Pentagon looks to enlist young illegal alien ‘dreamers’ into military

[JohnR! 5,495]

Service During Hostilities : By Executive Order Number 13269, dated July 3, 2002, President Bush declared that all those persons serving honorably in active-duty status in the Armed Forces of the United States at any time on or after September 11, 2001 until a date to be announced, are eligible to apply for naturalization in accordance with the service during hostilities statutory exception in Section 329 of the INA to the naturalization requirements. This means that individuals with even one day of honorable active duty service can apply for citizenship, regardless of how long they have been a resident. Note: Under this provision, individuals who apply for citizenship after discharge must present a DD Form 214, with service characterized as "Honorable," or "General." Those with other characterizations (including Entry Level Separation), are not eligible.

It doesn't matter that another president did it in the past. What matters is that now it is Obama and whatever he does is wrong, wrong, wrong even if the decision was not his to begin with...

[Operator 1,927]

I'm having a hard time reading the liberal opinion on this, is it for or against?

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

I'm having a hard time reading the liberal opinion on this, is it for or against?

I was having those same thoughts...

These are DREAMers working towards legal status and have been given a path.. Should they be eligible to join the military or not? Is the Pentagon wanting to extend that option (not obligation) to them right or wrong? If wrong why should it be denied to them?

Edited May 21, 2014 by OnMyWayID

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I was having those same thoughts...

These are DREAMers working towards legal status and have been given a path.. Should they be eligible to join the military or not? Is the Pentagon wanting to extend that option (not obligation) to them right or wrong? If wrong why should it be denied to them?

I also can't decide

On one hand you are wanting to extend legal status to illegals and give people stuff---That is Liberal

On the flip side you are asking them to actually earn it----That is sooooo Not liberal

I am in a quandary

[Operator 1,927]

I was having those same thoughts...

These are DREAMers working towards legal status and have been given a path.. Should they be eligible to join the military or not? Is the Pentagon wanting to extend that option (not obligation) to them right or wrong? If wrong why should it be denied to them?

I think the people that oppose it maybe have little perspective of what it means to serve. To suggest that the government is asking them to be "cannon fodder" in my opinion is a bit disrespectful of those who serve in our "all volunteer" armed forces.

I think some people would look at it not only as a chance to sort out their illegal status but to also benefit from some of the training that our services provide. It looks really good on a resume also.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I think the people that oppose it maybe have little perspective of what it means to serve. To suggest that the government is asking them to be "cannon fodder" in my opinion is a bit disrespectful of those who serve in our "all volunteer" armed forces.

I think some people would look at it not only as a chance to sort out their illegal status but to also benefit from some of the training that our services provide. It looks really good on a resume also.

exactly...1

Cannon fodder is stupid. Lot's of different MOS available for them to choose from.. I went thru basic in 81. we had several non-citizen's in there with us.

In fact I would be ok with, as part of the dream act thing, making some form of public service mandatory.

[JohnR! 5,495]

I was having those same thoughts...

These are DREAMers working towards legal status and have been given a path.. Should they be eligible to join the military or not? Is the Pentagon wanting to extend that option (not obligation) to them right or wrong? If wrong why should it be denied to them?

We could wait for the top brass to decide. Isn't it within their purview?

[Operator 1,927]

We could wait for the top brass to decide. Isn't it within their purview?

I think a civilian makes this call so I think it would come from Hagel.

[JohnR! 5,495]

I think a civilian makes this call so I think it would come from Hagel.

Still, there has to be buy in from the brass...

[Operator 1,927]

Still, there has to be buy in from the brass...

Why?

ETA: I'm not saying that some top commanders or the CJCS wouldn't support it. I'm wondering why you think there has to be buy in by the military.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Operator

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I might be ok with a dream act that included 2 years of public service as part of the requirement. Just for kids brought here at an early age.

But as part of the bill, I want the pipeline shut off for good as much as possible. We give this bunch status then THATS IT

[JohnR! 5,495]

Why?

ETA: I'm not saying that some top commanders or the CJCS wouldn't support it. I'm wondering why you think there has to be buy in by the military.

Because these decisions are not made by one person alone. By the time the POTUS signs it into effect, there have been discussions with the Pentagon and everyone has to be on board; there has to be plans to implement it, etc. What we are witnessing is the end of a process, not the beginning.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

We could wait for the top brass to decide. Isn't it within their purview?

Yeah good point.. The title of the article is misleading - The pentagon is not looking to increase the applicant pool, its Democrats in congress (mostly) trying to get them to be a bit more liberal (small l) with the rules that apply to non-citizen/residents.

Interesting!

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

I might be ok with a dream act that included 2 years of public service as part of the requirement. Just for kids brought here at an early age.

But as part of the bill, I want the pipeline shut off for good as much as possible. We give this bunch status then THATS IT

Yes exactly! It would be so much more acceptable to make the path for current illegals easier if they will just put a stop to future inflow..

[JohnR! 5,495]

Yeah good point.. The title of the article is misleading - The pentagon is not looking to increase the applicant pool, its Democrats in congress (mostly) trying to get them to be a bit more liberal (small l) with the rules that apply to non-citizen/residents.

Interesting!

With all the wars we got involved they need all the new applicants they can get. Furthermore, most of these kids are Americans, culturally, so that might help them earn their status.