and they can just as easily “unadopt” them when they no longer serve their purpose.
The Protocol you cited on mercs is an example. The United States is not a signatory to that protocol.
Question for you: Were Claire Chenault’s Flying Tigers in China in the early days of WWII mercenaries?
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.