The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, known as the Dream Act, is being introduced in the Senate next week by Illinois Senator Dick Durbin (D). The act, if passed, would give undocumented immigrants a temporary window to complete two years of college, at which time, they would be eligible for legal status in the United States.
From the September 21 edition of the Wall Street Journal, the bill also gives another benefit:

The proposal has a lesser-known component that would offer the same opportunity to undocumented immigrants with a high-school education who enroll in the military. Military experts say the Dream Act would significantly increase the pool of qualified recruits in the Hispanic population, which comprises the majority of illegal immigrants and which surveys indicate has a higher propensity to enlist than any other group. Although it is believed that some illegal immigrants serve in the armed forces, they aren't officially allowed to enlist.

The article goes on to state: Dream Act candidates are especially attractive because they aren't school dropouts, boast a clean record and will have been fully vetted by the Department of Homeland Security "before even coming to the recruiter's door."
A 2005 study by the Rand Corp. on military enlistment of Hispanic youth found they are underrepresented in the armed forces despite their interest because they often don't meet some standards at the same rate as other groups, such as graduating from high school. "The military would love to recruit more qualified noncitizens," says Beth Asch, a Rand economist who specializes in military manpower. "This is a potentially very recruitable group."

Senator Durbin claims the bill will have bi-partisan support if it gets attached to the defense-authorization bill. But opponents say the bill is primarily a recruitment tool, or that it is a form of amnesty.

Questions for debate:
Would you support the Dream Act as a path to citizenship for illegal aliens?

Does the act take advantage of Hispanic youth by way of military service?

Bonus Question: Do you believe in a theoretical sense that people who serve in the military, federal civil service or community service such as fire and police have earned a higher sense of citizenship beyond the act of being native born or naturalized and serving in the private sector?

No. Many states including mine (MA) have bills every year to give illegal immigrants a “state tuition rate” for colleges. This sounds like a national version. IMO rewarding illegal immigrants who have managed to steal a primary education here with a college education is wrong and deprives other poor families kids (citizens) an education. This sounds like a sneaky back door to the Amnesty Dems are looking for.

Not clear on this from reading your post. If they are high school grads does the military check at this point? If they do and this would allow illegal immigrants into the army I would be against it.



NO. Plenty of American citizens want those jobs so what these people have done is to steal the jobs from them (fire and police). If military enlistments are down we need to increase the incentives and enlist American citizens.

No to all three questions.

First the Dream Act is sour grapes legislating and as such isn't a particularly good version. We're all really going to have to stop pretending that a VOLUNTEER military has a SINGLE person in being TAKEN ADVANTAGE of... You have to JOIN. You're not impressed into service. The last question is such a bizarre concept all I can say is No. I mean what are you saying? Military people are better Americans than Doctors?

Not at all.....I'm offering a question that has been a sub-topic of many books and movies, based on a theory that some form of service to the state either could be the requirement or a requirement for citizenship.

Would you support the Dream Act as a path to citizenship for illegal aliens?
Yes if it comes with a sunset clause to limit the act's applicability to address a manpower shortage during war like, um, now. Then again this isn't a just war. Maybe next time we'll get it right.

Does the act take advantage of Hispanic youth by way of military service?
We already take advantage of Hispanics economically before they ever cross the border with tariffs and subsidies, and then when they arrive for work by looking the other way when businesses hire them on the cheap. Giving them a path to citizenship can only empower them.

Do you believe in a theoretical sense that people who serve in the military, federal civil service or community service such as fire and police have earned a higher sense of citizenship beyond the act of being native born or naturalized and serving in the private sector?
Nope.

P.S. How does one "serve" in the private sector?

Oh... That's not at all what I read in your question.

In that sense, actually, I'm not entirely against compulsory service to the nation. Should you be fervently anti-war the Peace Corp would be one of a few acceptable choices.

Would you support the Dream Act as a path to citizenship for illegal aliens?

