2 Responses to “Andrea Mitchell and Gloria Borger…”

1. Dave says:

   February 18, 2009 at 11:34 am

   Max, while I agree with everything you write here, something still gnaws at me about this sort of thing.

   After all, Colonel Viet X. Luong is an American patriot, but had we done his nation justice, today Colonel Luong might be a brigade commander in a free and democratic Vietnam.

   Much like those who push to open the borders for refugees from the Iraq War, however right and just it is that we do such a charitable thing, how much better for *the world* if we could enable those refugees to stay and thrive in their own nations, rather than flee to ours?

   If we had to lose the Vietnam War, fine– I’m glad to have Luong and thousands like him. But I would still have traded him and every other Vietnamese refugee immigrant in America in return for having made Vietnam a place no one ever had to flee.
2. J. Lichty says:

   February 18, 2009 at 11:38 am

   One of our contractorers laborers is a bosnian refugee. His son is a highly decorated infantryman in Iraq right now.

   Many immigrants appreciate America more than the natives.

   I think that is why we who oppose illegal immigration, must always make clear that we are not anti immigrant and recognize the contributions and sacrifices immigrants have made to and for our contry.
3. Joe says:

   February 18, 2009 at 11:46 am

   I agree. Service for Citizenship. Win Win.
4. Anthony R. Seta says:

   February 18, 2009 at 12:44 pm

   Max,

   I agree, more or less. There are some quality controls necessary to insure loyalty, etc…

   BTW – my grandfather (still living and going strong) was born in Italy, immigrated to the USA in early 1930s and joined the Marines in 1942. Served with distinction in the Pacific and he’s proud of his service and is sill unflinchingly loyal to the corp to this day. There are many other immigrants in this modern era that continue to prove themselves to be valuable assets to the military and the nation.

   Still… there are negatives such as some infiltrators that simply use the military as tool to acquire weapons knowledge and inside contacts that can be used for their own criminal and gang agendas. There is always good and bad with matters such as this. As long as the proper bureacratic oversight is conducted in regards to immigrants soldiers, then I’ll be happy and there will never be fuss out of me over this.
5. wdriver says:

   February 18, 2009 at 1:38 pm

   Max,

   While your suggestion has a certain appeal on first reading, it does carry its own caveat. Colonel Viet X. Luong, an immigrant who became an American in education and training with few inclinations that might be considered foreign is decidedly different from the immigrant, illegal or not, who has not become acclimated to the American system, its values and its responsibilities.

   What concerns me is that this notion might be so appealing that it overcomes wisdom and we end up with an army – the country’s defenders – whose members are more foreign in outlook and nature than an American army should be. I do not look forward with anticipation to the nation having an army of mercenaries, to which a proposal such as yours could easily lead given the disposition of our elected leaders to screw up. Better an army of citizens than an army of bought and paid for mercenaries, whose allegiance is to themselves or the highest bidder and what profit they can make.

   Colonel Viet X. Luong has a long history with the United States, he is probably American in outlook and temperment. Can we say the same to the untested, untried immigrant or immigrant-impostor waiting in line at the border?

   An appealing proposition, true, but one that has considerable built-in caveats.
6. RCAR says:

   February 18, 2009 at 1:44 pm

   #5,”What concerns me is that this notion might be so appealing that it overcomes wisdom and we end up with an army – the country’s defenders – whose members are more foreign in outlook and nature than an American army should be.”

   The traditional solution for this is a draft,not a popular policy on Contentions. Those drafted citizen soldiers just aren’t as compliant/obediant as those professionals.
7. wdriver says:

   February 18, 2009 at 1:49 pm

   I should add that what concerns me is that, over the course of time, we could go from enticing immigrants into the military with money and promises of citizenship and, when that avenue of recruitment dries up, sending our army personnel abroad to other impoverished countries in search of willing conscripts to supply our military.

   This would be no means be a novel idea: It has been used since war itself. It has never boded well for the nation that depended on it to maintain its superiority.
8. materialist says:

   February 18, 2009 at 2:45 pm

   Dave,

   A very perceptive comment that I hope will be widely read and thought on.

