U.S. Military Recruiting Targeting More Immigrants

link to photo

U.S. Military recruitment officers in the LA area are expanding their inclusion of immigrants.  Those who are here on temporary visas or asylum orders are now eligible to enlist.  

The Army must be thinking "better to recruit immigrants than felons."  Before we blink, the DREAM Act will pass and our dear DREAMers will be on their way to Afghanistan.  Let's hope more DREAMers consider college than the military.

LA Times, May 4, 2009:

"starting today, 10 Los Angeles-area Army recruiting offices will begin taking applications from some foreigners who are here on temporary visas or who have been granted asylum."

see "Army Extends Military Recruiting:  Pilot program seeks to boost the ranks of language and healthcare specialists by offering citizenship." Los Angeles Times, May 4, 2009

The Double Edged Sword that Nobody Talks About

I have had many discussions with different people regarding the issue of the DREAM Act and the provision that talks about military service if you did not make it to college.
Now, i know that even some DREAM advocates that i know and are my friends will disagree with me on this issue, but i completely disagree with this provision and believe that if it was my only option to join the military in order to be eligible for the DREAM Act- I would choose another option like going to Europe or something else besides joining the ranks.

This is the double edge sword that few people talked about during the last attempted passage of the DREAM. I am not agreeing fully with La Raza Educators, but i am simply asking you to think if this wasn't a whole planned game? Some people say that we, DREAM kids should be proud to serve this war because we have been given an education. I also know some DREAM kids that would be proud to go about this avenue. I say that nothing is free, nothing has been free. More importantly still, i would refuse to be part of a war that is so empty of reasons.

I would refuse to be part of something so dirty... giving someone their papers in exchange for blood.

I dont know what the next version of the DREAM Act will look like if there is to be another one, but i do urge you to really think about this and realize the high number of DREAMERs that would choose the military rather than a college education.


Should we give citizenship to those who serve?
by Indra Ekmanis
published on Wednesday, March 19, 2008


Instead of risking deportations to their home countries, many illegal immigrants may instead opt for deployment to Iraq if a proposed federal legislation is passed.

The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors, or DREAM, Act — variations of which have been introduced but not yet passed in Congress several times — would allow illegal immigrant students to regulate their status and gain citizenship or legal residence through participation in higher education or enlistment in the military.

In order to be eligible for the DREAM Act, immigrants must meet requirements including high school graduation and possession of "good moral character." They must also have entered the U.S. before age 16.

The act was re-introduced last year, but no major action has yet been taken, according to the Library of Congress' Web site. Further action on the act may be postponed until 2009.

Manuel Hernandez, associate professor of Spanish and Chicano literature, said the DREAM Act is about giving illegal immigrant students "a fair deal."....(More)

Image obtained here

A Debate on Immigrants and Military Service

November 12, 2007 Monday
CNN
Immigrants and Military Service; Hillary Clinton Under Fire

Jim Acosta, Ted Rowlands, Rick Sanchez, Elizabeth Cohen

GUESTS: Darrell Scott, Ed Morrissey, William Gheen, Ole Anthony, Reggie Walton


HIGHLIGHT: Should illegal immigrants in the U.S. military be granted automatic citizenship?...

RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: It's Veterans Day.

So, there's something really important that I think we should talk about. You know, I always say in this show and in my conversations with Lou that it's not about the immigrants. It's about immigration, immigration, a policy. That's what we in this country somehow have to fix, especially -- You ready? -- especially if the immigrants in particular are willing to give their lives for this country, die for the United States of America.

On this Veterans Day, here are the facts. And these are important. More than 100 immigrants have gone to Iraq or Afghanistan and gotten killed as part of the U.S. military. That's important. Thousands more are there fighting for our country right now, in fact, tens of thousands we now learn. And the president has signed an order that gives those guys something called the fast track, which essentially says this.

Look, if you're willing to fight for America, you should be treated like an American, those people. It's like an exception. Well, most people would agree with that, right?

Not William Gheen. He's joining us right now. He's the president of Americans For Legal Immigration.

