Cantor won’t rule out floor vote on bill that would let DREAMers enlist in military

posted at 2:41 pm on May 22, 2014 by Allahpundit

Last week, to appease the border hawks who are making him sweat in his primary race, he ruled out adding the ENLIST Act as an amendment to the big defense bill that the House will be voting on soon. That was curious because it’s common knowledge that Cantor supports ENLIST. If you want to enact it, what better way than to attach it to important legislation that’s guaranteed to pass in order to keep the Pentagon funded? Cantor offered no explanation for his change of heart, but I’m going to go ahead and be cynical by assuming that that primary race and those border hawks had something to do with it.

So that’s the end of ENLIST, right? Not quite:

In an interview with POLITICO, Cantor said he backs the policy merits of the legislation from Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.), which would give a path to legal permanent residency for immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally as children.

“If you’ve got a kid that was brought here by their parents — unbeknownst to the child — and that they’ve grown up in this country and not known any other, and they want to serve in our military, they ought to be allowed to do that and then have the ability to become a citizen after that kind of service,” Cantor said a brief interview Wednesday evening…

Cantor, who controls the floor schedule, did not rule out a potential standalone vote on the ENLIST Act later this year, saying that the lawmakers involved with the bill are “still working on language” and that “no decisions have been made” on potential floor action…

Liberal activists convened a conference call earlier Wednesday to slam Cantor over immigration. “Eric Cantor is the No. 1 guy standing between the American people and immigration reform,” Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, said on the call, according to the Associated Press.

Translation: Sure, ENLIST is still on the table — just as soon as Cantor’s primary is over and he’s out of danger. That’s why ENLIST is being kept out of the defense bill, not because of any policy or procedural issue but because keeping it live and in play over the last few weeks of the campaign could give Cantor’s challenger, Dave Brat, a shot. Once Cantor and other House Republicans are past the primaries in June, it’s full speed ahead on immigration reform. In fact, Haley Barbour assured HuffPo today that Boehner really is committed to passing something but that “they don’t have the votes today” — emphasis, I suspect, on “today.” Check back in a month, after grassroots conservatives have duly re-nominated all of these guys for another two years, and see if he has the votes then.

ENLIST is actually a (no pun intended) dream vehicle for the GOP to make something happen this year on immigration. If Boehner takes the caucus’s temperature and finds that they’re willing to bite the bullet on comprehensive amnesty, he could pass ENLIST during the lame-duck session, go to conference with the Senate in it, quietly agree with Reid and Schumer to expand ENLIST so that it includes amnesty measures for a broader class of illegals, and then pass that in the House. If, on the other hand, he gets the sense from the caucus that they’ll only tolerate a small immigration measure right now in the name of PR and outreach to Latinos, ENLIST would be perfect, giving sympathetic DREAMers a chance to earn their citizenship by serving in the armed forces. Would Reid and Schumer agree to a standalone ENLIST bill, though? If you’re a Democrat hellbent on comprehensive reform, it’s mighty risky to let Republicans pass a small measure like ENLIST: The GOP might turn around afterward, having (somewhat) achieved its goal of proving its good faith on reform, and decide that they’re not going to pass anything else on amnesty for the rest of Obama’s term. That’s a worst-case scenario for Dems, since it would leave only a small portion of illegals on the citizenship track while giving Republicans something to point to and crow about the next time they’re challenged as do-nothings on amnesty. On the other hand, if Reid and Schumer declare that ENLIST is dead in the Senate, then suddenly they’re the ones who are blocking immigration reform. What’s their play here?

While you mull that over, here’s House conservative Jeb Hensarling giving Boehner and Cantor something to think about by refusing to rule out a run for Speaker next year. Hmmmmm.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Congress busy’s itself with arguing over benefits for the citizens of other countries

BobMbx on May 22, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Is anybody else getting as tired as me of waiting to see if the Republican Party really wants a divorce?

catsmeow on May 22, 2014 at 2:47 PM

if gop primary voters were not such xenaphobes this would be a no-brainer and nobody would be talking about it. its things like this that reveal all of their talk about hard work and service to country is just a bunch of red white and blue gift wrap on a bitterclinging turd.

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM

This is such BS. They are kicking out, and forcing out people who have been in the military for YEARS to “cut” the military. THey are also making it tougher to get into the military so the field is even smaller, but we want to open it up to illegal immigrants. Yeah, because letting someone serve a country, they weren’t even loyal enough to follow immigration law of is sooooo smart.

melle1228 on May 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM

if gop primary voters were not such xenaphobes this would be a no-brainer and nobody would be talking about it. its things like this that reveal all of their talk about hard work and service to country is just a bunch of red white and blue gift wrap on a bitterclinging turd.

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM

OMFG, who unlocked his Grandma’s basement door?

melle1228 on May 22, 2014 at 2:49 PM

I actually support this-as long as it has some VERY rigid, NON-NEGOTIABLE conditions.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 22, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Translation: The Republican party has sold out to the Chamber of Commerce and no longer supports the rule of law or the will of the people.

lineholder on May 22, 2014 at 2:51 PM

If they want to enroll in the military and earn their citizenship that way, can’t say I have a problem with that. Would seem to be the best way to move forward if they’re hell-bent on doing something and want to put the onus on the Dems to block it.

