Daily Kos

Would Conservatives Support Illegal Immigrants Who Fight In Iraq And Afghanistan To Defend America?

Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 10:12:09 PM PDT

(Given info regarding the differences between migrants, illegal migrants, I've changed the title to "Would..." since it's more a speculative argument than anything else.)

On it's face, the answer to this question is probably no.

However, this question stems from a comment I received on this post I wrote yesterday about U.S. Navy petty officer second class Eduardo Gonzalez and the current situation he's facing:

Eduardo Gonzalez, a petty officer second class with the U.S. Navy, is about to be deployed overseas for a third time. Making his deployment even tougher is the fact his wife may not be around when he comes back.

His wife faces deportation to Guatemala -- her home country that she hasn't seen since 1989. He also doesn't know what would happen to his young son, Eduardo Jr., if that happens.

...

Gonzalez, who works on helicopters that bring cargo, supplies and military personnel in and out of Iraq, testified before a House Judiciary Committee panel last month, detailing his situation and urging officials to consider some sort of policy to deal with cases like his, where military members' families could be deported while they're defending their country overseas.

To cut to the skinny, his wife is facing deportation and it might occur, unless something stops it, while he's away overseas on his third deployment. That's a pretty shitty scenario to be facing, especially when there's a kid involved.

What's worse, however, was a comment by Mark Krikorian, who is:

..the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which lobbies for tougher laws on illegal immigration.

and who said:

"What you're talking about is amnesty for illegal immigrants who have a relative in the armed forces, and that's just outrageous," he said. "What we're talking about here is letting lawbreakers get away with their actions just because they have a relative in the military. ... There's no justification for that kind of policy."

So I've been thinking about this today and why we can't just recognize this man's valor, commitment, bravery and sacrifice in the name of the United States and make his wife a full citizen or at least remove the fear of her deportation until at least  Gonzalez is finished with his service and they can relax a little and then concentrate on what they need to do to resolve her status problems.

That, of course, depends on whether he finishes his service alive or not.

Anyways, I received this comment by "therealdeal"

Get it right you socialist nut,
Illegal Aliens Have No Rights In This Country
therealdeal | 10.03.07 - 8:58 pm | #

Now, I don't know what's so socialist about hastening and facilitating an acceptable outcome to this fine soldier's problem. It seems simple enough - he's taking the ultimate risk and possibly might make the ultimate sacrifice. I'm sure all he wants is for his wife to have either citizenship or an extended visa until she can complete citizenship requirements but I think this issue raises a couple conundrums for conservatives who claim to support the troops but who also have serious and vicious issues with illegal immigrants.

  1. Family

Time and time again, we hear the rally cry of conservatives and their "focus on the family", how important marriage is, how it's only to be between a man and a woman, and how when making their case, they frequently cite statistics that show that married couples live longer, live happier, make more money, and are enjoy other physical as well as financial benefits, all because they are married.

Furthermore, when there's a child involved in a loving, committed and married relationship, especially one between a man and a woman, the child is going to have the potential the merit the most benefit from this arrangement.

So it would seem that in this scenario, the best thing for these people is to remain married and together, not only for their own life benefits, but also for their child's benefit.

Yet by deporting this woman, it would break up a family, the importance of which conservatives seem to hold on an especially high pedestal. How could they possibly justify this if aside from her citizenship status and his service for this nation in a time of war, no other crimes, injustices, or felonies had been committed?

  1. "Support the troops"

We hear this all the time. The Right seems to think they hold the lease on the phrase "Support The Troops©" and that Democrats have no right to say said phrase since we don't support them at all.

We hate the troops, we hate America, we want to lose, etc.

But then...what do conservatives make of this?

They come from Mexico, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Colombia, Cambodia and a hundred other countries across the globe to find the promise of America. Increasingly they enlist to fight, and sometimes die, in America's wars.

About 69,300 foreign-born men and women serve in the U.S. armed forces, roughly 5 percent of the total active-duty force, according to the most recent data. Of those, 43 percent -- 29,800 -- are not U.S. citizens. The Pentagon says more than 100 immigrant Soldiers have died in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, President Bush and Congress, citing long-established wartime powers, streamlined the process by which immigrants in the armed forces could become naturalized citizens.

As of October, more than 25,000 immigrant Soldiers had become U.S. citizens as a result. Another 40,000 are believed eligible to apply. And roughly a third of non citizens in the all-volunteer military come from Mexico and Central America.

"Latinos are very patriotic and see military service as a way to show their appreciation to America and to prove they can be 'real Americans,' " said Dr. Jorge Mariscal, director of Chicano Studies at the University of California at San Diego.

