This isn’t another attack on the substance of Gingrich’s immigration positions — rather, it seems that he and his people really just don’t know very much about immigration policy or politics. His hilarious gaffe in using the Left’s “anti-immigrant” charge in attacking Romney is a rookie mistake, and one that got Rubio to criticize him publicly.
That reminded me of something I hadn’t focused on from the recent Tampa debate. Newt reiterated his support (seconded by Romney) that he’s for the military-enlistment part of the DREAM Act amnesty (which is a phony issue, since only about 3,000 illegal aliens a year would qualify, and even that number is generous). But then he said this:
We have a clear provision that if you live in a foreign country, and you are prepared to join the American military, you can, in fact, earn the right to citizenship by serving the United States and taking real risk on behalf of the United States.
No such “clear provision” exists. Max Boot and other empire people have called for the creation of such an “American foreign legion,” but it hasn’t happened. Even legal permanent residents of the U.S. are admitted to the armed forces only under certain conditions. The only exception I know of was that some Filipinos in the Philippines were permitted to enlist in the U.S. Navy after independence, but that was because it had been our colony and it was part of the deal to maintain our bases there.
But there is a trap door, which is not what Gingrich was referring to. If we wanted to enlist certain illegal aliens who’d grown up here and wanted to becomes citizens, we don’t need new legislation. 10 USC 504 already provides for that:
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned may authorize the enlistment of a person not described in paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines that such enlistment is vital to the national interest.
In other words, Leon Panetta can amnesty any illegal alien he wants, right now, if he deems it “vital to the national interest” (and since words mean whatever the White House wants them to mean, why not?). And as soon a non-citizen enlists, he can begin applying for citizenship.
I see no reason why we should not offer citizenship immediately to anyone, current resident or not, illegal or legal, who volunteers for our military, meets all the same standards as any other volunteer, and completes a term of service honorably.
Why not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSpies? Terrorists? Enemies?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf our military cannot prevent Spies, Terrorists or Enemies from completing their tour of duty in the manner we expect of all US Military Personnel, then the problem is with our military, not a policy that allows foreigners to join and serve.
Indeed, if persons like Krikorian are correct that a foreigner is more likely to be a spy or terrorist, then that status would easily ensure that they get the appropriate background checks and scrutiny prior to completing their tour of duty.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLanguage issues, for one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFar more importantly, you would be rewarding illegal aliens by providing them a path to citizenship. This is not their country. They should not be given any reason for viewing it as such.
Moving to legal aliens, I have no real issue with such a move, beyond ensuring that they lose/renounce their citizenship in their home country upon enlistment.
Finally, if America cannot field an army from its own citzenry, it does not deserve to survive (I say this as a former service member).
My father was drafted, got through basic training, and was about to be shipped out when it was discovered he wasn't a citizen. He was naturalized practically on the spot.
And how my father loved America!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf people are willing to serve in the military (and the numbers are needed right now) and do so honorably, I don't have a problem with giving them the right to become citizens. I'd require they serve a certain number of years before being able to apply. I'd also require that they have entered the country legally and not have any outstanding warrants or felonies (including income tax evasion).
This isn't some kind of loophole or amnesty. This is the government using a legal means to enhance the military's numbers.
There's a difference between opposing illegal immigration and opposing avenues for immigration. Objections to this sort of opportunity fall under the latter and I don't think most conservatives would agree with them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"There's a difference between opposing illegal immigration and opposing avenues for immigration. Objections to this sort of opportunity fall under the latter and I don't think most conservatives would agree with them."
This is where you make a poor assumption. Krikorian doesn't want any immigration, end of story. And so he will find any reason to scare you off of policies that would allow orderly, legal immigration into this country. Rarely will you see his extreme views broadcast. Instead he will pick apart every attempted legislation for its imperfections (as any real legislation will have) or dredge up scare tactics and innuendo to discredit them or their sponsors.
I sort of wish Rubio were in this race, so we could see just how ugly Mr Krikorian's rhetoric would become.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Krikorian doesn't want any immigration, end of story... Rarely will you see his extreme views broadcast."
Wow, that's quite a nefarious scenario you've conjured regarding Mr. Krikorian's inner thoughts and notions. I wish I had your psychic powers so that I could make millions on the Vegas Strip.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRegarding some of the comments here. Please don't fall into Gingrich's incoherent trap on this issue. For Newt, this isn't about the military etc., it's all about amnesty, whether it's for a "Dream Act" or "red cards" etc.