The problem is big business…they want that cheap labor. I’m not sure ENLIST will satisfy THEM, let alone greasy schmucks like Schumer.

changer1701 on May 22, 2014 at 2:51 PM

They will definitely work out something with Reid once the primary season is over. Question is will Reid accept anything that doesn’t include a pathway to citizenship.

farleftprogressive on May 22, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Cantor is married to a commie Guinea worm.

After Boner, he’s the most hated creature in DC, from the other side.

Schadenfreude on May 22, 2014 at 2:52 PM

melle1228 on May 22, 2014 at 2:49 PM

It’s a critter that crept in QOTD yesterday. Has a sock name dale.

lineholder on May 22, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Fluke the R-party, into oblivion. They ruin the land more than the D-rats, by enabling them.

Schadenfreude on May 22, 2014 at 2:53 PM

Cantor won’t rule out floor vote on bill that would let DREAMers enlist in military

Letting illegals take an oath (LOL) and serve in the military when they should be deported …

Straight-up treason from the Vichy GOP weasels.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 22, 2014 at 2:53 PM

Meanwhile, your child in chief

Schadenfreude on May 22, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Has a sock name dale.

lineholder on May 22, 2014 at 2:52 PM

dale1

Schadenfreude on May 22, 2014 at 2:54 PM

That’s why ENLIST is being kept out of the defense bill, not because of any policy or procedural issue but because keeping it live and in play over the last few weeks of the campaign could give Cantor’s challenger, Dave Brat, a shot.

Well hopefully it’s being kept “live and in play’ as a campaign issue in his district.

cat_owner on May 22, 2014 at 2:54 PM

I actually support this-as long as it has some VERY rigid, NON-NEGOTIABLE conditions.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 22, 2014 at 2:51 PM

I support making anyone who supports this an illegal in some third world sh!thole.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 22, 2014 at 2:54 PM

changer1701 on May 22, 2014 at 2:51 PM

I would agree with you if the military is in dire need. The problem is that they are forcing out members of the military to downsize, and turning down new potential recruits. Again, illegals are getting preferential treatment over citizens. If we are that gung ho on downsizing the military, then there is no reason to look out of the citizenry for recruits.

melle1228 on May 22, 2014 at 2:54 PM

I actually support this-as long as it has some VERY rigid, NON-NEGOTIABLE conditions.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 22, 2014 at 2:51 PM

It won’t.

Wigglesworth on May 22, 2014 at 2:56 PM

The Guinea worms in DC, the Pentagon, want to now enlist the illegals, no kidding…but they reject 75% of the legals…better to invest in the illegal foreigners.

Go to Hell, all you amnesty shills, with zero exceptions.

Schadenfreude on May 22, 2014 at 2:56 PM

melle1228 on May 22, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Obama will set a quota of illegal aliens that will be as large as he thinks he can get away with.

Wigglesworth on May 22, 2014 at 2:58 PM

It’s a critter that crept in QOTD yesterday. Has a sock name dale.

lineholder on May 22, 2014 at 2:52 PM

It’s not even a good, liberal troll. It goes completely hyper-trollic from the get-go..

The Guinea worms in DC, the Pentagon, want to now enlist the illegals, no kidding…but they reject 75% of the legals…better to invest in the illegal foreigners.

Go to Hell, all you amnesty shills, with zero exceptions.

Schadenfreude on May 22, 2014 at 2:56 PM

+1000

melle1228 on May 22, 2014 at 2:59 PM

It’s official. Both political parties now fully disgust me. Where are the true conservatives?

sadatoni on May 22, 2014 at 3:01 PM

melle1228 on May 22, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Heh. If you think that’s bad, you should have seen it arguing with its sock last night.

Not joking.

lineholder on May 22, 2014 at 3:01 PM

I would agree with you if the military is in dire need. The problem is that they are forcing out members of the military to downsize, and turning down new potential recruits. Again, illegals are getting preferential treatment over citizens. If we are that gung ho on downsizing the military, then there is no reason to look out of the citizenry for recruits.

melle1228 on May 22, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Well, I think if they’re willing to fight and die for the country, it’s hard to argue against providing a pathway to citizenship for them. There are practical reasons for not doing it, as you mention, but if the choice is full amnesty for all or ENLIST as a pseudo-compromise, I’ll take the latter. It’s clear they want to do something, and I think they will.

changer1701 on May 22, 2014 at 3:03 PM

This is such BS. They are kicking out, and forcing out people who have been in the military for YEARS to “cut” the military….

melle1228 on May 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM

I’ve seen these cuts first hand and like to add that ROTC Cadets are being dropped because there aren’t enough slots to go around.

Time to donate to Dave Brat’s campaign.

batter on May 22, 2014 at 3:04 PM

Does this guy have any shame ?

burrata on May 22, 2014 at 3:08 PM

I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama forces out hundreds of thousands of extra military personnel then hires hundreds of thousands of DREAMERs to replace them. ENLIST would basically be a conduit for a full blown DREAM Act at the expense of American and legal immigrants in the military.

Wigglesworth on May 22, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Recall Boehner is that stalwart conservative that negotiated congressional staff be exempt from Obamacare mandates after that part of the law was revealed to cause brain drain. Man that was hard to type.

DanMan on May 22, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Wasn’t this common during WWI?
Seems like I’ve read about a lot of very young men who signed-up during the rush to war who weren’t citizens (hey, no databases in computers 100 years ago) and were granted citizenship after honorable service.

I’m kinda for this, but the details are sure to be extensively perverted by the politician-scum.

