Winston Churchill was said to have remarked: “The Americans will always do the right thing… after they’ve exhausted all the alternatives.” The same might be said of the Pentagon, which has finally, after a long delay, done the right thing with regard to letting immigrants sign up for the armed forces even if they lack green cards.
This program, known as Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI), was a big success during the one year it was in existence, from 2009 to 2010. As the New York Times notes, in the first class of 1,000 immigrants, one-third had master’s degrees or higher and on average they scored 17 points higher (out of a total of 99) on an entrance exam. Fully one-third went into the Special Forces, which is not easy to get into. And among those initial enlistees was Sgt. Saral Shrestha, a Nepalese immigrant who was just named the Army’s Soldier of the Year.
Yet the program was suspended, in large part it seems over security concerns arising from Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s shooting at Fort Hood–even though Hasan was not himself an immigrant and had no connection to this program. Now at long last the Pentagon has decided to open the MAVNI program for another 3,000 recruits over the next two years.
Given our pressing need to enroll more personnel in the military–not to mention other government departments–who speak important languages (such as Dari and Arabic) and are familiar with foreign lands, I would expand the program even further by not limiting it to those who are already in the U.S. on temporary visas. We should open it up to anyone anywhere who speaks English, can demonstrate his or her character and reliability, and desires to become a U.S. citizen by serving in our armed forces. The potential gains are huge, even if there is a small security risk–but as Maj. Hasan proved (as have such notorious traitors as Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen) even those born here can pose a security risk.
Immigrants are a vital source of military personnel, as long as they are properly vetted – and that will be a lot better once REMFs, shirkers, paper-pushers and outright traitors appointed by Obama are dismissed.
Even if it is the right thing it is wrong because of the timing–another blantant vote buying effort by Obama right before the election.
How is this vote-buying? None of the new recruits can vote yet. The first one will report to basic training after the election. The prior ones got recruited under a pilot program started under President Bush.
Do you also think that Obama flogs the Lilly Ledbetter Act solely to buy the votes of the miniscule number of woman who could be able to take advantage of that law? If so, you have a very naive understanding of why politicians make certain promises and who they expect to reciprocate to them: hint–it is not just the people directly and personally impacted by the promise/act.
I still don't get whose votes are allegedly being "bought."
Women generally support Ledbetter because most women feel discriminated against in the workplace and they can all identify with that. But I can't think of too many Americans who are going to vote for a President based on whether or not he lets 1000 legal immigrants enlist in the Army. There are about twenty five "hot" issues more important than that.
Like Dream Act, jazzes up the Latino activists, who then get out the vote. This stuff is catnip to them.
Latinos don't care about MAVNI. Not a single Latino activist has ever mentioned MAVNI positively. MAVNI doesn't recruit Spanish speakers. In fact, the Latino activists were complaining about the program because they say it discriminates against Latinos. You have no evidence for your opinion.
By the way, if most women feel discriminated against in the workplace, they are fools. And they are even more fools if they think the Ledbetter act does anything to prevent discrimination. It only has to do with technical statute of limitations calculations. Of course, listening to Obama, you'd think it was the 19th Amendment.
I think you have just aptly demonstrated that most people don't care much about facts when they state their opinions.
What facts do you have that most women feel discriminated against in the workplace, and, if they do, that there is any justification for that feeling? I have worked in the workplace for years, in a highly competitive industry, and women are not in the slightest discriminated against. In fact, they are preferred. What are your "facts"?
Leaving aside Major Nidal Malik Hasan's (a legal immigrant) massacre of our soldiers in Texas , is it really wise to allow large numbers of illegal Arabs/Muslims to enlist in the US military? Boot would probably say yes, arguing that we shouldn't turn our books on such "moderate" Muslims. But I think an American Army should be staffed overwhelmingly by American citizens and not illegal immigrants, especially those coming from populations deeply hostile to us. If we can't get enough Americans willing to defend their country, far better to reinstate the draft than recruit battalions comprising illegal immigrants, especially those coming from a culture that says we are infidels.
I see that you did not read the article. Major Hasan was not a "legal immigrant"–he was not an immigrant at all. He was born in the United States, just like most people who serve in the US military. Furthermore, MAVNI is not open to unauthorized immigrants. It would be nice if you would pay attention to facts before you comment. n nReinstating the draft won't do much–Mitt Romney managed to avoid the draft for a full decade and so did millions of other native born Americans from the elite classes. They will do the same today. But because unauthorized immigrants are subject to the draft, you would get more of them in the force with your prescription than with the current system, which does not allow them to enlist voluntarily.
To Max Boot: n nYou are just plain wrong. The commentator 'mhloutbeltway,' very rightly pointed out one Major Hasan as one reason why. There were others too, like the incident at the recruiter's office in Arkansas or the individual who threw a grenade into a tent or what is going on in Afghanistan right now with the locals working with U.S. troops or in Libya with the local security personnel who pointed out Ambassador Stevens to Al Qaeda. n nUsing foreign nationals of questionable loyalty in place of American citizens is a recipe for trouble. The U.S. military has all ways been composed of citizen soldiers. Take that out of the matrix and you are essentially left with in essence foreign mercenaries loyal only to their pay master. Think it cannot happen remember the Roman republic or the Roman empire, or the Italian city states during the renaissance. n nNo if the military cannot recruit enough citizens then the issues of why need to be addressed, not paper over with non-citizens.
The US Army in WWI was 20% foreign (immigrants). Both the Union and Confederate Armies had huge numbers of immigrants in the Civil War. Please also look at every other major war and the US military had hordes of immigrants in its ranks. "The US military has in all ways been composed of citizen soldiers"? That has never been true.
I also don't know how many times it has to be said: Nidal Malik Hasan is a US citizen, born in Virginia. He has been a citizen since he was born and never was an immigrant. Same for Mark Fidel Kools (a/k/a) Hasan Akbar (US citizen born in California). Same for Jason Abdo (US citizen at birth). And then there is US Army veteran and convicted terrorist Timothy McVeigh (US citizen born in New York). Making the force into a "citizen only" one doesn't do anything to stop terrorism if the US citizens who enlist aren't screened for their terrorist inclinations.