Not as it stands, with some changes- maybe. Take the component of education out of it- as far as being educated in the US- we have a mechanism for that- called a student visa- millions use it already. As far as the military aspect- perhaps, with some qualifiers. Some would be that the guy/gal is no security risk, has never been arrested for anything other than being an illegal alien, and literate. Then they could be vetted and inducted into the service, and granted a green card.

Does the act take advantage of Hispanic youth by way of military service?

I don't think so, I think it is a win-win. We get soldiers, and provided we have a better CNC later on down the road- there is a good possibility that we may need these folks as well. I think for right now- the military being undermanned is a good way to check presidential power in this manner.

Bonus Question: Do you believe in a theoretical sense that people who serve in the military, federal civil service or community service such as fire and police have earned a higher sense of citizenship beyond the act of being native born or naturalized and serving in the private sector?

Absolutely NOT! There should be NO distinction between a citizen that doesn't work in thise fields and one that works in the private sector- tieing some sort of public service to citizenship is really more pro-goverment than pro-patriot. A person that pulls his/her own wieght in the world, even creates a few jobs, is just as much of a "good" citizen as any soldier on the field. Or, as my Grandpa said "just because he is a hero on the battlefield, doesn't mean he isn't a scoundrel off the battlefield"-

in germany service in the red cross is counted as the same as military service, it is a matter of serving your fellow man, not the government and sacrificing some of yourself to secure your own freedoms.

[Questions for debate:
Would you support the Dream Act as a path to citizenship for illegal aliens?
I do support the fast tracking of the citizenship process for foreigners who serve in our military, but not through this crock of Shamnesty.

Does the act take advantage of Hispanic youth by way of military service?
Only in the dreams of peaceniks, for whom any military service is considered to be "taking advantage of" the troopie.

Bonus Question: Do you believe in a theoretical sense that people who serve in the military, federal civil service or community service such as fire and police have earned a higher sense of citizenship beyond the act of being native born or naturalized and serving in the private sector? Yes, heck no, and probably - all with provision. The provision is "what do you mean by 'earned a highers sense of citizenship'"? That we should look upon them as "higher citizens", or that they will have a greater understanding of the responsibilities of citizenship? If the former, then nope, nyet, nichts, no way. If the latter, then yes, but one question at hand is whether their greater sense is a result of the service, or a motivator for their service? However, under no circumstances would I categorize run o' the mill civil service as enhancing citizenship. I've known way too many bureaucrats to fall for that scam.

Are you saying there isn't as many slackers, scammers and such in the military? BTW- one of the biggest, if not the biggest, hiring pools, with "jump to the front of the line" rights IN federal and state service (that beauracracy you mentioned) ARE ex military- in Alaska- of our male state workers, over 70% are prior military- and it is even HIGHER for federal employees in Alaska.


We tend to saddle mid-level beaurocrats with alot of blame, when, most of the time, they have to work with bad legislation or policy and still do thier best at the job.

For the military age categories, I would say the answer is absolutely yes. In the prime age group for recruitment, 7 in 10 persons are ineligible for military service due to various reasons. So those who remain eligible are in a group less likely to be 'slackers, scammers, and such' than those disqualified.

Per the topic, I think that there is already a means in place to "fast track" the citizenship process for who serve. I'm not sure what this bill would do exactly? I don't think anyone who serves this country via military service (honorably...without dishonorable discharge) and wishes for citizenship is denied. Are they?

The was my immediate thought on reading the thread opener - a quick flash to the imagined ad breaks in the film Starship Troopers that say "Service Guarantees Citizenship".

It's a short stretch from giving citizenship to foreign nationals who have served in your military (which isn't necessary to recruit them - the French Foreign Legion, one of the planets tougher military outfits, at least historically, managed to get by without automatically granting citizenship) to making citizenship - and all it's benefits such as voting rights, eligibility for office, welfare benefits, etc. - conditional on military service.