Tard on May 22, 2014 at 3:10 PM

Well, I think if they’re willing to fight and die for the country, it’s hard to argue against providing a pathway to citizenship for them. There are practical reasons for not doing it, as you mention, but if the choice is full amnesty for all or ENLIST as a pseudo-compromise, I’ll take the latter. It’s clear they want to do something, and I think they will.

changer1701 on May 22, 2014 at 3:03 PM

Joining the military doesn’t mean that anyone is going to be fighting in combat. Furthermore, if we want to put aliens (and non-green card holders) in the military then we have a whole world full of aliens who haven’t already broken our laws and spit all over the concept of national sovereignty to choose from. There is NO REASON to bring illegals into the military. NONE. The threat of the traitors in Washington erasing our borders by printing up citizenships for these illegals is not a good reason to join with the traitors and resign ourselves to the end of the concept of sovereignty.

Someone who is an illegal alien, who has made a mockery of our sovereignty and our law is going to take an oath … and anyone with a brain is going to find that less than laughable?? I don’t think so.

This whole idea is nothing short of treason and will be nothing short of treason no matter what the circumstances.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 22, 2014 at 3:10 PM

lineholder on May 22, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Day walker too?

KCB on May 22, 2014 at 3:11 PM

Does this guy have any shame ?

burrata on May 22, 2014 at 3:08 PM

Nope. And he isn’t too smart, either. But, those two characteristics seem to be required for Washington denizen in the American Socialist Superstate.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 22, 2014 at 3:12 PM

People with no loyalty to this country serving in the military?

What could possibly go wrong?

Bigbullets on May 22, 2014 at 3:13 PM

Does this guy have any shame ?

burrata on May 22, 2014 at 3:08 PM

No.

cat_owner on May 22, 2014 at 3:15 PM

As a Retired Navy man I am in favor of this. Let them get some skin in the game and let them serve the Country. That would prove to me that these kids are serious hard working people and want to serve their Country and not just be on the dole.

Johnnyreb on May 22, 2014 at 3:15 PM

Well, I think if they’re willing to fight and die for the country…..

changer1701 on May 22, 2014 at 3:03 PM

These would be the people you’d want to swear an oath to protect and defend the constitution? Do you want to give the gov. a chance to pick from this group over American citizen applicants for political reasons?

LilyBart on May 22, 2014 at 3:18 PM

The instant ENLIST is passed, Democrats and illegal alien advocates will begin screeching how unfair it is to “dreamers” who can’t pass the physical or otherwise are barred from enlisting.

novaculus on May 22, 2014 at 3:19 PM

The Obama administration is slipping amnesty in by degrees, as shown in Schad’s link:

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

Domino theory, slippery slope, camel in the tent, whatever — each incremental change in immigration enforcement (not the law itself, which has been ignored by both parties national and local for decades) establishes a beach-head for the next change, until we arrive at amnesty without any legislation at all.

Then the amnesty supporters will announce that any attempt reverse the executive actions and to to enforce the existing law is racist and hateful and just plain mean.

The subterfuge of the DACA (executive) and ENLIST (legislative or executive) is that, on the surface, even conservatives can see some “fairness” in letting “innocent kids” have a track to citizenship in the only home they have ever known (I can agree with that, emotionally).
However, every citizen is then entitled to sponsor relatives, ad infinitum, and they are given other benefits which are (theoretically and legally, but not in reality) forbidden to non-citizens; most notably, welfare and voting rights.
This “add on” feature is the primary objective; the legalization of the “kids” is the means to that end.

For this reason, raising the superstructure of the DACA and ENLIST components should be resisted on principle, until the underlying immigration system is placed on a rational, enforceable (and enforced) footing.
After the border is secure, after application procedures are made more reasonable and timely (see the Merriam Ibrahim situation; why does it take years to get a legitimate spouse approved to come to the US, but only hours to decide convicted felons can’t be deported?), and after violators of the laws already in existence are prosecuted and punished; then, if some priorities for immigration are considered, the “innocent kids” could be put first in line (even though that still means their entire families are first in line, despite the fact that they immigrated illegally — or because of it, otherwise there wouldn’t be any “innocent kids” to consider).

Which is why legislation, especially national laws, might be inspired by emotion, but should never be driven by it.

AesopFan on May 22, 2014 at 3:19 PM

People with no loyalty to this country serving in the military?

What could possibly go wrong?

Bigbullets on May 22, 2014 at 3:13 PM

^^^^^^^^^

LilyBart on May 22, 2014 at 3:19 PM

Again, illegals are getting preferential treatment over citizens. If we are that gung ho on downsizing the military, then there is no reason to look out of the citizenry for recruits.

melle1228 on May 22, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Where does it say these kids will get priority and bump other people out from joining the Military? Nothing anywhere says they will get a priority enlistment over Citizens.

Johnnyreb on May 22, 2014 at 3:20 PM

melle1228 May 22, 2014 at 2:54 pm

I would agree with you if the military is in dire need. The problem is that they are forcing out members of the military to downsize, and turning down new potential recruits. Again, illegals are getting preferential treatment over citizens.

Obviously, we haven’t seen the actual legislation yet and the devil is in the details, but my understanding is that aliens would not get preference over Americans. Rather, they would be allowed to enlist if they meet the education, fitness and other requirements that a citizen must meet. The services are rejecting many candidates now due to obesity, lack of HS diploma, poor fitness, criminal record, etc. If a kid who was brought here through no fault of his own has successfully completed school, can meet the services’ criteria, and wants to serve, he/she should get the chance.

cam2 on May 22, 2014 at 3:23 PM

People with no loyalty to this country serving in the military?