Let me read to you, Mr. Gheen, what the president actually said. Let's put that up, if we can.

If somebody is willing to risk their lives for our country -- quote -- "They ought to be full participants in our country."
Where is he wrong?

WILLIAM GHEEN, PRESIDENT, AMERICANS FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE: Well, immigrants in the military are fine. But trying to stick illegal aliens in the military, come on, Rick. They have shown a disregard for our territorial jurisdiction and our borders.
(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Well, that's what we're talking about. We're talking about what you would call illegal aliens. Those are the ones the president is talking about.

(CROSSTALK) GHEEN: All right. Well, you called them immigrants, and I wish you would stop insulting immigrants by comparing them to illegal aliens. It's very rude to call them that, because immigrants have done things the right way. Illegal aliens have broken many laws.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Well, actually, I will tell you where you're wrong. Most of the people who are in your words illegal aliens or illegal immigrants actually came to the United States legally and then tried to process their papers after they were here or allowed their visa to expire.

So, they actually came into the country legally to begin with. And that's about half the people that you call illegal aliens. Answer that, sir.

GHEEN: Well, right at that point, they become legally termed illegal aliens. And it is affront and anti-immigrant to try to compare them to America's law-abiding immigrants.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: So, you're saying, a soldier goes to Iraq, either dies or is there willing to die for his country, and still we shouldn't make an exception?

Hold your answer, because we have got a report that we prepared. I want you and our viewers to watch this. And then we will talk about it a little bit more on the other side.

Here's CNN's Ted Rowlands now following one immigrant who fought in Iraq and just took the citizenship oath.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Thirty-five-year- old U.S. Army Sergeant Darwin Phillips saw combat in Iraq wearing an American uniform, but he has never seen the inside of an American voting booth, because he is a foreigner.
DARWIN PHILLIPS, NEW U.S. CITIZEN: I believe deeply about this country and what it stands for. I'm willing to put my life to defend this country.

That I will support and defend...

ROWLANDS: Until this ceremony last week, Phillips was not an American citizen. This is the payback the U.S. government gives Sergeant Phillips and other immigrants willing to put their lives on the line for America, a fast track to citizenship.

UNIDENTIFIED MALES AND FEMALE: And justice for all.

ROWLANDS: At this ceremony, Sergeant Phillips was one of 36 so- called green card troops representing 17 different countries that became citizens of the country they had already been defending. Darwin Phillips came to the U.S. 15 years ago from the Philippines. His wife, Nicole, and three sons are already U.S. citizens.

NICOLE PHILLIPS, WIFE OF DARWIN PHILLIPS: It makes me so proud of him and of all his accomplishments and his dedication to everything that he does every day for our country.

ROWLANDS: Because of his service, Sergeant Phillips was allowed to move through the citizenship process faster than someone not in the military, saving him an estimated year-and-a-half. He also didn't have to pay the $600 plus in filing fees. Immigration officials say these soldiers do get preferential treatment, but it's not a free ride.

TOM PAAR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES: They fill out the same forms. They do everything. But we just -- as we say, we have a special agency and organization in Nebraska that handles these applications and handles them very quickly.

ROWLANDS (on camera): Is it fair for you to get different treatment just because you're in the military?

D. PHILLIPS: We serve the military knowing that this is what we want. So, you know, sacrificing our -- putting our life on the line even before we're citizens, bearing arms.

This is it right here.

ROWLANDS (voice-over): Darwin Phillips says taking the oath of citizenship fulfills a dream he's had since coming to America. He's looking forward to voting for president next year and if he's sent into harm's way again, he will be defending a country that is his.

D. PHILLIPS: Now I'm truly part of America. And it's wonderful.

ROWLANDS: Ted Rowlands, CNN, Las Vegas, Nevada.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SANCHEZ: All right.

So, Bill, you would tell this guy -- he comes back to the United States -- hey, thanks for doing your job; thanks for sacrificing your life; now get out of the country; you're deported? You would say that to him?

