Military considers recruiting foreigners

Status
Not open for further replies.

longeyes

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
7,227
Location
True West...Hotel California
Military considers recruiting foreigners
Expedited citizenship would be an incentive
An Armed Forces center in Plymouth. US officials are trying tactics to find recruits; one involves attracting noncitizens. (JULIA CUMES/ASSOCIATED PRESS)
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | December 26, 2006
WASHINGTON -- The armed forces, already struggling to meet recruiting goals, are considering expanding the number of noncitizens in the ranks -- including disputed proposals to open recruiting stations overseas and putting more immigrants on a faster track to US citizenship if they volunteer -- according to Pentagon officials.

Foreign citizens serving in the US military is a highly charged issue, which could expose the Pentagon to criticism that it is essentially using mercenaries to defend the country. Other analysts voice concern that a large contingent of noncitizens under arms could jeopardize national security or reflect badly on Americans' willingness to serve in uniform.
The idea of signing up foreigners who are seeking US citizenship is gaining traction as a way to address a critical need for the Pentagon, while fully absorbing some of the roughly one million immigrants that enter the United States legally each year.
The proposal to induct more noncitizens, which is still largely on the drawing board, has to clear a number of hurdles. So far, the Pentagon has been quiet about specifics -- including who would be eligible to join, where the recruiting stations would be, and what the minimum standards might involve, including English proficiency. In the meantime, the Pentagon and immigration authorities have expanded a program that accelerates citizenship for legal residents who volunteer for the military.
And since Sept. 11, 2001, the number of imm igrants in uniform who have become US citizens has increased from 750 in 2001 to almost 4,600 last year, according to military statistics.
With severe manpower strains because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and a mandate to expand the overall size of the military -- the Pentagon is under pressure to consider a variety of proposals involving foreign recruits, according to a military affairs analyst.
"It works as a military idea and it works in the context of American immigration," said Thomas Donnelly , a military scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington and a leading proponent of recruiting more foreigners to serve in the military.
As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan grind on, the Pentagon has warned Congress and the White House that the military is stretched "to the breaking point."
Both President Bush and Robert M. Gates, his new defense secretary, have acknowledged that the total size of the military must be expanded to help alleviate the strain on ground troops, many of whom have been deployed repeatedly in combat theaters.
Bush said last week that he has ordered Gates to come up with a plan for the first significant increase in ground forces since the end of the Cold War. Democrats who are preparing to take control of Congress, meanwhile, promise to make increasing the size of the military one of their top legislative priorities in 2007.
"With today's demands placing such a high strain on our service members, it becomes more crucial than ever that we work to alleviate their burden," said Representative Ike Skelton , a Missouri Democrat who is set to chair the House Armed Services Committee, and who has been calling for a larger Army for more than a decade.
But it would take years and billions of dollars to recruit, train, and equip the 30,000 troops and 5,000 Marines the Pentagon says it needs. And military recruiters, fighting the perception that signing up means a ticket to Baghdad, have had to rely on financial incentives and lower standards to meet their quotas.
That has led Pentagon officials to consider casting a wider net for noncitizens who are already here, said Lieutenant Colonel Bryan Hilferty , an Army spokesman.
Already, the Army and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Department of Homeland Security have "made it easier for green-card holders who do enlist to get their citizenship," Hilferty said.
Other Army officials, who asked not to be identified, said personnel officials are working with Congress and other parts of the government to test the feasibility of going beyond US borders to recruit soldiers and Marines.