What could possibly go wrong?

Bigbullets on May 22, 2014 at 3:13 PM

Indeed.

And handing out security clearances to same. Yep, no issues there.

Bitter Clinger on May 22, 2014 at 3:23 PM

If a kid who was brought here through no fault of his own…..

That child’s beef is with his parents, not the citizens of this country, who, btw, PAID for that education he received.

LilyBart on May 22, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Where does it say these kids will get priority and bump other people out from joining the Military? Nothing anywhere says they will get a priority enlistment over Citizens.

Johnnyreb on May 22, 2014 at 3:20 PM

Everything being done today by both parties is prioritizing illegals over citizens. C’mon!

KCB on May 22, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Where does it say these kids will get priority and bump other people out from joining the Military? Nothing anywhere says they will get a priority enlistment over Citizens.

Johnnyreb on May 22, 2014 at 3:20 PM

Have you ever been associated with the military? First off, there is MASSIVE cuts going on right now, and they making reenlistment and recruitment almost impossible, so they can downsize, BUT somehow someone who is ILLEGAL gets a pass. That is PREFERENTIAL treatment which is what I said. I didn’t say priority. I said preferential treatment. When you make it harder for one group to get them out of the military or stop them from joining, but waive A CRIME from another group; that is the very definition of PREFERENTIAL treatment.

melle1228 on May 22, 2014 at 3:26 PM

KCB on May 22, 2014 at 3:11 PM

Hey, Ken. If you mean the sock, haven’t seen it around today.

lineholder on May 22, 2014 at 3:28 PM

The services are rejecting many candidates now due to obesity, lack of HS diploma, poor fitness, criminal record, etc. If a kid who was brought here through no fault of his own has successfully completed school, can meet the services’ criteria, and wants to serve, he/she should get the chance.

cam2 on May 22, 2014 at 3:23 PM
</blockquote

The issue isn't just the rejection of new recruits. The military is also making it almost impossible to reenlist or stay in.. Who do you think are replacing some of the older, more seasoned military members being kicked out?

melle1228 on May 22, 2014 at 3:28 PM

Everything being done today by both parties is prioritizing illegals over citizens. C’mon!

KCB on May 22, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Not just with this legislation, but in college as well.

LilyBart on May 22, 2014 at 3:29 PM

melle1228 on May 22, 2014 at 3:26 PM

In essence, it will get turned into the new affirmative action policy format in less than a heartbeat.

lineholder on May 22, 2014 at 3:30 PM

lineholder on May 22, 2014 at 3:28 PM

I was talking about you ;-)

KCB on May 22, 2014 at 3:31 PM

So while we are downsizing our military, we are giving preferential treatment to illegals for those limited number of jobs. Makes sense to me.
IF I AM AN ENEMY OF USA.

burrata on May 22, 2014 at 3:32 PM

If a kid who was brought here through no fault of his own

So, so, so sick of this argument. By taking this attitude, we ARE rewarding the parents (they wanted this for their kids!). In the future we’ll be inundated with parents brining their kids “through no fault of their own”. And of course, we don’t separate families – so its a win all around for the whole family.

LilyBart on May 22, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Not just with this legislation, but in college as well.

LilyBart on May 22, 2014 at 3:29 PM

and it is naive to think this would be any different. Agreed?

KCB on May 22, 2014 at 3:33 PM

KCB on May 22, 2014 at 3:31 PM

Heh. Something like that. ;-)

lineholder on May 22, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Indeed.

And handing out security clearances to same. Yep, no issues there.

Bitter Clinger on May 22, 2014 at 3:23 PM

And you read that these kids would be granted Security Clearances in the proposed law where? It is OK to be against the law, but please don’t make stuff up.

Johnnyreb on May 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM

This a brilliant move that will only strengthen our military, while forming the tip of the spear for societal justice and enlightenment in our country. Anyone familiar with strategic, operational and tactical warfare knows that Diversity in the ranks is absolutely critical to military success.

The inclusion of women into combat roles and homosexuals being scattered throughout the ranks has greatly strengthened our force. However, if Secretary of Defense Hagel is successful in his efforts to finally insert transgender teenagers into our fighting force, to go along with multi-language foreigners, we may finally transform our military into a government department we can finally be proud of!

Frank Lib on May 22, 2014 at 3:38 PM

In essence, it will get turned into the new affirmative action policy format in less than a heartbeat.

lineholder on May 22, 2014 at 3:30 PM

Exactly, and anyone who has served or even remotely been involved in the military knows the nightmare of “equal opportunity” etc. The military is very good at going overboard, and the fact that in their promotional system they do have a “quota” system.

melle1228 on May 22, 2014 at 3:39 PM

LilyBart on May 22, 2014 at 3:33 PM

If we followed the ‘through no fault of their own” tenet then our legal system would be in shambles.

Wigglesworth on May 22, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Joining the military doesn’t mean that anyone is going to be fighting in combat. Furthermore, if we want to put aliens (and non-green card holders) in the military then we have a whole world full of aliens who haven’t already broken our laws and spit all over the concept of national sovereignty to choose from. There is NO REASON to bring illegals into the military. NONE. The threat of the traitors in Washington erasing our borders by printing up citizenships for these illegals is not a good reason to join with the traitors and resign ourselves to the end of the concept of sovereignty.