GHEEN: No. No. I would say, if he's an illegal alien, he shouldn't be in the military anyway, for three important reasons.
One, it's ridiculous to think that illegal aliens are going to defend our borders and our states against invasion, Rick. Two, we already have a problem where forces trained by the U.S. military, such as Las Zetas, which controls the border more than the Border Patrol, were trained by the American military at Fort Benning, South Carolina. Now they're importing drugs and illegal aliens.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Well, hold on a minute. I want to go back to number one. I just started thinking about what you just said.
It's ridiculous to think that an illegal alien would defend our country.

GHEEN: Defend our borders.

SANCHEZ: You just had one.

GHEEN: Yes.

SANCHEZ: We just had one on the air who did just that.

GHEEN: That's an illegal -- you said that guy is an illegal alien in the military?

SANCHEZ: He is. He's an illegal alien in the military.

GHEEN: He needs to be arrested and detained as soon as possible and put back in his home country.

You think that training these people with arms and demolitions is a good idea? You have got 60 percent of the people in Mexico that feel that the United States shouldn't even control the Southwest United States, and you're going to train them in arms and explosives? Bet the French are glad they didn't do that before the illegal aliens started burning half the country over the last two years, Rick.

SANCHEZ: So, man, you just hate these guys. You just want them -- I mean, you want them punished altogether.

(CROSSTALK)

GHEEN: There's no hate. The truth is not hate.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: This guy is not -- he's a decent American. He's married. He has got a lovely family. He loves this country and he's willing to give his life for his country, just like...

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: ... already have.

GHEEN: You just lost this debate. The DREAM Act, which would have allowed military service to turn into citizenship, didn't even get off the ground. And Rasmussen polls reports that only 22 percent of the public supported that measure.
SANCHEZ: Right.

GHEEN: And 68 opposed it.

We have had this conversation. We have won. We have won it.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: But you know what? If all you want to do is tell me that you're right because there's a majority of people who agree with you, man, I can go back in history and tell you about majorities that agreed with a lot of things that we have gotten rid of because they were wrong, though. They were wrong.

(CROSSTALK)

GHEEN: Why don't you do this in American history? Go back and read about how it is the people of this country that run this country, Rick. Why don't you study that? And let's reflect the will of the American majority.

SANCHEZ: What does that have to do with anything? The will of the majority was to defend slavery as well.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: I mean, that was wrong.

GHEEN: No. What -- Rick, you're playing the race card. You're trying to be the Al Sharpton of illegal immigration.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: I'm not playing the race card.

(CROSSTALK)

GHEEN: We have already got Geraldo doing this projection racism thing. We don't need that.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: William, with all due respect -- and I like you and I like the fact that you come on our show, and we always have good, decent, respectable arguments.

GHEEN: I even wore the blue shirt. I wore the blue shirt you like, Rick.

SANCHEZ: Here's the point that I'm trying to make. These guys who go and defend their country are decent Americans. They're not here to hurt the United States in any which way. Would you not agree with that?

(CROSSTALK)

GHEEN: If they're an illegal American, they're not American and they're not decent. They have broken the laws, and they're illegal aliens.

SANCHEZ: All right. All right. We will continue the conversation at another time.

My thanks to you, William Gheen, for coming on and talking to that.

By the way, most of the polls show that even conservatives on this one disagree with you and agree with the president on this policy. We will come back and we will talk again.

The Small Print in the DREAM ACT

At the end of NILC's announcement that the DREAM ACT may come up on 10 24 2007, there is a statement about in-state tuition:
---
"The most important differences from the earlier version are that S. 2205 would not apply to individuals who, on the date of enactment, are over 30 years old, and it would not delete a provision of federal law that places conditions on states that provide in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants. "
---

What this means in plain language is that the DREAM ACT cut off is 30 years of age.

AND

that this bill will NOT force individual states to provide in-state tuition for undocumented students... if a student is not in one of the 10 states that has in-state tuition, then the options are to pay international tuition rates (more than 4 times) OR enlist in the military.

As I have written numerous times, I think the bill will pass because the military desperately needs thousands of recruits. But the bottom line is that unless the IRAQ War stops tomorrow, many DREAM ACT kids will die so that a few can get their degrees and work as professionals. This is not a good ending to the story, but right now it is the only ending.