I don't like this particular slippery slope. I'm with Ted for once - if military enlistment is in such a tight spot that domestic citizens don't want to sign up, then the incentives are all wrong and need to be reviewed. (In this instance, perhaps one thing that needs to be reviewed is the deployment in an unjust conflict. Perhaps another is the general levels of physical education in schools that mean so many of our youth - Brits have similar problems here - are just too fat and unfit to be any use.)

Actually- it has occured to me that the French have the perfect answer to this bill already- the French foriegn legioni. Why not adopt that model if this is what we are looking for anyway? Any would-be immigrant that wants to sign up doesn't have to come to the country illegal- a recruiting booth right next to the customs booth for every man or woman of sound mind and body could just sign up and become part of the "American foriegn legion"--oops, okay, that name may already be, in, um, use- but some other name?

Do you believe in a theoretical sense that people who serve in the military, federal civil service or community service such as fire and police have earned a higher sense of citizenship beyond the act of being native born or naturalized and serving in the private sector?

Julian, you are spot on. Starship Troopers did spark the question. I've always been intrigued by the notion of somehow earning the right to have a say in the course of your nation. In a very real sense I think that there are people who vote strictly for candidates and measures that will benefit themselves, the country or others be danged. I believe that there are many people who in a very real sense take from government and their community with absolutely no intention of giving anything back. These people come from every political stripe and economic class.
Now, I know that anything approaching this notion is not feasible, not realistic and not in line with our overall sense of democracy. But I fully support a program that allows people who wish to immigrate to the US, a fast track to citizenship by giving back something in return. It doesnt have to be military service, in return for expedited citizenship; an immigrant (based on qualification) could serve as a doctor or PA in rural areas, an EMT, Peace Corps volunteer, translators, labor for government construction or teachers.

I am similarly intrigued by CR's notion of an American Foreign Legion, but I am unsure how it would integrate into our existing military structure or in keeping with our current foreign policy apparatus.

Does the act take advantage of Hispanic youth by way of military service?

As others have said, we have a volunteer military, nobody is forced to join. I don't believe the hype when some use the phrase economic draft. The military is a golden opportunity for many people for many different reasons. If the Dream Act encourages more Hispanic men and women to join the military, its win/win.

Would you support the Dream Act as a path to citizenship for illegal aliens?

I'm still unsure of my position on the act. My present location does not allow me to spend an enormous amount of time on the internet to conduct research. (the majority of my posting in fact occurs only because I copy/paste, Formulate a response and post it when I can get back on the 'net)
Clearly some program needs to be enacted to stem the numbers of illegal, non-taxpaying and non accountable immigrants. I don't favor an amnesty, but building a wall across the desert isn't going to solve the problem. Maybe the Dream Act could help. The jury is still out for me.

Would you support the Dream Act as a path to citizenship for illegal aliens?

I don't believe I understand the Act fully. I will say no at this point because millions of immigrants came to this country without it. Why is it necessary?

Does the act take advantage of Hispanic youth by way of military service?
No, because they have a choice and the military actually trains them while paying a salary plus benefits.

Bonus Question: Do you believe in a theoretical sense that people who serve in the military, federal civil service or community service such as fire and police have earned a higher sense of citizenship beyond the act of being native born or naturalized and serving in the private sector?
I don't believe there is a straight yes or no answer. Serving in the military will certain display their character, so in that sense it may distinguish whether they would make good citizens. Also, many a youth in bygone eras were given the choice of prison or the military. I don't think it entitles one to an automatic citizenship without question, but a good record and honorable discharge should go a long way in that direction.

Would you support the Dream Act as a path to citizenship for illegal aliens?

I'll just cut and paste Julian's response here and add that when Rome did this, it had taken on too many controversial overseas adventures and thus had to hand out candy. Are we at the point where we need to hand out candy?

Does the act take advantage of Hispanic youth by way of military service?

Probably but to be fair it takes advantage of the lowerclass (immigrants) and makes the unemployment at home seem smaller. Since this is an immigration problem I can see recruiters looking at this as a two birds with one stone approach.