Someone who is an illegal alien, who has made a mockery of our sovereignty and our law is going to take an oath … and anyone with a brain is going to find that less than laughable?? I don’t think so.

This whole idea is nothing short of treason and will be nothing short of treason no matter what the circumstances.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 22, 2014 at 3:10 PM

We’re talking about children who were brought here with their parents…I can’t speak to how much choice they had in the matter of violating our sovereignty, but doubt it was very much. And, if they’re willing to serve the country by signing up, it’s hard to say they shouldn’t be a citizen of it. Hell, there are people born here who frankly don’t deserve it.

The bottom line here is that they’re going to do something, that much is clear. At least with ENLIST, they have to serve the country before getting that path to citizenship, which would seem to be the best of the lousy options they’re considering.

changer1701 on May 22, 2014 at 3:41 PM

And you read that these kids would be granted Security Clearances in the proposed law where? It is OK to be against the law, but please don’t make stuff up.

Johnnyreb on May 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Does it specifically say in this law that illegals will NOT be given security clearances ?

burrata on May 22, 2014 at 3:42 PM

So, so, so sick of this argument. By taking this attitude, we A rewarding the parents (they wanted this for their kids!). In the future we’ll be inundated with parents brining their kids “through no fault of their own”. And of course, we don’t separate families – so its a win all around for the whole family.

LilyBart on May 22, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Yep, that is why there is a tourism industry for anchor babies. That is why in San Diego, the hospitals get Mexican woman who have had no prenatal care in advanced stages of labor who can’t be moved until after they deliver at the American hospital.

http://world.time.com/2013/11/27/chinese-women-are-flocking-to-the-u-s-to-have-babies/

melle1228 on May 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Have you ever been associated with the military? First off, there is MASSIVE cuts going on right now, and they making reenlistment and recruitment almost impossible, so they can downsize, BUT somehow someone who is ILLEGAL gets a pass. That is PREFERENTIAL treatment which is what I said. I didn’t say priority. I said preferential treatment. When you make it harder for one group to get them out of the military or stop them from joining, but waive A CRIME from another group; that is the very definition of PREFERENTIAL treatment.

melle1228 on May 22, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Seriously, did you read my first post on this where I am a Retied Navy man? Yes I have been associated with the Military for 21 years and I know a thing or two about the Military. And yes, I have seen drawdowns, three of them in fact went through them myself and survived. They happen every ten years or so, usually when we get a Democrat as President.

It is not almost impossible to reenlist. Not sure where you are getting that info, but it is not impossible. Stick to facts. The Military is not making it impossible to reenlist. Your massive cuts amount to less than 10% Active Duty end strength over a four year period. If someone really wants to stay in the Military they can if they meet all of the reenlistment Criteria.

Once again, where in the law does it say they will get preferential treatment to enlist?

Johnnyreb on May 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM

If we followed the ‘through no fault of their own” tenet then our legal system would be in shambles.

Wigglesworth on May 22, 2014 at 3:39 PM

LOL– NOTHING is ever anybody’s fault anymore.

melle1228 on May 22, 2014 at 3:46 PM

I think its a mistake to get any kind of a concentration of people more beholden to the government than the constitution into the forces. You need to start thinking about real consequences to actions and decisions.

LilyBart on May 22, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Once again, where in the law does it say they will get preferential treatment to enlist?

Johnnyreb on May 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM

If illegals are getting into our military, that in itself is preferential treatment.

burrata on May 22, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Johnnyreb on May 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Today, you can’t even get a government email account in the military without a Secret clearance.

Not sure how they can square this circle.

Megyn Kellys Lipstick on May 22, 2014 at 3:50 PM

As much as I hate Amnesty, giving the illegals this path to citizenship may be a good way to deal with this issue politically.

thuja on May 22, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Johnnyreb on May 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM

It is a CRIME for them to be here. Can someone who has a criminal record enlist right now?

And I don’t know about the Navy, but the Army is looking to drawdown from 570,000 to 490,000 troops from 2010 to 2017. That is a lot of personnel, especially when you are actively recruiting as well. This is ACTIVE Army, and that is a lot more than 10 percent.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42493.pdf

melle1228 on May 22, 2014 at 3:52 PM

If illegals are getting into our military, that in itself is preferential treatment.

burrata on May 22, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Sorry. Name me one single person who is a citizen that is being denied enlistment because of this law.

Johnnyreb on May 22, 2014 at 3:52 PM

Once again, where in the law does it say they will get preferential treatment to enlist?

Johnnyreb on May 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Where is the evidence anyone feels bound by the law anymore?

LilyBart on May 22, 2014 at 3:53 PM

giving the illegals this path to citizenship may be a good way to deal with this issue politically.

thuja on May 22, 2014 at 3:50 PM

We need STATESMEN to decide this issue, not politicians.

A Politician Thinks of the Next Election; a Statesman of the Next Generation

burrata on May 22, 2014 at 3:54 PM

Wasn’t this common during WWI?
Seems like I’ve read about a lot of very young men who signed-up during the rush to war who weren’t citizens (hey, no databases in computers 100 years ago) and were granted citizenship after honorable service.

I’m kinda for this, but the details are sure to be extensively perverted by the politician-scum.

Tard on May 22, 2014 at 3:10 PM

You can be a legal resident without being a full citizen.
Service most likely just fast-tracked their nationalization afterwards.

As you say, no computer data bases, but the immigration laws were also much different before WW1, and even WW2. (Footnotes are Wikipedia’s).