Confronting Colleagues on Iraq and SCHIP

Photo of Rep. Pete Stark by Mike Kepka








Democrat Rep. Pete Stark calls Republicans "Chicken Hawks"-
California congressman shocked his colleagues with his statements on IRAQ and SCHIP.

link to video of Stark's speech: http://youtube.com/watch?v=DsGaNR9dVPM


Rep. Pete Stark stated on the floor of the U.S. House:

"You're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement..."


But Pelosi and others have distanced themselves, saying Stark's comments were inappropriate. Yet Stark is speaking the truth, with the current desperation of military recruiters, it seems like the U.S. is desperate to have more young people to go IRAQ. With $18,000 sign up bonuses - an 18 year old would have to be pretty mature to avoid the seduction of so much money - if they knew that college wasn't an option.

Makes me think of the kids who will be going to IRAQ after the DREAM ACT passes. If SCHIP is not important to this administration, why would undocumented young people fare any differently?

It's another story about the Emperor with no clothes... it's right in front of us - clearly in view - but no one is allowed to acknowledge this travesty.


_____

Pelosi backs away from Rep. Stark's criticism of Bush
Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau
San Francisco Chronicle
Saturday, October 20, 2007

(10-20) 04:00 PDT Washington --

Rep. Pete Stark may be Congress' foremost expert on health care, but on Capitol Hill the Fremont Democrat is better known for his explosive remarks that drive his critics - and sometimes his allies - crazy.

The 18-term lawmaker stirred the pot again Thursday when he attacked President Bush and congressional Republicans for backing hundreds of billions of dollars for the Iraq war, but blocking a $35 billion expansion of a children's health insurance program.

"You're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement," Stark told Republicans on the floor of the House.

The remarks during the debate over Bush's veto of the children's health bill drew howls of outrage from House Republicans and conservative commentators. His words were replayed endlessly on cable news and talk radio. By Friday, even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - who praised Stark for his leadership on the children's health bill a day earlier - was distancing herself from his comments.

"While members of Congress are passionate about their views, what Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate and distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand - providing health care for America's children," Pelosi, D-San Francisco, said.

What Pelosi also meant: Stark had handed Republicans an easy way to distract the public from what Democrats view as a winning stance on the popular children's health bill.

Stark, 75, declined a request Friday for an interview.

"He doesn't believe that he is the story," said his spokesman, Yoni Cohen. "He believes the story is that 10 million children are being denied health insurance."

Stark's remarks have drawn protests in the past. On the eve of the Iraq war, he said Bush would be committing a "terrorist act" by bombing Baghdad. He provoked a committee showdown in 2003 by calling a GOP member a "little fruitcake."

A closer look at Stark's comments Thursday - and how they were spun by Republicans - shows how his tart-tongued statement became headline news.

He began: "First of all, I'm just amazed that the Republicans are worried that we can't pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? You are going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war?

"You don't have money to fund the war or children, but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

He went back to the same point moments later: "But President Bush's statements about children's health shouldn't be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United States and in Congress."

On the left, Stark's comments drew rave reviews. They were posted on the blog DailyKos, stirring applause from the site's anti-war, anti-Bush readers: "Wow, this guy kicks ass," wrote one blogger.

But Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, who followed Stark on the floor, said: "It is despicable to have a member of this Congress accuse this president, any president, of willfully blowing the heads, quote, blowing the heads off our young men and women over in Iraq and Afghanistan."

The GOP spin machine went into hyperdrive. House Republican Leader John Boehner's press aides alerted reporters to Stark's comments. The National Republican Campaign Committee issued a press release, titled: "Democrat Disgrace: Pete Stark Drags SCHIP Political Circus to All-Time Low."

But Stark continued to taunt GOP members - clearly seeking to draw a reaction.

"What are you going to do for that 200 or 300 billion bucks, folks, that you're spending to kill these kids when they grow up? You can't answer that, can you?" he said.