Bonus Question: Do you believe in a theoretical sense that people who serve in the military, federal civil service or community service such as fire and police have earned a higher sense of citizenship beyond the act of being native born or naturalized and serving in the private sector?

I understand the earned-not-given intent notion but remain doubtful how many will take this to heart. To answer your question, no, but those serving may see themselves as devout and suddenly we have conflated egotism, nationalism and war, ie a war class.

Would you support the Dream Act as a path to citizenship for illegal aliens?
From what I have read the bill offers citizenship to illegal immigrants who have completed 2 years of college OR join the military. And then the kids can sponsor their illegal parents and siblings.

This is a blatant back door Democrat attempt to legalize theses criminals.

The bill also apparently encourages, or demands states offer “in state rates” to illegal immigrants.

So after stealing an education here we reward them and their families with citizenship. Ludicrous Democrat Bill.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Be2RRT6HwUs

“Durbin said he intends to offer the federal legislation as an amendment to the annual defense spending bill. Under his proposal, anyone who entered the U.S. before age 16 and lived in the country at least five years and has a high school diploma could apply for amnesty. Over a six year period, the applicant would have to spend two years in college or in military service before becoming qualified for legal permanent residency and, ultimately, citizenship.”

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Foru...pic&t=83908

http://www.californiachronicle.com/article...articleID=38135

If I recall the book properly, the logic was that military service demonstrated a willingness to put the needs of the nation over a person personal desires, even if only briefly, as this is more than most people give. To give themselves bodily over to the state, to be utilized or not as required until the end of their enlistment. Then, and only then, would they have the full rights of citizenship. Keep in mind, though, that this takes place far in the future as part of what amounts to a military coup. The necessary recreation of the state is the only thing that allowed this for the citizenry in general. It simply isn't possible absent a true national crisis to permanently remove the right to vote. Voters just won't go for it. :]

In terms of citizenship for illegals, I absolutely support this idea. Many or most illegals would leap at this chance, and our nation would gain back a significant portion of the resources "wasted" on non-citizens in the form of services rendered. It would provide an opportunity to provide a crash course in language and elementary education, and get them an excellent start in their new home, after their enlistment expired.

As far as the service itself, I think people get caught up in the combat aspect of the military. Very few members of the military ever take part in combat. They are trained to do so, but once they receive their specialization, that aspect is over, apart from emergencies and periodic certifications (there are variations in different branches, but this is generally true.) There are engineers and scientists and (many, many) bureaucrats of all stripes in our armed services. Presuming this service would be voluntary, I see no abuse here.

Unfortunately, this pool of inexpensive labor couldn't be used in the same way that illegals are used now, as it would compete too well with existing pools who's management would react against them. That's part of why we don't have chain gangs any more. That said, the opportunity to indoctrinate them, and give them some basic skills and seed money would be well worth the investment, even if they stood around guarding national forests for two years.

Would you support the Dream Act as a path to citizenship for illegal aliens?

I don’t know why there’s so much hysteria from those who would deny illegal immigrants citizenship status for serving in the military. As far as I’m concerned, if you’re willing to risk your life for the US, then the US should offer you citizenship (haven't they already done this posthumously for some soldiers killed in Iraq?). Lord knows the military needs more recruits, and offering all sorts of incentives to entice young men and women to sign on the dotted line. Why not this?

Does the act take advantage of Hispanic youth by way of military service?

The military has always taken advantage of poor, underprivileged, and easy to manipulate kids. This isn’t any different.

Bonus Question: Do you believe in a theoretical sense that people who serve in the military, federal civil service or community service such as fire and police have earned a higher sense of citizenship beyond the act of being native born or naturalized and serving in the private sector?

I’m a natural-born citizen, but I haven’t served in the military or any of the other services mentioned. Does this make me less of a citizen? I don’t believe that’s true. And citizenship shouldn’t have “levels”; sounds an awful lot like the caste system in India.

The “hysteria” has to do with the fact that the qualifications include a lot more (se my post) than “military service” for the benefit of not just citizenship but back door citizenship for family members – which is like giving citizenship to an illegal alien because her child was born here – and I believ you said you were against this.

The reason we “need soldiers now” is that we reduced the size of the Army after Gulf I and most dramatically under your buddy Bill – and it will take years to build it back up.

I would be in favor of giving citizenship to aliens who qualify and serve in the military – for say 10 years or more.



You mean it has given many a career that is as good or better than any they could have hoped for otherwise.

In your transparent zeal to deride anything put forth by Democrats and anything I have to say, you conveniently ignore the fact that Bush has had several years since your favorite whipping boy, Clinton, left office to build up the military. And the reason we need soldiers now has nothing to do with Clinton’s administration, which ended in 2000, and has everything to do with the war Bush chose to start. As for a 10-year requirement, if that is the normal enlistment period for new recruits, that’s fine, but if it is not, then that would be discriminatory.

Regardless of whether the military offers a “career as good or better than any” or a pine box, the military does take advantage of poor, underprivileged and easy to manipulate kids. If it didn’t, enlistment numbers would be 10 times harder to meet.

Ironically enough, a higher percentage of Army recruits during the “Clinton” years were high school graduates (90 – 98%, depending on which year) than during the Bush war (81 – 86%), but granted even that’s still higher than the national average. Source

The same report says that 62% of eligible young people say the WOT™ makes them less likely to enlist. Among females, it's 72%. Among blacks, it's 86%. Among hispanics, it's 64%. And among whites, it's 56%.

If Dick Durbin is behind it, it's a definite NO. He has insulted out troops, and now wants to use the military as an amnesty organ.

Would you support the Dream Act as a path to citizenship for illegal aliens?

No. The very fact of being in this country illegally makes one a criminal. As such, no rights should be granted and no paths allowed. No free school, free health care, and absolutely no employment. That last one is the most important, and enforcing employment laws solves the other problems. It does bring up another problem -- employers accustomed to cheap labor get dinked. Oh well. Be happy you're not in the slammer.

Does the act take advantage of Hispanic youth by way of military service?

Looks that way, assuming most illegal immigrants are Hispanic and young. Exploiting illegal immigrants is the name of the game. This issue, BTW, crosses political lines no matter how hard the Republicans try to take ownership. It's like they've woken up within the past couple of years, which is fine but stop pretending you're the avante guard. And please stop proposing silly things like a physical fence with a 1,300 mile long door.

Bonus Question: Do you believe in a theoretical sense that people who serve in the military, federal civil service or community service such as fire and police have earned a higher sense of citizenship beyond the act of being native born or naturalized and serving in the private sector?

No. Citizenship means having protection under the Constitution of the United States. It means having certain privileges of citizenship. Trying to figure out levels of citizenship by contributions to the nation is an exercise in narcissism.

I believe a good citizen votes. I believe a good citizen questions authority. Yet, these are my beliefs. It's narcissism.

Just what a "higher sense" is, I don't know. But I do know that doing some things makes me feel proud to be an American, and I guess that would fit. There's really no objective way to judge one citizen above or below another. Would that include following traffic laws and thereby avoiding accidents that could be deadly? Deadly traffic accidents constitute a big problem in this country. I've seen arguments that we should not be concerned about the death toll in Iraq because our nation's roadways see a lot more carnage, and yes, that's true.

I do understand that service in the private sector can be as, if not more, important than service in the military or non-military government. For example, a few years back a massive portion of the Internet backbone went belly-up for about a week because of poor private-sector service. That had a major impact on commerce, which is the lifeblood of the nation. No commerce = no tax revenue = no military.

Well, that's why I vote no to creating a hierarchy of citizenship. Nobody can be the judge of this. Each citizen needs to be the judge of self.