Prior to 1890, the individual states, rather than the Federal government, regulated immigration into the United States.[34] The Immigration Act of 1891 established a Commissioner of Immigration in the Treasury Department.[35] The Canadian Agreement of 1894 extended U.S. immigration restrictions to Canadian ports.

That’s pretty different; we seem to be functioning the same way today, except the Feds abet States with lax immigration enforcement, and harass the states that want to actually apply the laws as written.

Congress passed a literacy requirement in 1917 to curb the influx of low-skilled immigrants from entering the country.

Congress passed the Emergency Quota Act in 1921, followed by the Immigration Act of 1924, which was aimed at further restricting the Southern Europeans and Russians who had begun to enter the country in large numbers beginning in the 1890s. This ultimately resulted in precluding the all “extra” immigration to the United States, including Jews fleeing Nazi German persecution.

The Immigration Act of 1924 set quotas for European immigrants so that no more than 2% of the 1890 immigrant stocks were allowed into America.

Beginning the tangle with a few threads, that all looked like a “good idea at the time”.
Should have just stuck with letting States decide.

Restriction proceeded piecemeal over the course of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but immediately after the end of World War I (1914–1918) and into the early 1920s, Congress did change the nation’s basic policy about immigration. The National Origins Formula of 1921 (and its final form in 1924) not only restricted the number of immigrants who might enter the United States but also assigned slots according to quotas based on national origins. A complicated piece of legislation, it essentially gave preference to immigrants from central, northern and western Europe, severely limited the numbers from Russia and southern Europe, and declared all potential immigrants from Asia to be unworthy of entry into the United States.

The legislation excluded the Western Hemisphere from the quota system, and the 1920s ushered in the penultimate era in U.S. immigration history. Immigrants could and did move quite freely from Mexico, the Caribbean (including Jamaica, Barbados, and Haiti), and other parts of Central and South America. This era, which reflected the application of the 1924 legislation, lasted until 1965.

According to the tables in the article, Mexicans were highly outnumbered by Europeans to this point, and other Latin American countries didn’t even make the count.
The latter was probably due to transit difficulty, and the former because the only jobs the Mexicans could get were agricultural in the border states, although there was some movement northwards. Note that the numbers are for permanent LEGAL immigrants.

In 1954, Operation W** forced the return of thousands of illegal immigrants to Mexico.[45] Between 1944 and 1954, “the decade of the w**”, the number of illegal immigrants coming from Mexico increased by 6,000 percent. It is estimated that, in 1954, before Operation W** got under way, more than a million workers had crossed the Rio Grande illegally. Cheap labor displaced native agricultural workers, and increased violation of labor laws and discrimination encouraged criminality, disease, and illiteracy. According to a study conducted in 1950 by the President’s Commission on Migratory Labor in Texas, the Rio Grande valley cotton growers were paying approximately half of the wages paid elsewhere in Texas. The United States Border Patrol aided by municipal, county, state, and federal authorities, as well as the military, began a quasi-military operation of search and seizure of all illegal immigrants.

Last time the Feds and the States were on the same page.

Personal note: I grew up in Texas in the 50s and 60s, and the migrant workers’ children went to school with the rest of the Anglos (we didn’t get fully integrated schools until I was in high school). The smartest kid in my junior high was M. Mendez, our best tenor and choir accompanist was R. Gonzales, the winner of our Art Department award was A. Gonzales (no relation); my valedictorian was black.
Which is why I kind of have some sympathy for DREAM and ENLIST, but with the caveats noted in my previous comment.

This all changed with passage of the Hart-Celler Act in 1965, a by-product of the civil rights revolution and a jewel in the crown of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs. The measure had not been intended to stimulate immigration from Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere in the developing world. Rather, by doing away with the racially based quota system, its authors had expected that immigrants would come from the “traditional” sending societies such as Italy, Greece, and Portugal, places that labored under very small quotas in the 1924 law. The law replaced the quotas with preference categories based on family relationships and job skills, giving particular preference to potential immigrants with relatives in the United States and with occupations deemed critical by the U.S. Department of Labor. But after 1970, following an initial influx from those European countries, there were immigrants from places like Korea, China, India, the Philippines, and Pakistan, as well as countries in Africa.

Law of unintended consequences.

In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was passed, creating, for the first time, penalties for employers who hired illegal immigrants.

Should have been done much earlier, if the government was serious about immigration control; however, most of the blockage was done at entry ports – very easy, then. At airports, not so much.
Note that Wiki doesn’t mention the promised border control, which didn’t materialize as negotiated, hence the Reaganite comments about being burned by the Dems.

IRCA, as proposed in Congress, was projected to give amnesty to about 1,000,000 workers in the country illegally. In practice, amnesty for about 3,000,000 immigrants already in the United States was granted. Most were from Mexico. Legal Mexican immigrant family numbers were 2,198,000 in 1980, 4,289,000 in 1990 (includes IRCA) and 7,841,000 in 2000. Adding in another 12,000,000 illegal immigrants of which about 80% are thought to be Mexicans would bring the Mexican family total to over 16,000,000—about 16% of the Mexican population.[citation needed]

Data-tables follow.

And there you have it.