Republicans tried unsuccessfully to have his words stricken from the official record.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, said the remarks "were hateful and wrong, and should be labeled as such by the House Democrat leadership."

While Pelosi, in her statement Friday, said Stark had gone too far, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, provided him a measured defense.

"The Republicans are desperate to change the subject from the real issue at hand, which is an occupation that has cost us almost a half a trillion dollars, and there's no end in sight," she said. "That's the real issue here, and the Republicans, and the president, are desperate to avoid it."



article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/20/MNH9ST598.DTL&tsp=1
photo: http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/03/18/ba_stark1800048_mk.jpg

-----

The Caucus
October 19, 2007, 1:47 pm
Stark’s Remarks Set Off G.O.P. Lawmakers
New York Times
By David M. Herszenhorn


“Yesterday’s debate in the House to override the President’s veto of bipartisan legislation to cover 10 million children was heated on both sides,” she said. “While Members of Congress are passionate about their views, what Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate and distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand — providing health care for America’s children.”

Mr. Stark expressed neither shame nor remorse. Instead, he fired back a statement calling on Mr. Boehner and other Republicans to retract their opposition to the expansion of the state children’s health insurance program. “Leader Boehner and his Republican colleagues should apologize for their votes,” he said.

And he included another jab at President Bush. “I have nothing but respect for our brave men and women in uniform and wish them the very best,” he said. “But I respect neither the commander-in-chief who keeps them in harms way nor the chicken-hawks in Congress who vote to deny children health care.”

Going to IRAQ is NOT Amnesty

For those who are against the DREAM ACT thinking it is amnesty for undocumented college students -

Since most states do not have in-state tuition - many DREAM ACT students will have no choice but to join the military to qualify for residency. People do not realize the desperation of the students. Of course they are patriotic... but their main impetus to enlist will be to meet the DREAM ACT requirements.

As you know, these days to enlist in the military means serving time in IRAQ. Would you still call that amnesty?



-----
Camp Pendleton readying 11,000 troops for Iraq assignment at year's end
By: MARK WALKER - Staff Writer
North County Times

CAMP PENDLETON -- When an estimated 11,000 Camp Pendleton troops head to Iraq soon, they'll be taking a host of new equipment with them such as lighter helmets, better flak jackets and more heavily armored vehicles.

...The Pentagon announced in late July that three major Camp Pendleton units would be deployed beginning late this year and continuing into early 2008...



-----
Some activists criticize 'Dream Act' as a draft for illegal immigrants
By: EDWARD SIFUENTES - Staff Writer
North County Times

A bill expected to come before the Senate next month would give illegal immigrants who came into the country as children a chance to become legal residents by serving two years in the military.

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, known as the Dream Act, was conceived six years ago as a way of giving young illegal immigrants a vehicle to legalize their status by attending college.

The bill, which is on hold in Congress, faces stiff opposition and an uphill road. It has gone through several changes and had been carried by different sponsors in the House and Senate. It was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, in 2001.

It was changed in 2003 to include military service to gain greater appeal among Republicans.

The Dream Act is supported by some in Congress, the military and in some immigrant rights groups who say it would benefit immigrant children while bolstering the military ranks. It is opposed by activists on both sides of the immigration debate who call it everything from an amnesty plan to a draft for immigrants.

A draft for immigrants?
If approved, the bill would apply to an estimated 280,000 illegal immigrants, according an analysis of the measure.

Opponents, including some Latino activists, say the bill would railroad illegal immigrants into military service rather than college.

"I see it as a sort of draft," said Fernando Suarez del Solar, a local Latino anti-war activist. "It's immoral."

Suarez del Solar of Escondido founded the anti-war group Guerrero Azteca after his son, Lance Cpl. Jesus Suarez del Solar, was killed in Iraq. He said he would support the bill if illegal immigrants are also given the option of two years of community service, which had been included in an earlier version of the bill.

"What I've asked for is a wider range of options," Suarez del Solar said.

Supporters say the bill gives individuals a choice.

"The bill recognizes that while some young people choose to attend college, others decide to serve in the military," said Federico de Jesus, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., one of the bill's main advocates. "The bill reflects these life decisions and provides young people an opportunity to achieve their dreams."