Gingrich has long supported amnesty, and his not-so-clever euphemisms and extreme examples (e.g., "deporting grandmothers") are just cover for his continuing support of amnesty for illegal aliens -- which he knows is very unpopular amongst the Tea Party and many other conservatives.
In fact, Gingrich sounds much like Obama and Harry Reid on this issue.
Someone should ask Newt if he supports "attrition through enforcement" as the way to deal with the majority of illegal aliens here -- without this being tied to an amnesty "red card" scheme.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm surprised no one's mentioned the fall of Rome. I don't necessarily agree with the popularly-understood interpretation of the late Empire's enlistment of foreign barbarians as a contributing cause to the fall of the Empire, but America is not short of young men willing to fight on its behalf.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBefore we make service a path to citizenship, perhaps we should look at making it a path to redemption in the eyes of the law. I served with a fair number of men who had criminal charges in their past; I had one myself. They succeeded (in my unit, anyway) at about the same rates as men without any criminal history.
Wow, how the immigration discussion has evolved from "we need them here to do the jobs Americans won't" to "we need them here to fight wars that American won't".... brilliant.
Last I checked, with this dismal economy, not only is enlistment up, but the current administration is also planning cut backs on active-duty forces.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMark, I disagree. I think Newt's right.
Section 329 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act includes an exception for those who were already in the US (or possessions) "whether or not he has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence" under wartime conditions. Executive order 13269 establishes the wartime service period beginning 9/11/01 and continuing still today.
Kristo Miettinen
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think that Newt was trying to reference Section 329(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1440(a)] -
Any person who, while an alien or a noncitizen national of the United States, has served honorably as a member of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve or in an active-duty status in the military, air, or naval forces of the United States ... during any other period which the President by Executive order shall designate as a period in which Armed Forces of the United States are or were engaged in military operations involving armed conflict with a hostile foreign force, and who, if separated from such service, was separated under honorable conditions, may be naturalized as provided in this section if (1) at the time of enlistment, reenlistment, extension of enlistment, or induction such person shall have been in the United States, the Canal Zone, America Samoa, or Swains Island, or on board a public vessel owned or operated by the United States for noncommercial service, whether or not he has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence...
President Bush designated the period beginning September 11, 2001 to the present (ending when a new executive order is issued) as period that qualifies under this section. [See Executive Order 13269 (July 3, 2002).]
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFolks,
I have news for this thread: Newt is correct.
When I was in Germany - I'm dating myself here! - in 3rd AD, 3rd BDE, 2/67 AR, we had several nationals. In my company, C Co. 2/67 AR there were two guys, Neville (I forget his first name) and my best friend Mike Ottewell. Both were most definitely not Americans, Neville was a Brit; Mike Ottewell was a Canadian. Both, in fact, enlisted with the intent of securing U.S. Citizenship. Moreover, I assisted Mike in the last phases of the acquisition of that legal status when, after I had honorably discharged and returned to Boston, MA to start college. Mike, still completing his four year enlistment in Europe, would fly over from Germany, spend a few days at my apartment, while he took care of citizenship paperwork during the day (he took his citizenship oath, as a matter-of-fact, in the Kennedy building, downtown, just past City Plaza). He became a U.S. Citizen in 1989, during my second year of R.O.T.C.
Moreover, Neville and Mike were not the only non-Americans in our battalion, either. There were several Philipinos; when I was at Fort Stewart (then 24th ID), I remember that one of the E5s in our platoon was Haitian, basically doing the same thing as my friend Mike - You guessed it: going for U.S. Citizenship.
As far as I know, foreigners of countries that have a SOFA and are members of NATO can enlist in our military - any branch! - and get on the "fast track" to U.S. Citizenship. So, this is pretty common practice.
Sincerely,
Major O'Flaherty, Timothy P.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOD, J4
EUCOM ARE
Devens, MA
With a population of 300,000,000 do we really need our very own foreign legion? Come on. Get serious. No more incentives for illegal aliens to come to America. With approximately twenty million already here, and counting, all magnets need to be shut off. All magnets, including the phony enlistment canard.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith a population of 300,000,000 do we really need our very own foreign legion? Come on. Get serious. No more incentives for illegal aliens to come to America. With approximately twenty million already here, and counting, all magnets need to be shut off. All magnets, including the phony enlistment canard.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse