Citizenship proposed for survivors of dead soldiers

Associated Press ^ | Thu, Apr. 10, 2003 | DAISY NGUYEN

[Sloth]

Who should judge who "deserves" anything?

Well, the Constitution explicitly grants Congress authority to regulate the naturalization of citizens... presumably it was always understood that there would be some criteria involved. Or do you think that part of the Constitution sucks?

[Alberta's Child]

Bump.

[Sabertooth]

Well, the Constitution explicitly grants Congress authority to regulate the naturalization of citizens... presumably it was always understood that there would be some criteria involved. Or do you think that part of the Constitution sucks?

Congress has all kinds of Constitutional powers, that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be restraint in the exercise of them.

Doling out goodies to the "deserving" hasn't been a good idea in the past and won't be so in the future. Politicians thrive on power. If you give them more, they'll want still more and use it to procure votes for the next election, unintended consequences notwithstanding.

In the past few days we've seen threads for petitions to grant automatic citizenship to 'Mohammed' who tipped off our troops to the location of Pfc Jessica Lynch, and now this thread proposing fast track citizenship for the family members of deceased soldiers. Tomorrow it will be something else, depending on how some office holder thinks he can gain an advantage. The best course is to stop this bandwagon in its tracks.

[Cicero]

I don't think anyone would object if their citizenship applications were expedited. But it would be a serious mistake just to pass some sort of blanket law giving them instant citizenship.

People join the military for all sorts of reasons. Some of them wanted free schooling, for instance, and strenuously objected when they were sent off to fight. One obvious "unintended consequence" of a special citizenship bill would be that illegal aliens would join purely to short-circuit the process. You would likely get more grenade-rolling Muhammeds in the military, not really what we want.

[hchutch]

Well, forgive me for bothering, but gee, maybe there is something to allowing folks to use this thing called "judgement"?

After all, that is why PEOPLE are elected, and have to stand for re-election after a certain period of time, in which their constituents use their voting record, among other things, to determine if they should remain in office for another period of time.

Since judgement calls are part and parcel of elected office, it's the job of the American people to make sure that the folks elected have good judgement. Sometimes, when electing folks like Bill and Hillary Clinton, they haven't done so, but for the most part, if one puts out ALL of the facts and ALL sides of the issue, the American people will usually get it right.

We don't have computers or robots smart enough to rule us. Quite frankly, I would rather not see things come to that. There are cases where extenuating circumstances exist. There are times where one has to make a judgement call.

Corporal Jose Gutierrez EARNED his citizenship - so have other immigrants who are helping liberate the people of Iraq. Quite frankly, I consider these folks to have a much better idea of America than the likes Bill Clinton, the anti-war crowd, and the paleo-cons.

[Poohbah]

Last full measure bump...

[Howlin]

If you can't see that these men and women DESERVE citizenship, you don't understand what this country is about.

[Sabertooth]

If you can't see that these men and women DESERVE citizenship, you don't understand what this country is about.

You're aware, I hope, that this thread is not about whether citizenship should be granted or fast-tracked to immigrants in the armed forces, or awarded to them posthumously should they fall in battle.

[hchutch]

You may want to re-read the article, then.

[Sabertooth]

You may want to re-read the article, then.

Reread the title. Read this paragraph:

In recent weeks, elected officials have jumped on the bandwagon that has resulted in granting posthumous citizenship for foreign-born soldiers killed in action. This week, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista, went even further by proposing a bill to give citizenship to surviving spouses and children.

Reread my post at #13, about the act of Congress which granted a soldier's pension to his widow, a very analogous situation.

I've got no problem with posthumous citizenship, but it should not be transferable. I've also rethought an earlier position I'd taken regarding the fast-tracking of citizenship for foreign-born military personal. Upon honorable discharge, they should be immediately eligible for citizenship classes.

We should refrain, however, from finding one reason or another to justify giving quick citizenship to anyone the whim of the moment holds is "deserving."

[hchutch]

Families sign up for the military, too.

My dad served as an officer, and it had effects ont he family. And they are the ones who may have to lose a husband and/or father.

I did read post 13. And I disagree with the logic. The pensions are, in essence, just payment for those who have served. They also serve as a retainer (we have the ability to recall retired officers until 24 hours AFTER their death) for future services. Even allowing those benefits to accrue to a widow and minor children is not unreasonable, particularly when soldiers are killed in the line of duty or while on active service.

It's how you maintain a solid military in an all-volunteer force like the one we have had for thirty years. You have to take care of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. Their families will also have to be cared for as well, particularly since a reasonable person can assume that their father/husband (or, in this day and age, wife/mother) could end up killed or permanently disabled.