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., is the current bill's main sponsor in the Senate, along with a bipartisan group of about 26 co-sponsors. De Jesus said Reid plans to bring back the bill for debate in the Senate by Nov. 16.

The Dream Act was included in a comprehensive immigration reform plan debated in the Senate this summer. The wide-ranging plan, which included measures to increase border security and provisions to legalize millions of illegal immigrants, was defeated after much public debate.

Two weeks ago, Reid attempted to include the Dream Act in a defense spending bill, but pulled it back at the last minute.

Military signals support
The bill would give temporary legal residency to high school graduates who have lived in the U.S. at least five years and arrived here by age 15. Qualified applicants who agreed to enroll in college or join the military would become legal U.S. residents for six years. Those who passed a criminal background check and attended college for two years or served two years in the military could apply for citizenship.

Defense officials and military analysts have signaled their support for the bill. They say it would help the military meet its recruitment goals in light of sagging enlistment figures and plans to expand some branches of the armed forces.

Bill Carr, acting deputy undersecretary of defense for military personnel policy, told representatives of veterans groups in June that the Dream Act would help military recruitment and readiness, according to the Defense Department's internal news service.

Because the provision would apply only to high school graduates who have stayed out of trouble, it would be "very appealing" to the military, Carr said.

An analysis of the Dream Act by the Migration Policy Institute estimated that as many as 280,000 high school graduates between the ages of 18 and 24 would meet the necessary requirements to become legal residents if the bill becomes law.

The Washington-based think tank, which specializes in immigration matters and is funded through various foundation grants, concluded in a policy paper last fall that it's difficult to estimate how many of those young people would join the military. But the group added that a "significant share" might enlist based on recent research.

The organization pointed to a 2004 survey by the Rand Corp., a private, nonprofit organization that researches an array of issues, including education, poverty, crime and national security; that survey indicated a high interest among Latinos to serve in the military.

About one-third of young Latino women and about 45 percent of Latino men reported they were "likely" or "very likely" to serve, according to the survey. That compares with 24 percent of white men and 10 percent of white women.

About 35,000 noncitizens who are legal residents serve in the military and about 8,000 of them enlist each year, according to Pentagon figures.

Anti-immigration groups oppose it
Despite support from some military officials and top Republicans in the Senate, the bill is expected to face significant opposition from grass-roots, anti-illegal immigration groups, as well as lawmakers such as Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Solana Beach, who has said he opposes it.

A North Carolina group called Americans for Legal Immigration and others mounted a public relations campaign against the bill last month when it came before the Senate.

"Most Americans do not support the Dream Act," said William Gheen, a spokesman for Americans for Legal Immigration. "It's amnesty."

Gheen added that "the idea of training illegal aliens to use elite weaponry" was not a good national security strategy because he believes many illegal immigrants have "separatist and racist political ideologies."

Some immigrant rights groups say the bill is a welcome, common sense solution for illegal immigrants who came here as children but have lost hope in becoming Americans. Some are unable to establish productive lives in this country and are unlikely to return to a birth country they don't know, advocates say.

"Narrowly targeted measures like the Dream Act ... can point the way towards real improvements for American families, the American economy, and the bright future of immigrants in the country," said Frank Sharry in a written statement. He is executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigrant advocacy group in Washington.

Others who support legalization measures say they want a more comprehensive approach to immigration reform.

Jorge Mariscal, a UC San Diego professor of Latino studies and a Vietnam War veteran, said illegal immigrants may be forced into military service by the Dream Act because they may not be able to afford college tuition.

Mariscal is also part of an Encinitas-based group called Project on Youth and Non-Military Opportunities that acts as a counterpoint to military recruiters in local high schools.

"You are talking about a population that is absolutely desperate for legalization," he said. "And they are so desperate that they are going to join for the wrong reasons."

Contact staff writer Edward Sifuentes at (760) 740-3511 or esifuentes@nctimes.com.



for link to article click title to this post

Some Clarification on the DREAM ACT

Friday, October 5th I spoke with an aide to Senator Durbin regarding the issue of in-state tuition and the DREAM Act. I sincerely appreciate his time and willingness to provide information.

