Pentagon eyeing immigrants who arrived illegally

[Jesus Malverde]

Source: AP

The Pentagon is weighing allowing some immigrants brought illegally to the country as youths to serve in the military, a unilateral step by the Obama administration as immigration legislation remains stalled in the Republican-led House.

The announcement came Tuesday as House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, defended his election-year decision to rebuff a narrow immigration measure pushed by a GOP congressman to achieve a similar goal.

The Pentagon consideration would apply to immigrants who arrived illegally as kids but already have received work permits and relief from deportation under a program President Barack Obama announced two years ago, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. More than 500,000 immigrants have benefited from the program.

The Defense Department "continues to examine the laws and policies that address the eligibility of noncitizens to serve in the military in order to determine if and how our programs could be applied to DACA recipients," Pentagon spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen said in a statement.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IMMIGRATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-05-20-17-48-52

[itsrobert]

1. They probably looking at it in an event where they are struggling getting recruits

Right now the services have more than enough recruits. But things can change in a hurry.

[Jesus Malverde]

3. Only one-in-four Americans fit to serve in the military

Most Americans are ineligible to join the military, either because they’re drug users, obese, medically unfit, failed to graduate high school, or have criminal records. The Pentagon estimates that only 25 percent of Americans are qualified.

http://rt.com/usa/military-service-fit-american-449/

[itsrobert]

6. Yeah, but when they need recruits

they relax the standards for entry. For example during the height of the GWOT/Iraq/Afghanistan wars, the Army relaxed the requirement to be a High School grad. They also moved the age requirement higher. Regardless, right now they have more recruits than they need.

"Military officials claim that they are able to be more selective, largely because the high youth unemployment rate and the drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan have prompted more people to apply."

[penultimate]

18. The comments on that RT story are so nice....

[MADem]

2. How would that affect deployment, I wonder?

Do they get issued US No-Fee official passports, or does DOD pay for a passport from their native land?

Also, since there's a drawdown going on, it's going to be absolutely a cream of the crop/best and brightest selection process for these kids--the standards are already going up, Up, UP anyway as they make it harder to join and advance.

[Recursion]

4. Most deployments don't require a passport

The status of forces agreement covers that. There's already quite a few non-citizens in the military; IIRC it bumps you up the line for citizenship.

[MADem]

9. I've been in ten or fifteen countries on military orders and I always needed a passport.

It was at the bottom of those orders; there was a blurb about the No-Fee Passport (the official one, not the private one). You may have gotten into the country on those orders and an ID, but they wanted you to have that passport as I recall. I remember saying screw it on one tour and using my blue one because I had no time to get the red one. I often flew commercial getting from place to place, maybe that was the rub. It's all vague, hell, I'm old! I don't even recognize the unis anymore--they look like pyjamas!

I had a number of non-citizens work for me down the years, Filipinos and a few Spaniards and even a Scot on a green card; I just never thought to ask them about their passport particulars. It does bump you up for citizenship, in fact, I remember writing a point paper to overcome a glitch in the process (people who were doing back-to-back overseas/deployed tours were unable to qualify for the citizenship because they couldn't spend 3 straight years in USA, or something like that--we got the rule changed, if I remember right).

[Recursion]

11. I was invading every country I entered on military orders

Wait, that's not true, we did a week in Thailand at one point and nobody ever mentioned passports Though the orders were just to go on the float and Thailand was an afterthought.

Were you an officer? There may be different requirements for officers and troops.

[MADem]

21. Yes, I was, and I always had to cough up a passport. Never was able to travel without one. nt

[AnalystInParadise]

22. When was this?

Since we flew with officers and all they ever used as their CAC I have to think this might have been a little while in the past.

[MADem]

23. Right up to Nine Wun Wun.

On edit--I think it depends where in the world you go. If you're in an easy-peasy SOFA environment (places where Americans don't need visas, typically, to visit as tourists) you won't have a problem.

However, other places might have different requirements.

Sample:

All active duty military personnel are required to have an official passport prior to arrival in Bahrain. Official (No-Fee) passports will be issued through your Personnel Support Detachment (PSD). Do not delay, it is critical that you have an official passport plan early. Passport application can take as long as two months. The Kingdom of Bahrain requires a visa for all personnel entering the country. All service members and DOD Civilians should ensure they have a "no fee" passport in their possession prior to the move.