AesopFan on May 22, 2014 at 3:55 PM

We cannot take care of our veterans now through the VA. I don’t want to add a bunch of criminals into the mix. You allow an inch, the worms on our side and the citizenship selling democrats will take a mile.
Another caveat. If you’re going to join the military just to earn something you never deserved in the first place, how well are you going to do your job? You just have to stick it out until we give yet another benefit plus pay to a criminal. And, what are you going to give the American citizen soldier who joined to serve his country? Does he get something extra, like a fake gold watch or something because even on our side, that seems to be the going price for citizenship nowadays.
And this mealy mouthed worm Hensarling on that video asked about running for speaker. If that’s our conservative wing, it looks like they spayed and neutered the who party. Just shut up.

Cheese Wheel on May 22, 2014 at 3:55 PM

melle1228 on May 22, 2014 at 3:39 PM

My brother retired 2 years ago. 21 years Navy. He says another concern in the ranks is one of disciplinary action.

You know how we have people who can’t “be fired”? He said officers are thinking they’ll see the same with the changes going on in the military, including DREAMers.

Our military is going to Hades in a handbasket.

lineholder on May 22, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Sorry. Name me one single person who is a citizen that is being denied enlistment because of this law.

Johnnyreb on May 22, 2014 at 3:52 PM

Impossible – this hasn’t passed yet. And when it passes, it’ll be too late. What evidence do you have that the government won’t behave politically in these cases?

LilyBart on May 22, 2014 at 3:56 PM

Today, you can’t even get a government email account in the military without a Secret clearance.

Not sure how they can square this circle.

Megyn Kellys Lipstick on May 22, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Sorry not true. You do not need a Secret or Confidential Clearance to have an email account in the Military. Seriously, we have non-citizens (green Card Holders) already in the Military that cant have Clearances who have military email accounts. I worked right next to a guy last year who wasn’t a US Citizen, did not have a Clearance and had his NMCI email account.

Not sure where you people are getting your info, but you need to quit making stuff up and stick to facts.

Johnnyreb on May 22, 2014 at 3:58 PM

ThisIsYourBrainOnKoch on May 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM

I’ve been noticing an increase in drive-by trolling on here lately.

cdog0613 on May 22, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Where is the evidence anyone feels bound by the law anymore?

LilyBart on May 22, 2014 at 3:53 PM

Don’t look now, but your strawman caught on fire when he was moving the goal post.

Johnnyreb on May 22, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but won’t that be considered an immigration bill and thus trigger a conference with Rubio’s Senate bill?

DFCtomm on May 22, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Sorry. Name me one single person who is a citizen that is being denied enlistment because of this law.

Johnnyreb on May 22, 2014 at 3:52 PM

When it passes and gets enforced by a bunch of sinaloa cartel or bozo haram file pushers in DC,
every illegal that gets it’s job in US military will be a job snatched from a US citizen.

burrata on May 22, 2014 at 4:02 PM

If a kid who was brought here through no fault of his own

So, so, so sick of this argument. By taking this attitude, we ARE rewarding the parents (they wanted this for their kids!). In the future we’ll be inundated with parents brining their kids “through no fault of their own”. And of course, we don’t separate families – so its a win all around for the whole family.

LilyBart on May 22, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Soon? It’s happening now. Someone spoke about once the “dreamer” gets the prize of citizenship, you know the democrats will not limit chain migration. It’s a win win for everyone and the parent who brought their child her by no fault of his or her own wins the citizenship lottery. Those thinking the system won’t be gamed is either weapons grade stupid or they haven’t been paying attention.

Cheese Wheel on May 22, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Don’t look now, but your strawman caught on fire when he was moving the goal post.

Johnnyreb on May 22, 2014 at 4:00 PM

What strawman? its a salient argument.

What’s easy to demonstrate is that our government doesn’t seem bound by the letter or intent of our laws and regulations anymore. Many, many examples of this.

But you asked for an example of how a law is working practice – when the law has only been proposed at this point. Impossible.

LilyBart on May 22, 2014 at 4:06 PM

This a brilliant move that will only strengthen our military, while forming the tip of the spear for societal justice and enlightenment in our country. Anyone familiar with strategic, operational and tactical warfare knows that Diversity in the ranks is absolutely critical to military success.

The inclusion of women into combat roles and homosexuals being scattered throughout the ranks has greatly strengthened our force. However, if Secretary of Defense Hagel is successful in his efforts to finally insert transgender teenagers into our fighting force, to go along with multi-language foreigners, we may finally transform our military into a government department we can finally be proud of!

Frank Lib on May 22, 2014 at 3:38 PM

Sorry, Frank Lib, Johnnyreb already stole your thunder. Once again, we’re not worthy!

Cheese Wheel on May 22, 2014 at 4:07 PM

lineholder on May 22, 2014 at 3:55 PM

My husband served under Clinton, and retired last year after 21 years. He remembers during the whole “sexual harassment” hysteria when he couldn’t bring an umbrella to work due to the “phallic’ nature of the umbrella.. The military gets ridiculous.

melle1228 on May 22, 2014 at 4:09 PM

What strawman? its a salient argument.

What’s easy to demonstrate is that our government doesn’t seem bound by the letter or intent of our laws and regulations anymore. Many, many examples of this.

But you asked for an example of how a law is working practice – when the law has only been proposed at this point. Impossible.

LilyBart on May 22, 2014 at 4:06 PM

There are many conservatives you refuse to see what’s happening. I suppose it’s a defense mechanism. They spin these fantasies that we’ll take back the Senate with RINOs and everything will be peachy and it’s 1956 again.

DFCtomm on May 22, 2014 at 4:10 PM

As a Retired Navy man ……

Johnnyreb on May 22, 2014 at 3:15 PM

I don’t believe you.