It is true that in-state tuition was negotiated out of the bill before Senator Reid announced that the DREAM ACT would be approved before November 16th.

Senator Durbin's office stated that apparently there is a problem with "states rights" and the implementation of a bill that rules that states have to allow DREAM ACT students in-state tuition - if the bill would have proceeded with the in-state tuition clause it might have hit some constitutional snags. So when it was left out as a compromise, the loss was not as large as most people thought. Although considering the way congressional politics go, this might not end up being totally accurate, but that is the information we have at this time.

Regardless of states rights, the DREAM ACT will bring sanity to the lives of thousands of undocumented young people. For those that have ALREADY completed their 2 years of college, this is be a life-saver. After meeting the other requirements (no criminal records, graduating from high school etc) they can apply for conditional residency.

For those who have not completed 2 years of college and live in a state that does not have in-state tuition, they either have to join the military to get the same benefit or pay international student rates.

There are millions of undocumented students in high school that will soon reach this crossroads. If an undocumented college graduate qualifies for the DREAM ACT, his/her younger sibling who is just finishing high school will be trapped As mentioned in a previous post, students like Juan Sebastain Gomez would be in a difficult situation if they live in one of the 40 states that do not have in-state tuition.

With high tuition bills facing them, they will have to join the military.

Some of my colleagues strongly believe that this caveat is fine as long as it helps the bill pass - that its unfortunate the undocumented students coming up later will not have such easy options. What is strategic for proponents of the bill in this form is that the military option will make the DREAM ACT viable at a time of brutal anti-immigrant sentiment.

Well now its here, with a good chance of being made into law. Of course everyone wants the bill to be implemented. Of course we want all the DREAM ACT students to regularize.

But what about those who will have to go to Iraq? What can we do for them? Options are limited. For those who can regularize, in a number of years they can become citizens and begin a nation-wide movement to change the terms of the DREAM ACT. But that is a very long time from now. We can also encourage young people who will enlist to study combat casualties in the different branches of service- which branch has less combat deaths? If you absolutely have to enlist - think of your safety.

Those of us who can vote and are relatives or friends of undocument students need to seriously consider banding together to help protect these young people from going to war. The Latino vote is very powerful. We could do a lot if we took interest. We could elect officials that would make the educational benefits of the DREAM available to all the undocumented students that qualify.

The DREAM ACT is great. It will change many lives. How many thousands of students will be able to work professionally, obtain drivers licenses, travel internationally, and most importantly not live in fear of an ICE raid?

Yes, I believe the DREAM ACT will pass. The military has too much to gain to let this opportunity go. Unfortunately any benefits enjoyed by DREAM ACT students will be tainted with blood.

Army is Getting Ready for the DREAM ACT

Recruitment Poster for World War I, ca. 1917








Now that Senator Reid has obliged the senate to pass the DREAM ACT this fall, the Army is preparing for its windfall of recruits. Since the DREAM ACT bill does not contain in-state tuition - most of the young people eligible will have no other choice since only 10 out of the 50 states offer in-state tuition to undocumented students.

In the spring of 07 Texas experienced a heated battle to save in-state tuition, which had been in place since 2001 (thanks to Texas Rep. Rick Noriega) -- after dozens of harsh anti-immigration bills were submitted to the Texas Legislature. In-State tuition in Texas was only preserved because of an error on the part of those wanting to rescind the bill - its sort of like a judge ruling a mistrial. The event occurred so late in the session, the opposing bill was dropped.

If Congress would finally agree to end the Iraq War, students takiing the military option would be in great shape. But after watching the senate hearings these past few weeks, I can't imagine our lawmakers will come to an agreement about troop withdrawal.

On the bright side (if there is one), during World War II military experience had a huge impact on Hispanics in the United States- effectively created a middle class - The war experience and going to other countries helped Latinos see beyond the restrictive attitudes in the U.S. southwest. The GI Bill helped hundreds of thousands to further their education and buy homes.