Currently, Pentagon policy stipulates that only immigrants legally residing in the United States are eligible to enlist. There are currently about 30,000 noncitizens who serve in the US armed forces, making up about 2 percent of the active-duty force, according to statistics from the military and the Council on Foreign Relations. About 100 noncitizens have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A recent change in US law, however, gave the Pentagon authority to bring immigrants to the United States if it determines it is vital to national security. So far, the Pentagon has not taken advantage of it, but the calls are growing to take use the new authority.
Indeed, some top military thinkers believe the United States should go as far as targeting foreigners in their native countries.
"It's a little dramatic," said Michael O'Hanlon , a military specialist at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution and another supporter of the proposal. "But if you don't get some new idea how to do this, we will not be able to achieve an increase" in the size of the armed forces.
"We have already done the standard things to recruit new soldiers, including using more recruiters and new advertising campaigns," O'Hanlon added.
O'Hanlon and others noted that the country has relied before on sizable numbers of noncitizens to serve in the military -- in the Revolutionary War, for example, German and French soldiers served alongside the colonists, and locals were recruited into US ranks to fight insurgents in the Philippines.
Other nations have recruited foreign citizens: In France, the famed Foreign Legion relies on about 8,000 noncitizens; Nepalese soldiers called Gurkhas have fought and died with British Army forces for two centuries; and the Swiss Guard, which protects the Vatican, consists of troops who hail from many nations.
"It is not without historical precedent," said Donnelly, author of a recent book titled "The Army We Need," which advocates for a larger military.
Still, to some military officials and civil rights groups, relying on large number of foreigners to serve in the military is offensive.
The Hispanic rights advocacy group National Council of La Raza has said the plan sends the wrong message that Americans themselves are not willing to sacrifice to defend their country. Officials have also raised concerns that immigrants would be disproportionately sent to the front lines as "cannon fodder" in any conflict.
Some within the Army privately express concern that a big push to recruit noncitizens would smack of "the decline of the American empire," as one Army official who asked not to be identified put it.
Officially, the military remains confident that it can meet recruiting goals -- no matter how large the military is increased -- without having to rely on foreigners.
"The Army can grow to whatever size the nation wants us to grow to," Hilferty said. "National defense is a national challenge, not the Army's challenge."
He pointed out that just 15 years ago, during the Gulf War, the Army had a total of about 730,000 active-duty soldiers, amounting to about one American in 350 who were serving in the active-duty Army.
"Today, with 300 million Americans and about 500,000 active-duty soldiers, only about one American in 600 is an active-duty soldier," he said. "America did then, and we do now, have an all-volunteer force, and I see no reason why America couldn't increase the number of Americans serving."
But Max Boot, a national security specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that the number of noncitizens the armed forces have now is relatively small by historical standards.
"In the 19th century, when the foreign-born population of the United States was much higher, so was the percentage of foreigners serving in the military," Boot wrote in 2005.
"During the Civil War, at least 20 percent of Union soldiers were immigrants, and many of them had just stepped off the boat before donning a blue uniform. There were even entire units, like the 15th Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry [the Scandinavian Regiment] and General Louis Blenker's German Division, where English was hardly spoken."
"The military would do well today to open its ranks not only to legal immigrants but also to illegal ones and, as important, to untold numbers of young men and women who are not here now but would like to come," Boot added.
"No doubt many would be willing to serve for some set period, in return for one of the world's most precious commodities -- US citizenship. Some might deride those who sign up as mercenaries, but these troops would have significantly different motives than the usual soldier of fortune."
Bryan Bender can be reached at [email protected].
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.
 