That's a lot of people. And not only is that a lot of people, that's a lot of soldiers, boots on the ground, if you will, risking their lives to defend ours, (something that many who currently defend this war but who chose not to enlist and defend this nation when they had the opportunity, as legal citizens, I might add) whether they are our legal brothers or not. Should we kick them out because they're illegal immigrants? Should we honor their courage and valor for serving to defend this nation which they entered illegally?

But the crux of my argument, my issue -- is this:

America's top general testified emotionally Monday about the importance of immigrants in the military, recalling his father's struggles as an Italian immigrant and his own service in Vietnam.

General Peter Pace of the Marines paused several times as he spoke at a Senate committee hearing on immigration and appeared choked up as he discussed his parents' hardships and his siblings' success now.

"My dad came here, sometimes worked three jobs, but the jobs were there for him and the opportunities were there for him," Pace, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, said at a field hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "There is no other country on the planet that affords that opportunity to those who come."

Pace also discussed serving in Vietnam next to immigrant soldiers, including the first Marine that Pace said he lost in combat. He said he was "still on active duty today for one primary reason, and that is I still owe those who served with me in Vietnam."

Pace said 200 awards or medals have gone to non-U.S. citizens in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that 101 non- U.S. citizens have died in military action since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Senator Edward Kennedy said it would be an affront to the members of the military who are immigrants to make felons of their family members. Kennedy cited statistics that showed24,400 non-U.S. citizens are on active duty in the armed forces.

Wow! I'm shocked to hear that 200 awards or medals have been given to the same freeloading, illegal border crossing immigrants who came into this country under false merit, the same people who "suck our resources", "abuse our emergency departments", "flood our schools", and "who kill people" being honored not only by a General in the United States military, of all entities, but also being given medals and awards! Some even died for this nation!

You know, in all the recent outrage over MoveOn.org and Rush Limbaugh's statements about "the phony soldiers", perhaps we need to revisit exactly what makes a phony soldier a phony soldier since it seems there's so many currently serving to defend this nation, if you consider falsified documents to enter this country "phony."

There's some food for thought.

Update/Addendum - Just so we're clear, I though I'd add a little about what Rush Limbaugh thinks about illegal immigrants:

...foreigners will not have the right to vote...
...in our country, you cannot be a burden to taxpayers...
...you're not entitled to food stamps, or welfare, or other government goodies...

Hmm...last time I checked, our soldiers who are defending this nation as I write this, are doing it on my dime.

And yours too, Rush.

Tags: Iraq, Afghanistan, Eduardo Gonzalez, Rescued (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 23 comments

  •  Non-US citizens (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    theboz, Ignacio Magaloni

    I have no idea how conservatives feel about undocumented immigrants serving, but most would probably be simpathetic and honor their service. Just as a point of clarification the Pace quote was 200 non-US citizens, it did not say 200 undocumented immigrants. You make a strong case and don't need to overstate it. There is a long history of residents, who are not citizens, serving in the military.  Legal residents were subject to the draft and thousands served in Vietnam, Korea and WWII.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 10:29:09 PM PDT

    •  I appreciate the clarification on status issues. (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      JekyllnHyde

      It gets confusing at times but when you hear what conservatives say about immigrants as a whole, it tends to be negative so I'm pondering the question.

      For that matter, hypothetically then, would conservatives support illegal immigrants who are already serving or who have already served in the military, yet whose statuses were still in dispute?

      My signature beat up your signature.

      by Stand Strong on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 10:53:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great Diary, but a small correction (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Ignacio Magaloni, Stand Strong

    Not taking away from the importance of this story.. but illegal immigrants cannot join the military. You can't join even with a legal visa, unless you're a Naturalized Citizen or you possess an I-551 (green card).

    Now that that's corrected, absolutely she should be granted legal status of some sort. I thought if you marry an American you're automatically a citizen, but obviously I was wrong?

    •  I think I figured it out... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Ignacio Magaloni

      The Sailor must have joined with a green card, thus, NOT granting his wife automatic citizenship.

      Obviously legislation needs to be written to fix this problem.

    •  I was reading some forums on Military.com (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      JekyllnHyde

      and saw a number of responses regarding a release about the number of undocumented or unverifiable individuals in the military and to say the least, the numbers were astounding.

      Furthermore, the responses were filled with anger.

      Can it be garaunteed there aren't illegal immigrants in the military right now serving under false documents?

      My signature beat up your signature.

      by Stand Strong on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 10:46:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I seriously doubt (0+ / 0-)

        That there are a significant number. A select few, maybe.

        •  From Military.com (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          JekyllnHyde, chigh

          link

          Every now and then, I read or hear something that just stops me dead in my tracks. Sometimes I break out in laughter, sometimes I scream out in anguish, and sometimes I break down and feel like crying.