I am having a hard time getting the link to post for some reason--I keep getting smiley faces and so forth and it has a bunch of underlines so it gets messed up.

If you go to www.militaryinstallations.dod.mil and then find Bahrain you'll see what I cut/pasted.

[AnalystInParadise]

25. I believe you, but that is so strange

I have been to a lot of CENTCOM countries and I never needed a passport. Bahrain was not one of those countries, so maybe it is exclusive to Bahrain.

[MADem]

27. I've had UN and NATO postings and often been required to travel.

Affiliations with State used to require them as well, if they don't still.

It's not exclusive to Bahrain. The other example I found (quickly perusing) was Norway. I know there are others.

That said, it's not exclusive to commissioned officers. I believe it has to do with assignment characterization and/or location. I know of an enlisted kid (who was killed in a terrorist incident and thrown on the tarmac from an aircraft) who died because they found his no-fee passport. You can probably figure out who it is I speak of from that brief sentence. I don't want to distress his family by going into detail.

[AnalystInParadise]

13. Recently retired military here

and I have never needed a passport for travel until my retirement. Many countries that have SOFA agreements with the US allow for military to travel on their CAC/Military ID. I have been to 27 countries on my military duties and did not need a passport. Ironically I have even taken vacations and my CAC has been enough to get me on and off the Cruise ships.

[MADem]

24. See post 23.

Also, from the same site, for a billet in Norway:

Passports

Although the service member technically does not need to have a passport to arrive here, they will need one to obtain a Norwegian bank account as well as to go on leave and return. They should buy a tourist passport. If you are going to be assigned to a NATO billet, please contact your sponsor as you may be required to obtain an official passport in support of your official duties. Family members should obtain tourist passports for personal travel in addition to their “Official No-Fee Passport”.

This requirement was always written into my orders.

[AnalystInParadise]

28. It's cool man. I totally believe you

I just wonder what the difference is. I am 40 years old and didn't get a passport until I retired from the Army after 20 last year. I never needed it. My ID card in the 90's was all I ever needed, when we transitioned to the CAC in the early 2000's that was also good enough. I was asked for a passport a few times, but the I pulled out the CAC and my orders and I was always golden.

[MADem]

29. I wish I was 40 again!

You've got the world at your feet! You got out while the gettin' was good (always better to jump than be pushed)...it's going to be a hard road for your fellow soldiers in the next three to six years.

I had some odd postings, and I was expected to do a lot of travelling as well. I also acquired a subspecialty that had potential to put me in far off places at a moment's notice. But even when I was a greenhorn ensign, they always made me get the damn no-fee passport!

[951-Riverside]

5. All people caught entering illegally should have an option to serve a min of 4 years...

in the armed forces afterwards they automatically get citizenship along with immediate family members who have not been convicted of any violent felonies.

[happyslug]

17. The Roman Imperial Army policy....

Yes, in the days of Imperial Rome, a non-Roman Citizen could serve in the Roman Army and at the end of his enlistment, he was granted Roman Citizenship.

The down side of that policy, was the Roman Army became more and more non-Roman, more and more pro-Emperor, less and less for the Roman People. Worse, when Rome had a cash crisis (i.e. had no money to pay for troops), all of those non-Roman Troops went home, join any invading barbarian horde that was around, or went looting itself. This lead to the collapse of the Western Empire, and the Eastern Empire only survived by reverting to 100% native troops, whose enlistment was tied in with their ownership of land (i.e. you served 20-30 years, retired on a plot of land and your son replaced you in the Roman Army, after serving 20-30 years he inherited the family plot and his son served in the army...if that sounds like Feudalism, military service tied in with Military service you are correct, it seems to have been invented about 600 AD as the Persians took Egypt and threaten to take Constantinople, followed by the Arabs 20 years later who did the same thing. Thus Feudalism was invented so the Eastern Empire could raise the troops it needed to survive).

In short foreign mercenaries are NOT a good source of troops. Good if you have the money to pay them, including looting other countries, but terrible if you actually want to defend your own country.

