In one of the scences from the movie, "Gangs of New York", young Irishmen are unboarding from the boats that brought them over, and before setting foot on American soil they are handed a gun to fight for the North in the Civil War. After reading the first line of Moscoco's article, this image immediately came to my head. In a time where the process of citizenship is a long, uncertain battle, immigrants are given a chance to ease this process. The only dilemma is that this shortcut comes through the U.S. Armed Forces.
When looking at the Pros and Cons of exchanging U.S. citizenship for a lengthy tour of duty in the armed forces, I think it's best to look at the way things are going right now. It is easy to say that the military is already taking advantage of most of its new recruits. Most new members targeted are people who have few other options to better their life as they become adults, and turn to the armed forces in order to get themselves out of a worse situation. I find the idea of non-citizens serving our country as an honorable task for that individual, and I see no wrong in them taking advantage of the system in order to achieve their ultimate goal.
However, I am extremely critical of the U.S. intentions as this plan picks up support. In both articles the word 'mercenary' was loosely thrown around in order to explain what these non-citizens would become. By looking at the current state of the U.S. strategy in both Iraq and Afghanistan, it is clear that Blackwater mercenaries are given a large portion of the more dangerous, high casualty missions. This helps the military from dealing with bad press that might sway public opinion. it is much more likely to read about enlisted soldiers dying than our mercenaries. The point of this being is that I fear these non-citizen soldiers are going to be used in higher risk situations. Adding to this dilemma is the fact that they are completely left out of the democratic process until they finish their service in the military and gain citizenship. Until that time they are forced to fight wars without a say in the matter. It is stated best by Steven Camarota when he says, "One of the reasons you don't engage in adventurous wars is that 'we don't want our boys killed....but if it's someone else's boys, it changes the dynamic." It's a good idea to help these people become citizens of a country they undoubtedly love the oppurtunity it provides, but they should be treated as valuable as citizens until their service has expired.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I definately agree with you, and especially the points you make in your last paragraph. I seemed to me, as I read these articles, that the military using foreigners in the army was an easy and convenient way to make citizens at home feel safe, and Steven Camarota's quote shows this sentiment. The last paragraph of Wong's article shows us a US citizen who did not even know he was a US citizen until after he signed up to join the military. This is very telling of the US's clarity and explanation of the processes of becmoing a US citizen if someone did not even know that they were a citizen. Also, as you mentioned, these soldiers are not citizens until after they have fought for the US -- that is, they can fight for a country they do not even belong to and if they happen to not die, then they are granted citizenship. This seems really unfair, as if they were granted citizenship beforehand, they may have voted against the war they have to fight in in order to become a citizen. This seems very circular, and a sneaky way for the US to recruit more soldiers if they cannot get enough US citizens to fight.
I agree that using non citizens may lead to troops being used for more dangerous missions, and to a willingness to go into war in situations in which me might not want to if there were American troops on the line. Americans are probably more willing to risk the lives of non Americans. Since the fact that we have an all volunteer military already ensures that most people are not affected by war or know anybody in the military, this would only make the cost of war more removed from daily life and lead to an increased militarism among many Americans. It does seem like a good idea in some ways and helps the army with their recruitment goals, however it may have unintended consequences.
Post a Comment