This is not new at all. This is happening, and has
been for a while I guess.

I don't know all the particulars, but there are guys
that I work with right now who are in the military,
and are not citizens. Part of thier whole deal is that
if they do thier four years, thier whole citizenship
thing gets accelerated.

Again, I don't know all the particulars, I've never
asked them. Some of these guys are good guys,
good friends, and I'm glad to have them on my team.

On the other hand, some of these dudes barely even
speak english. Does that make them untrustworthy?

No. But it does make it hard to work with them in a
military environment. I used to work with one guy,
his name was Ramirez. He spoke *very* little english.
We just called him "Wey", spanish for "dude" or "man".

He did what he could as far as work went. I do remember
that he lived with his family in Tijuana, and would cross
the border at Interstate 5 to come to work every day
in San Diego.

This was back when I was on active duty at North Island.

Take it how you will, I don't care. True story though.
 
The military has always enlisted or drafted foreigners. You have to be a legal permanent resident (green card holder) to go in the military. Certain jobs requiring security clearances are not open to non USCs. in the 60s you had to register when you were 18 and they didn't care where you were a citizen you got drafted if you lived here. Not different than most goverments do. I remember a Greek friend of mine saying his sons would be drafted if they went back to Greece. They were born in Greece, became USCs, but would still find themselves in the Greek Army.

I remember a few Canadians I met that joined the US Army because they wanted to go to Vietnam. I remeber other nationalities being drafted who couldn't speak english.

You can't swim the Rio Grande and run to the recruiter's office dripping wet. You have to have your green card first.
 
Yes, what's a little more outsourcing, right?

Why not outsource Congress, the Presidency, the State Dept., and the CIA?

Who are we protecting by doing this? The American consumer and his/her great pimp, the multi-national corporation?

A country that can't find enough of its own to account for self-defense is a selfish nation that doesn't have long to go. Just my opinon.
 
I served with a guy from Africa. His tribe saved money and sent him to an Embassy and he enlisted. I have nothing but respect for him. He didn't see his wife for over three years and couldn't visit. His country of origin was one US Military couldn't visit unless we invaded:D He was a hard worker, never complained, and very loyal. Then I saw Black Hawk Down and was reminded of who is charge of that country. Just saying.
 
Considers? We've been doing it since the beginning of the Iraq funnies. If memory serves the foreign mercenaries are promised US citizenship on completion of their service. Rumor has it that the DoD isn't very picky about things like background checks, education and criminal record.

The Roman Empire did the same thing. Fight for the Legions. When you muster out you're a Roman citizen. This wasn't during the days of the Republic. Some things never change :fire:
 
Another of the infinite wisdom of our government...

So they're going to actively recruit foreigners of questionable loyalty, but disqualify me from military service because of an intestinal surgery I had years ago, despite being in great shape and excellent health nowadays? I'd love to be commissioned when I'm done with college, or even enlist if they dont accept me for commissioning... but no, they'd rather have foreigners. :cuss:
 
My Grandfather enlisted in the Army in 1917 to expidite his Citizenship. This is common practice for the citizens of Guam and Puerto Rico to gain full citizenship.
As I see it if a legal immegrant wants to serve in the U.S. Military Citizenship, is justified. Provided they are Honorably Discharged.
 
I work with a Russian who hasn't quite gotten his citizenship yet...

Nothing new, except maybe recruiting emphasis.
 
Just another example of a job Americans will not do at the wage an employer is willing to pay

--Congress sets troop levels.
--Congress appropriates funding which permits the existence of the troop levels it previously set.
--Congress sets policy on the levels of war machine automation

Anyone notice a pattern here?
 
Two great soldiers

In the army infantry 10 yrs had a non-citizen australian squad leader, one of the best leaders ive ever seen, also had an African serve under me, both non-citizens, they were very proud to be able to serve and very much respected the U.S. for its freedoms and to protect that feedom. I think many americans today take that for forgranted which they never did.
 
Of course, you raise another issue: How many American citizens aren't worthy of the name? How many have no real idea of the values on which this nation was founded? A lot of foreigners may well understand the idea of America better than many of the people here now, I don't question that.

Frankly, to me this seems like a rather desperate act by a Government in a fatal downward spiral.

Well, all of this is going to be sorted out in the next few years...
 
You can't swim the Rio Grande and run to the recruiter's office dripping wet. You have to have your green card first.

Actually, I'd have a lot less problem with that plan. A person who risks a border crossing to come here and wants to become a citizen is someone I'd trust far more than some joker recruited overseas who views the position as nothing but a job.
 
in the 60s you had to register when you were 18 and they didn't care where you were a citizen you got drafted if you lived here

Even today, all male legal permanent residents between age 18 and 26 are required to register with Selective Service. So, at least in theory, they can all be drafted to serve alongside US citizens.