[reformist2]

7. This would set a horrible precedent. Just say NO to indentured soldiers!

[MADem]

10. The military doesn't want indentured servants. It's competitive. Three out of four applicants are

not qualified. They are turning most people away because they aren't cutting it. Too fat, too unfit, and not smart enough? Those folks aren't getting in. Too many tattoos, those big holes in your ears, piercings in the wrong spot? Sayonara.

It will be a rare non-citizen (not counting green card holders, they do qualify) that gets in the military. They will have to be EXCEPTIONAL.

[Recursion]

12. Side note: I think the Pentagon loosened the tat requirements recently

They can still reject for content but number and (other than the face) placement are no longer disqualifying. Some of younger Marines at the consulate here have tattoos below their elbow, which still strikes me as odd whenever I see it...

[AnalystInParadise]

14. Actually they just tightened up the tattoo requirements for the Army

Those young Marines will never be able to become Officers or Warrant Officers if the Marines adopt the same standards.

http://www.army.mil/article/122978/Army_tightens_personal_appearance__tattoo_policy/

[Recursion]

15. Thanks; I just checked and that was in fact the Commandant only

Good catch. That said, tattooed or not our Marines are some amazing guys and gals.

[MADem]

20. Army is tightening up in a big way. Placement and size are disqualifiers.

Army's new regs are strictest, and if you want to know why, it's because they have the MOST people to "get rid of." Those wars of choice plussed up the USA enormously, and now it has to be drawn down.

http://nation.time.com/2013/09/26/tat-us-quo-despite-strict-new-army-rules-other-branches-keep-tattoo-policies-intact/

In the Air Force, which updated its standards in 2011, tattoos cannot be “excessive”, meaning they can’t cover more than 25 percent of an exposed body part (like a forearm) when wearing any uniform. During the review leading to the policy update, the Air Force added a measuring tool so commanders can determine if a tattoo is considered excessive. A spokeswoman said the Air Force is not considering any additional changes in the near future.

The Marines last revised their tattoo policy in 2010. Commissioned and warrant officers can only have four tattoos or brands visible when wearing a physical training uniform (shorts and a t-shirt). For enlisted Marines, they can’t have tattoos on their hands, fingers, wrists or inside their mouths, and any tattoo visible from a physical training uniform can’t be larger than a fist. One of the Marine Corps’ considerations when they reviewed the tattoo policy is the “assignability” of individual Marines–they serve as embassy guards around the world, in addition to other highly visible assignments. “We’re confident that the current policy both ensures’ Marines worldwide assignability and protects our high standards of appearance and bearing,” Capt. Ty Balzer, a media officer for Headquarters Marine Corps, said in an email.

Before 2003, the Navy also had the “25 percent rule”, but updated its standards in 2006 to allow tattoos visible when wearing a uniform shirt as long as they are smaller than an extended hand. That means sailors can get all the tattoos they want on their torsos, but nothing can be visible through the white uniform. The Navy’s policy is the oldest on the books, but an official from the Navy Office of Information said there are no immediate plans to change the regulations.

The Army’s policy change has been in the works for some time. In 2006, needing more potential recruits at the height of the Iraq War, the Army began to allow tattoos on the hands and back of the neck. But now with the war in Iraq over and the one in Afghanistan winding down, the Army is poised to trim 80,000 troops in five years. With a smaller force, they can afford to be more selective, and after being promoted in 2011, Sergeant Major of the Army Raymond Chandler began speaking about a sterner tattoo policy. “The appearance of tattoos detracts from a uniformed service,” Chandler told soldiers at Fort Jackson, South Carolina last year, arguing that ink draws attention to the individual. “You are part of something larger.”

[okaawhatever]

16. There is probably a need for foreign language speakers and that may be one reason they're

easing the requirements.

[MADem]

19. That might be a possibility, particularly with people who speak

languages other than Spanish or French or some of the most common Euro languages (we grow plenty of those here). They'd probably be scarce as hen's teeth, though--and I don't even want to think about the waiver implications when it comes to giving those people a clearance. Hell, half the shit those linguists deal with is NOFORN....which creates a problem right there!

[L0oniX]

8. This is what happens when there aren't enough wars and killing boogie men going on.

[olddad56]

26. oh, I don't think you will have to worry about that.