          On rare occasions, I find myself with all those reactions. On very rare occasions, those reactions are almost lost in a cacophony of a multitude of rapid-fire involuntary reactions that include pride, relief, anger, frustration, motivation, inspiration and blatant disbelief. An article in The Denver Post on Feb. 24 that the U.S. military does not know the citizenship status of 16,031 active-duty military personnel provided me with my latest "very rare occasion."

          In a recent article ("The Illegal Immigration Threat," DefenseWatch, Jan. 14, 2004), I talked about a 19-year old illegal alien who used a bogus green card to enlist in the Army, and how the Army was going to help facilitate getting him citizen status. (The Army's efforts did result in that soldier being sworn in as a U.S. citizen.) Little did I know at the time that that soldier was literally just the latest tip on a monolithic iceberg.

          Let me share with you excerpts from the Denver Post article and my varied reactions to them:

          The Denver Post article reported:

          "[T]he citizenship of 16,031 members of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines is listed as 'unknown.' That's about one in 100 active-duty military members who might be U.S. citizens, legal immigrants - or just about anybody else."

          Reaction: I am stunned, completely dumbfounded. I do not know what is worse: the fact that we have so many "unknowns" serving, or that they are serving despite the fact that we apparently have reasonably accurate statistics about them.

          ...

          I don't know what to make of it, there are other links in that article that I haven't yet followed, but...you see where I'm going.

          My signature beat up your signature.

          by Stand Strong on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 10:51:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Very interesting article (4+ / 0-)

          here about recruitment practices aimed at illegal immigrants  that included these paragraphs I wanted to note:

          That is what happened to Army Pvt Juan Escalante, whose illegal status was discovered while he was serving in Iraq. He was discharged and shipped home, and ICE began deportation proceedings against him and his parents, who had smuggled him into the United States from Mexico when he was four years old. However, Escalante’s unit commander wrote a letter on his behalf, saying he had served with distinction, so ICE reversed its decision and accepted his citizenship application. The deportation case against his parents, who also have two U.S.-born children, is still pending.

          Another illegal immigrant serving in Iraq, Jose Gutierrez, was not so lucky. He was one of the first members of the U.S. armed forces to die during the invasion. Gutierrez had made his way to this country from Guatemala in 1996, at the age of 15, to escape the violence perpetrated by the death squads, only to be killed in Iraq by friendly fire. When the Pentagon announced his death, it came in the form of a carefully managed PR campaign that included a posthumous award of citizenship for Gutierrez, presumably to show that if an illegal immigrant manages to enlist and make it to Iraq, he will be rewarded. However, Gutierrez remains the only illegal alien on the U.S. casualty rolls whose real hometown is listed, while others who die are reported to be from Boston or Los Angeles, or wherever a recruiter finds them. In New York City, according to counter-recruitment activist Melida Arredondo, whose young stepson was killed in Iraq, DEP recruiters instruct illegal immigrants to write "New York City" as their "home of record address" on the enlistment form, and to write "pending" for their Social Security number.

          So it definetly has happened, at least, in the past, on a few occassions. I wonder still then if conservatives would condemn his actions based on his status as an illegal immigrant, given the backstory of his service to this country.

          My signature beat up your signature.

          by Stand Strong on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 11:04:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It is sad that a rational path to (0+ / 0-)

        citizenship is not offered to those who love the country they work in.

        Habeas Corpus:See Hamilton quoting Blackstone in The Federalist Papers, number 84.

        by Ignacio Magaloni on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 10:52:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Spouses of citizens do not get citizenship (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      jlms qkw

      If you read the article that this diary was based upon, the wife came here legally as a refugee with her mother, but when she married the guy (who is now a U.S. Citizen), she became ineligible to be in the U.S. for some reason.  As a result, she is supposed to be deported.


      In any case, the idea of "marrying a citizen gives you automatic citizenship" is a stupid myth perpetrated by Hollywood.  There is no such thing.  A spouse could become eligible at some point in a few years after, providing they follow the complicated processes the whole time.

    •  Firstly. (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      immigradvocate, jlms qkw

      If you entered the U.S. without legal inspection (like a trip across the desert or you were smuggled in on a boat), you don't have a path to obtain legal status even if you married a U.S. citizen. As an undocumented person without legal entry you are ineligible to adjust your status to a legal status until after you've served the 10 year bar outside of this country.

      This hellish 10 year bar was signed into law by Clinton in 1996. It was the work of the Republican controlled House of Representatives.