It's like saying, "What's more important, the unpaid hospital volunteer or the highly paid doctor?" I give. It depends. And why is that important to know? Should we pay the volunteer and cut the salary of the doctor? If something like that isn't a goal, I don't see the point -- other than narcissism, and that is meaningless. Oh fine, you love yourself. And? Do you then love your neighbor? That would be meaningful, I do believe. Narcissism extended, and it has nothing to do with citizenship.

Such an internal move would result in wanting to follow the rules and not wanting to exploit others. There's the ultimate solution to the illegal immigration problem and a bushel basket of others. Eh, that'll be the day, huh?

Actually I think I liked Clinton in many ways more than Bush. The Bush I (notice this was not all Clinton) and Clinton draw down of the Army took 10 years and it will take that long – if we start now (or had in 2002) to get it back up to where it was in 1990..

Back to the topic. – The amnesty the Dems are trying to sneak in here is not to “bolster” the military – since it is not the sole requirement and as you nicely point out “The same report says that 62% of eligible young people say the WOT™ makes them less likely to enlist. Among females, it's 72%. Among blacks, it's 86%. Among hispanics, it's 64%.”

It’s the same nonsense as the SCHIP bill to cover kids (up to 25) with gov. health care in families making up to 80K. Back door what you cannot pass in the light of day.

Would you support the Dream Act as a path to citizenship for illegal aliens?

Most definitely not. Just secure the borders first. It's not that difficult a concept.

And the military aspect of this act is especially alarming. Having a standing army is dangerous in itself. We've come to accept it in modern times because we have a stable political system, and because the soldiers who make up the army are generally on the side of the people, having themselves been drawn from the people. But it's not a good idea to be lulled into a false sense of security. It's not "normal", in the context of most of human experience, for nations to have such large standing armies without their liberties being at peril. It's only because of the exceptional nature of our society that it can be done here with a relatively low risk. But if we start loading the army with people from alien societies that do not have anywhere near the same ingrained political traditions that we do, then we'll come to see just how tenuous that sense of security really is. I think an army full of illegal aliens would be far less likely than an army of American citizens to refuse an order to shoot American citizens.

Would you support the Dream Act as a path to citizenship for illegal aliens?
Under normal circumstances, I would oppose granting citizenship to large numbers of aliens. But in this case, the nation is at war and the military is suffering a manpower shortage. Other posters pointed out good ideas such as putting a sunset clause on this act so that it's only used in wartime, and making sure that immigrants coming into our military don't have violent criminal records or ties to terror groups. Besides, its only fair that the people who are risking their lives to carry out America's military policies have the voting rights to influence those policies.

Did you miss the point that this “act” does not require military service? And that it also forces states to give in state tuition to illegal aliens and then allows them to bring in family ………………..

This act is a piece of crap from the start. If we want a bigger Army we need congress to up the troop limit and then we will have it.

I hate to rain on your parade, but that is poppycock. Congress rasing the cap on active duty military manpower does not equal instant results. People aren't exactly being turned away at recrutiing stations. One of the major reasons I'm retiring next fall is precisly why recruits aren't coming in droves; mutliple tours in Iraq for no conceivable gain. And I'm not alone, a huge number of senior NCO's are retiring at a rapid rate because of this, takng an enormous chunk of knowledge and experience with them.

At least, as Skeeterses points out, immigrants coming in under the DREAM ACT, whether entering the military or not, would be able to be vetted and checked for criminal records. Not to mention that Hispanics seem to be (generalizing I know) some of the hardest working and most loyal members of the military blocs. I haven't examined the act as much as I would like, due to time and internet constraints, but I'm not seeing a huge downside yet.

No rain involved. I said elsewhere it could take up to 10 years – and certainly the Iraq war makes it harder. But as the troop levels rise and the pressure comes off the over extended NG the recruitment rate could go up.

Great points, but also as importantly, immigrants coming into the US military often were resident aliens serving anyway. This just helps expedite the process to citizenship. I see this as a win-win. Good deal, they get a living wage, training, and possibly a career in the most powerful military in the world.