For the present, those that enlist and return home healthy will determine the political future of this country. They are going to remember that when they were younger they weren't able to go to college because the DREAM ACT dropped the in-state tuition clause.


-----
Army looks to accelerate expansion

Increasing the force should happen in four years, not five, the service's secretary says. Ideas focus on adding enticements to keep soldiers.
By Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 28, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The Army's top official called Thursday for the acceleration of a multiyear expansion of the country's biggest fighting force, a move that probably would require radical new approaches for keeping soldiers in uniform.

Army Secretary Pete Geren said the planned expansion from its official size of 482,000 to 547,000, announced by President Bush in December as the first post-Cold War increase in U.S. forces, should be completed in four years rather than five to alleviate the strain on troops from frequent combat tours.

Defense officials planning for the increase have voiced concern over recent loosening of standards for new enlistees because of the heavy pressure to meet recruiting goals.

The new Army plan would attempt to build the larger force in a shorter time by instead moving aggressively to retain personnel.

The military has begun to consider options beyond the traditional cash bonuses and college scholarships to entice soldiers to continue service. New approaches under consideration include the promise of graduate school for young officers and the offer of educational benefits for career soldiers' children.

The new approaches reflect the continuing fallout of the 4 1/2-year-old Iraq war. Prolonged and repeated deployments have created new stresses on troops, which have forced the Army to reevaluate how it provides for soldiers and their families.

"The demographics of the Army change, the needs of the soldiers change, stress on the force changes," Geren said. "We have to continue to find ways to adjust our benefits package, writ large, to meet those different needs..."

for entire article click title to this post


photo: http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/14573-POD/1099858~I-Want-You-for-the-U-S-Army-c-1917-Posters.jpg

In-State Tuition Clause Taken Out of the DREAM ACT

This reminds me of how extremely difficult it was this past spring to keep in-state tuition for DREAM ACT kids in Texas. With just a handful of states offering in-state tuition, and those only holding on to them very tenaciously, it doesn't look very good for those who want to take the college option.

"Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, tried to win extra support by altering the bill to cap eligibility to those younger than 30 and by eliminating a mandate that states offer in-state tuition to those who qualified for legal status."


-----


Article published Sep 27, 2007
Student illegals bill dropped--------
Washington Times


September 27, 2007


By Stephen Dinan - Senate Democrats yesterday retreated from forcing a debate about giving illegal-alien students a path to citizenship in the middle of the defense bill, although Majority Leader Harry Reid promised to find time before the end of the year for a vote on the proposal.

"We will move to proceed to this matter before we leave here. I"m going to do my utmost to do it by November 16," Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat, said last night.

The proposal faced strong opposition from Republicans who objected to mixing immigration with the defense bill and who vowed to filibuster to defeat the measure if Democrats insisted on bringing it up now.

Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, told The Washington Times last week that enough Republicans were opposed to mixing the two debates that they could block the amendment. Late yesterday, Republicans moved to cut off debate on the defense bill, leaving Democrats with practically no options for inserting their proposal, known as the Dream Act.

The bill would have applied to illegal aliens who were brought to the United States before age 16, have been in the country at least five years and have graduated from high school or obtained an equivalency degree. They are granted legal status and have six years to complete two years of college or serve in the military.

Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, tried to win extra support by altering the bill to cap eligibility to those younger than 30 and by eliminating a mandate that states offer in-state tuition to those who qualified for legal status.

"If you meet these people, you"ll come to understand the potential that they bring to America"s future," he said.

He said it is unfair to punish children for their parents" illegal actions — a stance many Republicans share.

The Dream Act has become the top priority for Hispanic and pro-immigration groups and has become the top target for defeat for those who wish to crack down on illegals. The delay gives both sides a chance to rally support.

Decoupling the measure from the defense bill gives it a better chance of passage, but it also means another contentious issue for Mr. Reid to schedule before Congress adjourns for the year. Another immigration-related proposal — to legalize illegal-alien agriculture workers — is also expected to come up for debate.

--
thanks to Michael Olivas for sending this on.