      If you came legally on a tourist visa for example, and overstayed your visa length, you COULD adjust your status to a legal status through a marriage to a U.S. citizen, but it takes a few years.

      In this Gonzalez case there are other issues.

  •  The Empire needs them in it's Asian colonies (0+ / 0-)

    Now that the Empire's mercs have spawned more ill will for the Empire it needs more warm bodies to act as it's roving occupiers/targets.

    McCain's occupation plan will achieve victory when it bestows liberty to the freedom loving people of Iraq and their freedom loving oil.

    by Lefty Coaster on Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 11:25:55 PM PDT

  •  breaking up families (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    theboz, samddobermann, immigradvocate

    What bothers me more than the deportation of the wife of a solider is that the deportation forcibly destroys a family.

    That is an obscenity.

  •  Yes; but not to defend America... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    jlms qkw

    Only to guard the oil for Exxon.
    Don't insult the troops past or present saying they are defending America, when they were transferred to Iraq to guard the oil.
    If they were defending America they would all be making sure Afghanistan was secure, and free of al Queda.

    St. Ronnie was an asshole.

    by manwithnoname on Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 03:50:52 AM PDT

  •  Secondly (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    jlms qkw

    Although most people don't know this, an undocumented person can enlist if the Service Secretary approves the enlistment.
    Take special note of last line in the following statute.

    10 USC § 504. Persons not qualified

    (a) Insanity, desertion, felons, etc. No person who is insane, intoxicated, or a deserter from an armed force, or who has been convicted of a felony, may be enlisted in any armed force. However, the Secretary concerned may authorize exceptions, in meritorious cases, for the enlistment of deserters and persons convicted of felonies.

    (b) Citizenship or residency.
    (1) A person may be enlisted in any armed force only if the person is one of the following:
    (A) A national of the United States, as defined in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)).
    (B) An alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20)).
    (C) A person described in section 341 of one of the following compacts:
    (i) The Compact of Free Association between the Federated States of Micronesia and the United States (section 201(a) of Public Law 108-188 (117 Stat. 2784; 48 U.S.C. 1921 note)).
    (ii) The Compact of Free Association between the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the United States (section 201(b) of Public Law 108-188 (117 Stat. 2823; 48 U.S.C. 1921 note)).
    (iii) The Compact of Free Association between Palau and the United States (section 201 of Public Law 99-658 (100 Stat. 3678; 48 U.S.C. 1931 note)).
    (2) 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.

    •  Here is a quote from Margaret Stock (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      jlms qkw

      who is an expert on issues related to immigrants in the military.

      "Interestingly, there was no statutory restriction on Navy and Marine Corps enlistment of unauthorized immigrants, even in peacetime, until January 2006. (There was a policy restriction, but not a statutory one.) So the Navy and Marine Corps could have legally enlisted many unauthorized immigrants until January 2006, even without the approval of the Secretary of the Navy. The change in January 2006 made it harder in some ways for the Navy and Marine Corps, and easier for the Army and Air Force (which can now enlist unauthorized immigrants in both wartime and peacetime, with the approval of the Secretary concerned). I'm told that the Navy and Marine Corps asked for the change to the law, but do not know why those Services requested this change."

  •   This whole immigration (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    jlms qkw

    sitation is a mess, and is only going to get worse as it festers.  The situation is not serving anyone, and I wish more practical and humane laws could be made at once.  But moving immigration problems into the military only will complicate matters badly, both for the undocumented enlistee, and the military.
    I have a real fear that conditions in the military for the average enlisted soldier could become very bad indeed if the military were allowed to recruit foreign nationals and non-legal residents as a matter of course.
     Just as businesses dominated by non-documented workers have become more dangerous and underpaid as legal workers are discarded or ignored, and the owners of these business break other ethical barriers to unhindered profit,  the military would not have to 'compete' very hard to enlist and motivate people who may not have America's best interests at heart, nor treat them well.
        If anyone who wanted to could join, the army would be a very dangerous place.  And our ruling classes would have even more power that could turn against its own citizens.  
      Fewer citizens willing to enlist makes an army more careful of the soldiers it does have, and soldiers that identify as 'family' with the citizenry would be less likely to take orders against that citizenry.  Hopefully soldiers raised in freedom and opportunity would have a better attitude and work better in defense of freedoms than those who come in from elsewhere.  
      Already local police are beginning to worry about high powered weapons in the hands of discharged members of immigrant (and non-immigrant) gangs -- will army training turn them into another generation of 'lost' veterans or make them better Americans?      
       

  •  congrats on your rescue! (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    immigradvocate

    thanks for writing
    here is a virtual rec & tip:  TIP & REC
    (since the real rec and real tip were timed out by the time i got here)

Permalink | 23 comments