We get dedicated soldiers and citizens. Rock on.

No, the Dream Act rewards illegal status and encourages illegal activity.

Actually, the act requires either or, either two years of military service or two years in college
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110...p/~c110zYJL8y::



I haven't read the entire bill but listened to debate on the Senate floor that in addition to the option of military service other civil programs could be allowed such as working with endangered species or other science agencies as alternatives. The bill linked above may have changed.

Bonus Question: Do you believe in a theoretical sense that people who serve in the military, federal civil service or community service such as fire and police have earned a higher sense of citizenship beyond the act of being native born or naturalized and serving in the private sector? I think all US citizens/persons should serve their nation or community. An excellent program might be organized under Homeland Security to do administration in numerous areas of responsibility. Perhaps deferrals for persons seeking higher learning coupled with government funding of education similar to ROTC with a requirement to use such higher learning in support in one of many skills involved in homeland security.

Many citizens from both major political parties are against this bill. It has failed as attached amendments to other bills several times. Recently the Senate Majority Leader put the bill under Rule 14 allowing him to bring it to the floor at his call. He did this because every time it has been introduced in the past the Senate switchboard gets shut down by the number of calls and Faxes against this amnesty bill. Rumor has it that the bill will come to the Senate floor tomorrow and once again the switchboards will go down along with the bill.

Do we allow undocumented immigrants to enroll in the military? If so, why? What would then prevent any member of a terrorist group from infiltrating our armed forces? I have no problem at all with immigrants joining the armed services (aren't we all immigrants from somewhere?), but undocumented ones? If indeed this is the case it strikes me as a problem itself that needs to be addressed. Am I missing something here (real question)?

Here are the current citizenship requirements for enlisting in the US military:

2–4. Citizenship
a. An applicant is eligible for enlistment if any of the following applies:
(1) Citizen of the United States.
(2) Alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. The requirement to obtain
US Citizenship within 8 years of enlistment in order to continue serving has been rescinded for the Active and Reserve
Components of the Army.
(3) National of the United States.
(4) Citizens (to include naturalized citizens) of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Palau, and the Republic
of the Marshall Islands (RMI).
(5) Citizenship derived from adoption. Applicants born in a country other than the United States that are adopted
and are permanently residing in the United States can become a U.S. citizen on the date that all of the following are
met:
(a) At least one adoptive parent is a U.S. citizen.
b The child is under 18 years of age at the time the petition for adoption was filed.
c There is a full and final adoption of the child and the child is admitted to the United States as a lawful
permanent resident.
(d) The child is residing in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent in the United States.
b. Documents to verify eligibility include (return all documents to applicant after proper citizenship entries are made
on the DD Form 1966)—


Additionally, for immigrant aliens:

Special Processing for Enlistment of Immigrant Aliens
5–56. General
Aliens (lawfully admitted into the United States for permanent residence) are eligible to enlist in the RA or AR if they
meet criteria in chapter 2 or 3, but may not enlist for any MOS, assignment, or option that requires a security clearance
of secret or above. Guidance counselors will place special emphasis on the SF86 to ensure all questions, not just moral
questions, are reviewed with each applicant.
5–57. Processing
Procedures to process immigrant aliens for enlistment are the same as for U.S. citizens. For aliens enlisting for an MOS
not requiring a security clearance, initiate a request for NACLC, the same as a U.S. citizen.

From AR 601-210

This bill was set aside when it couldn't get a 60 vote to bring it forward for debate. There were some Senators absent but had they been present it would have failed anyway. The key sticking points seem to be border security first or to do it as part of an overall immigration reform. Senator Spector of PA argued that if this measure would go forward in the current climate of cities and states legislating immigration related measures that a Congressional Immigration reform may never get support. Others argued the bill should be amended so it could only take effect after other conditions exist such as enforcement, fence and a visitor worker plan supporting agriculture.