Failure to register can become a reason for Immigration to deny an application for US citizenship later on.
 
If it's fundamentally wrong in principle, remember that all we are doing now is increasing the DEGREE to which we will let non-citizens serve. Those of us who are in, or have been in the last 15 years, probably won't notice the difference. In 1992, in the army in Germany, I made friends with a kid named Illya Dashevsky. His family was ethnic russian, but he was born in Latvia. His family emmigrated to Ohio when he was 12, and he enlisted as a tracked vehicle mechanic. I helped him with his english. I had puerto rican drill sergeants who barely spoke english, I knew two phillipino guys who admitted to me that they got in with some fake papers. All great soldiers.

I had kids in my basic training platoon who couldn't read, despite having graduated high school. (Just goes to show that you really CAN train anyone to operate a tank.) I had kids who had never slept outside on the trampoline before. We had guys who couldn't tie their boots, because they had worn velcro shoes their whole life, or button their BDU's because they had worn only t-shirts. I helped one of my roomated be court-martialed for theft, and another guy in my unit prosecuted for child-pornography. All of them were citizens.

What I'm saying is, the reality is, it probably doesn't make much difference at this point. If this is an indicator of the downfall of society, someone should have done something to make sure the illiterate guys in my platoon didn't get in a long time ago.
 
A recent change in US law, however, gave the Pentagon authority to bring immigrants to the United States if it determines it is vital to national security.

1962. United States Navy Recruit Training Command. San Diego, CA, Company 297.

I was there as was at least a dozen, maybe 20 Philipine Nationals

1962. That's back before we got smart about minorities.

These Philipinos had been told that they could apply for citizenship after they did their 4 years serving the officers up in "Officer Country" aboard ship as stewards.

Yes, Philipinos (we called them "pineapples" in our pre-enlightened ignorance) were enlisted for service as stewards (servants) to serve coffee to the officers aboard ship.

I went on to SONAR School, then down to Key West to learn to be a Helicopter crewman and do space shot recoveries and chase Russian Subs in the Atlantic Fleet and I never saw those guys again.

But, yet when we went to sea aboard the carrier, yes, I saw guys like those that were in my company in boot camp, yes, walking into and out of "Officer Country" carrying their trays with silver tea pots or whatever and I am sorry to say............

I never thunk a thing about it.

These guys had enlisted from the Philipines so that they could become American Citizens. They had submitted their pride so that they could become citizens. They agreed to do the work that even the "Blacks" wouldn't do just for citizenship. I respect the Heck outa those guys.

Now. Now in the 21st century we are enlightened. We are no longer the ignorant racists that we were in the '60s. I hope.

Would we enlist Philipinos into the Navy to be servants? I hope not.

Now I see that we have sunk so low that we will not only enlist foreign nationals into our military to be other than servants?

To be actual fighting men?

Yes, they are mercenarys.

The republic is doomed.

P.S. I talked to many of these "Pineapples" and it seemed like the thing that I remember the most is that how easy it was to buy a Thompson SMG. The way they talked, they were like a dime a dozen (left over from the war). Most guys said that the barrels were shot out, but, hey, 20 bucks for a Thompson Submachinegun?

It appears that the shooters would sell the piece because they couldn't afford the ammo.

Where have we gone?
 
I hate to confuse anybody with facts, but citizenship via military service has been around since before I got my "Greetings!" letter from Pres. Eisenhower in November, 1953.

IIRC--or, approximately--the requirement was for four years of honorable service.

While there weren't many in my unit in Basic Training, we did have a few non-citizens. In the FWIW department, many Filipinos became naturalized citizens via service in the US Navy.

Okay, back to harumphing and ranting...

Art
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top