   Beyond that, I tend to agree with Driver. It is convenient to hire one’s army, and rich nations have done that since time immemorial, with predictable consequences.

   I commend the service of immigrants and those who would have immigrated in any case – we’re lucky to have them. But hiring soldiers on the promise of citizenship sounds a bit too much like the latter-day policies of an empire that has passed away.
9. rob says:

   February 18, 2009 at 3:59 pm

   So how many of you presumed native-born citizens enlisted in the US military if you had the opportunity?

   From the comments, I’d assume none of you have any idea what life in the US military is like, and surely haven’t served with any immigrant-soldiers. The ones I’ve known over 21 years of service have been hard-working and patriotic. Having busted their asses to make it to the US, and to make it through training, they realize that hard work is part of citizenship, as do most of us. Compare that to the self-entitled majority whom they defend.

   Infiltrators and gang members amongst immigrants? Get out of the Hollywood mindset, or show some hard proof. Many immigrants are fleeing from extremism and from being preyed on by criminals, that’s why they came here. You might call them naive, but a lot of them actually believe is a beautiful and just country, and better than the place they left. The pressure cooker environment of military service today is going to quickly show up the questionable agents that might be in uniform. I’d also assert that more native born servicemembers have been involved in criminal or extremist activity than their immigrant counterparts. On a related note, some former gangbangers have reformed themselves to be successful servicemembers, and over all few make it into uniform in the first place.

   Serving an enlistment in order to accelerate gaining American citizenship is hardly the same as hiring mercenaries, or conscripting local nations of occupied lands.

   Despite what you may think, service members still have to meet some high standards on the whole to get in the door, and to do well enough to receive an honorable discharge at the end of their hitch. BTW, they are smart enough to know there’s a war on when they sign up.

   Are any of you aware of the requirements, and the perserverance one must have in order to obtain US citizenship legally? If an immigrant can meet the standards to enlist, serve honorably, why shouldn’t they get preferential treatment to receive citizenship?

   I’d rather see us continue this course of action than resort to a draft, I’d rather serve with those who choose, not those who are forced to.
10. Dan says:

    February 18, 2009 at 4:19 pm

    SO if we get maybe 1,000,000 mohammedan men who up and say “we love America, and want to fight for America,” —————– Boot and you guys think it’s a great idea to say “let ‘em in.”

    Do I have that right?
11. Anthony R. Seta says:

    February 18, 2009 at 5:06 pm

    @ #9 -

    Can’t show you hard proof without implicating myself, but I’ve had friends in low places in earlier stages of my life. I know what I’m talking about when I refer to many undesirables (immigrants included) using the military to simply gain weapons knowledge and inside contacts. Many of these “gang bangers” join the service with no intention of moving on beyond boot camp before they engage in behaviors that will lead to a dishonorable discharge. There is wide spectrum of US society that makes it into the military that really doesn’t belong and shouldn’t be there. Sadly for myself, I’ve even had a step father who spent time in Leavenworth for conduct unbecoming of a soldier. This was during the Vietnam war. He was part of the biker culture and this was a long time ago, but I’ve seen criminal actions committed by veterans with my own eyes that still gives me the shivers.

    So look man, I totally respect your moral position and I don’t disagree with your arguments. I’m not against the use of immigrant soldiers and I rather like this vehicle for promoting citizenship. But what I alluded to in my previous post is not the stuff of hollywood fantasy. You’ll just have to take my word for it, for what it’s worth. That’s why I suggest a bit of caution, as others have also, in regards to mobilizing immigrants for military service on a large scale. There are a lot of unknowns and that’s why I stress some adherence to “quality control”, for lack of a better phrase.
12. Stuart Koehl says:

    February 18, 2009 at 7:00 pm

    “The traditional solution for this is a draft,not a popular policy on Contentions. Those drafted citizen soldiers just aren’t as compliant/obediant as those professionals.”