In the case of immigrnt families, speeding it up would not be a bad thing, particularly if their loved one in the military is killed in the line of duty.

[Sabertooth]

I did read post 13. And I disagree with the logic. The pensions are, in essence, just payment for those who have served.

At the time those pensions weren't transferrable; the Act was retroactive. This established the principle that the government could give things to people based on whether they were deserving, or needy. Much evil has flowed from that precedent.

It's how you maintain a solid military in an all-volunteer force like the one we have had for thirty years. You have to take care of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.

We've done so just fine without granting automatic or transferrable citizenship, and can continue to do so in the future. It isn't necessary to the maintenance of the all-volunteer military. No one is talking about caring for the dependent families of foreign-born nationals in our military in any way that is different than how we care for the dependent families of citizen soldiers. The question is exclusively about whether or not citizenship should be fast-tracked for those family members who aren't already citizens themselves.

In the case of immigrnt families, speeding it up would not be a bad thing, particularly if their loved one in the military is killed in the line of duty.

This impulse is mainly about good intentions. Far too much bad legislation and policy is enacted and implemented on the basis of good intentions swept up in the emotion of the moment. This is an avoidable problem.

Immigrant families of fallen immigrant military personnel should have their residence status secured, but the matter of their citizenship should be addressed in the normal timeframe.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."--- Thomas Jefferson

Do you think that this tree can taste the difference between blood native born and foreign? Would it quench less?

Would it offer more strenght to its limbs, and girth to its trunk if it were of the soil, instead of dead in its defense?

If they serve, and die for our freedom, should we be miserly and petty?

Or should we offer the full measure of shade from its ample branches to them through whose veins runs the blood of they who watered its roots?

[hchutch]

"This established the principle that the government could give things to people based on whether they were deserving, or needy. Much evil has flowed from that precedent."

You miss the point. The problem with welfare is that the govenrment gives someone due to perceived NEED.

Military pensions are different on TWO counts.

1. They are compensation for services rendered.
2. They also serve as a retainer in case the services are required in the future.

"We've done so just fine without granting automatic or transferrable citizenship, and can continue to do so in the future. It isn't necessary to the maintenance of the all-volunteer military. No one is talking about caring for the dependent families of foreign-born nationals in our military in any way that is different than how we care for the dependent families of citizen soldiers. The question is exclusively about whether or not citizenship should be fast-tracked for those family members who aren't already citizens themselves."

The answer is, yes. Why? Because they will suffer no less than a family of native-born American citizens if their husband/father is killed or wounded.

"This impulse is mainly about good intentions. Far too much bad legislation and policy is enacted and implemented on the basis of good intentions swept up in the emotion of the moment. This is an avoidable problem."

No disputing those sentiments, but one must also ensure that GOOD legislation and policy is still pursued.

"Immigrant families of fallen immigrant military personnel should have their residence status secured, but the matter of their citizenship should be addressed in the normal timeframe."

About the time of the Civil War, Frederick Douglass once said, "[L]et the black man get upon his person the brass letter, U.S., let him get an eagle on his button, and a musket on his shoulder and bullets in his pocket, there is no power on earth that can deny that he has earned the right to citizenship."

In that vein, one must look and ask whether one can rightfully deny that an immigrant who serves in the Armed Forces, wearing that "U.S. Army"/"U.S. Navy"/"U.S. Air Force"/"U.S. Marine Corps" patch, with the M16 on his shoulder and the magazines in the pouch has EARNED their citizenship.

How can we say that the family that endures the long periods of separation and the possibility their loved one might die in action, and who makes the same sacrfiices of a family of American citizens in that situation, has not EARNED their citizenship?

[Victoria Delsoul]

I agree, if someone is willing to put his or her life on the line and serve honorably, then, he or she should be granted citizenship.

[Alberta's Child]

Amen!

[Sabertooth]

Ever read any Thomas Sowell? A good book by him is called "The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a basis for Social Policy."

It's a good read. The basic premise is that many politicians write and pass laws that make them feel good about themselves. Legislation and policy making become vehicles for boosting the self-esteem of our elected officials, and by extension, the people who vote for them.

I've come to the conclusion that this is not exclusively a Leftist problem.

The Founding Fathers were concerned about the momentary passions of democratic majorities. It's still a valid reason for caution.

[hchutch]

This is NOT about me feeling good about myself.

This is NOT about self-congratulation or my self-esteem.

This is about doing right by those who serve our country and their families.

[PRND21]

Good post.