    No, draftees just aren’t as GOOD as professionals, and, in fact, are pretty close to worthless in the kinds of wars the United States Army will be fighting for the next half century or more. I don’t know how many times I have to say it, but once more with feeling:

    The era of mass conscript armies is OVER. In the conventional arena, modern weapons are too complex for short-term conscripts to operate effectively, and too expensive to procure in the numbers that would make conscription a necessity. In the low intensity arena, combat effectiveness requires a degree of professionalism, tactical finesse and forbearance that can only be instilled in long-term professional soliders. Draftees, whose main objective is simply to do his two years and get home in one piece, will tend to respond to any threat situation with massive and indiscriminate amounts of firepower; he most certainly won’t be inclined to let the enemy take the first shot, or to make distinctions between a couple of gunmen shooting at him, and the crowd of innocent civilians standing around them. They would lack the tactical aptitude to do anything about it, anyway.

    From a social equity standpoint, consider that today the United States Army looks more like the general population of the United States than at any time in its history (including World War II). Yes, the top income quintile is a little over-represented, and the bottom quintile a little under-represented, but by-and-large, the military is ethnically, racially and economically a close match to the U.S. overall; they are merely the best that every group in the country has to offer.

    Now, consider what would happen with a draft. Even under the worst possible case, the military would need only a small fraction of all eligible eighteen year old men (and what about the women, eh?). So there would be massive deferments and exemptions, which, as in the past, would be given to married men, college students and men in strategic occupations or critical positions in companies. Who gets drafted, in the end? The poor, the under-educated, and (because they overwhelming comprise these two groups), blacks and Hispanics.

    Want to place the burden of military service on the poor and minorities (while simultaneously undermining our military effectiveness)? Support restoration of the draft.
13. Unamerican says:

    February 19, 2009 at 12:41 am

    The Romans required some 25 years of service . so one could get to be a citizen at about 43 years of age. Add the 6months it took to get fro the Picts Wall -43 & 1/2.

    The average male life span was 45.

    great value!
14. Stuart Koehl says:

    February 19, 2009 at 7:28 am

    “The Romans required some 25 years of service . so one could get to be a citizen at about 43 years of age. Add the 6months it took to get fro the Picts Wall -43 & 1/2.

    The average male life span was 45.

    great value!”

    It was. First, average life expectancy is weighted by high infant and adolescent mortality. If you were tough enough to survive twenty five years as a Roman auxiliary (only the cohortes were open to “peregrini”; the legiones were for citizens only), you were certainly old enough to live into your sixties, and gravestones and epitaphs across the territory of the Empire indicate this is true. Beyond that, Roman citizenship (until it became universal in the third century) conveyed enormous legal, economic and social benefits, including the right to marry legally, the right to appeal in court up to the Emperor himself, exemption from taxes, protection of one’s person from non-citizens, and just a degree of dignitas not open to the non-citizen (even if free). Moreover, citizen status was inheritable, so not only the auxiliary, but his children became citizens (full citizens, not freedman), at one stroke. Add to that a nice severance bonus and a piece of land in some Latin colonia, and you do have a very good bargain indeed. That the auxiliary cohorts never had any problem recruiting, and that they fought as steadfastly for Rome as any of the legions, indicates that the auxiliaries thought so, too.
15. A Vietnamese American says:

    February 19, 2009 at 9:39 pm

    I agree with Stuart. No draft please. We have a fine military force with fine service men and women because we recruit the best and we treat them well.
    I bet you that Viet Luong loves this country as much as any natural born citizen. Think of it this way, he chose this country when he left VN to come here. This country also chose him to entrust him with its well being.
    I agree with Max, ‘only in America’. This story makes me proud as a Vietnamese American.
    BTW, CNN had a story on him two years ago when he was in IRAQ. In this story, he got all choked up talking about being rescued out of VN by the Marines when he was 9. You can tell he became an American soldier because other American soldiers showed him the way

    http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Soldier_Iraqi_insurgents_strongly_motivated_as_0626.html
16. rob says:

    February 20, 2009 at 1:51 pm

    @ Anthony
    “There are a lot of unknowns and that’s why I stress some adherence to “quality control”, for lack of a better phrase.”

    I agree with you about quality control.