LilyBart on May 22, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Frank Lib on May 22, 2014 at 3:38 PM

Heh.

The bottom line here is that they’re going to do something, that much is clear. At least with ENLIST, they have to serve the country before getting that path to citizenship, which would seem to be the best of the lousy options they’re considering.

changer1701 on May 22, 2014 at 3:41 PM

They do, but the rest of their extended family, which then is given preferential treatment for legalization, does not.
The legalization of the DREAMERs’ families is the end-goal of the amnesty supporters, because that covers just about everybody eventually.

AesopFan on May 22, 2014 at 4:13 PM

A Politician Thinks of the Next Election; a Statesman of the Next Generation

burrata on May 22, 2014 at 3:54 PM

Well, we have to elect those statesmen in the next election and the one after that.

thuja on May 22, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Not sure where you people are getting your info, but you need to quit making stuff up and stick to facts.

Johnnyreb on May 22, 2014 at 3:58 PM

I’m not going to go into details of my personal life and I’m not going to argue with you. It is possible that when you were in the Navy, your comment was truthful. But today, you are wrong (Hint: see DD Fm 2875)

However, I have much more time in service than you and I used to perform “SSO” duty (same term used by all services – so if you were in the Navy you know what that is and what I did).

Bottomline, you don’t what the hell you’re talking about.

Megyn Kellys Lipstick on May 22, 2014 at 4:20 PM

You know, if the GOP wants a Foreign Legion that non-citizens can spend a decade in being sent to fight for the US, then why don’t they just create one? Because whenever a variant of ‘doing it for the children’ crops up, it hides something that they don’t want you to see and is dishonest emotional manipulation at its core. If you want those who are not citizens to fight for the Nation under its banner overseas, then just create a Foreign Legion and be done with it.

ajacksonian on May 22, 2014 at 4:21 PM

If, on the other hand, he gets the sense from the caucus that they’ll only tolerate a small immigration measure right now in the name of PR and outreach to Latinos, ENLIST would be perfect, giving sympathetic DREAMers a chance to earn their citizenship by serving in the armed forces

Uninformed “outreach” will kill the GOP.

Why do so many people, including our esteemed host, assume that we must pander to the “Hispanic vote” by offering amnesty???

Why try to out-pander the Dems for 54% of (already Democrat) Hispanics and LOSE your base just because Chuck Schumer says you have to, instead of appealing to the 40% of (law-respecting) Hispanics who favor attrition through enforcement and KEEP your base?

READ THE DARN POLL!!

http://www.jmisys.com/immigrationmarches/zogby5.html

fred5678 on May 22, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Well, we have to elect those statesmen in the next election and the one after that.

thuja on May 22, 2014 at 4:13 PM

After this amnesty, which will happen , if not by congress then by fatwa,
there will be no elections anymore.

burrata on May 22, 2014 at 4:25 PM

And to the “ENLIST Act”:

Rewarding illegal aliens via the ENLIST Act is a morally bankrupt policy. (And don’t pretend that any “date certain” is a certain cutoff date!!)

1. It ENCOURAGES more future illegal immigration. Any reward, benefit, etc.. for illegal aliens is a magnet for future illegal immigrants.

2. It endangers future foreigners by encouraging them to risk their lives crossing a dangerous desert — this alone is morally indefensible!

3. Expecting someone who has broken our immigration laws to honor an oath to our country is impossible.

4. Doing a background check on someone WHO HAS NO RELIABLE BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS TO CHECK endangers our military and the security of our country.

5. Do we want our military to be modeled after the French Foreign Legion?

fred5678 on May 22, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Go to Hell, all you amnesty shills, with zero exceptions.

Thoughtfully put. Course you’re probably just doing the thinking that Americans refuse to do.

catsmeow on May 22, 2014 at 4:33 PM

Sorry. Name me one single person who is a citizen that is being denied enlistment because of this law.

Johnnyreb on May 22, 2014 at 3:52 PM

Impossible – this hasn’t passed yet. And when it passes, it’ll be too late. What evidence do you have that the government won’t behave politically in these cases?

LilyBart on May 22, 2014 at 3:56 PM

Tangential topic, but the Civil Rights debacle has parallel examples.
From PowerLineBlog:

In the summer of 1964, our family vacation plans were altered. President Johnson had decided to wage a War on Poverty, and my father, a career Labor Department employee, was drafted.

The Labor Department was given only a peripheral role in the War. The lead role fell to a new agency called the Office Economic Opportunity (OEO) under the direction of Sargent Shriver, the Kennedys’ brother-in-law who had run the Peace Corps.

Most Labor Department officials were not amused, but my father considered this a good development. As a veteran bureaucrat and master infighter, he recognized that most of the OEO programs were so half-baked — for example, “community action” programs that bypassed local elected officials — that they would fail spectacularly and OEO would take the fall.

The Labor Department could then pick up the few viable pieces. The piece that most interested my father was the Job Corps.

The scenario played out almost exactly as my father expected. In fact, after the Job Corps was transferred to the Labor Department, the Nixon administration made him its director.
There was a serious catch, though. My father’s mandate was to eliminate the Job Corps. John Ehrlichman, Nixon’s top domestic adviser with a reputation as an enforcer, would ride herd to make sure it happened.

My father had other ideas. His plan was to cut some Job Corps centers and improve the functioning of the rest (the program had been plagued by problems since its inception, but my father attributed them in part to incompetent, idealistic OEO managers — “boy scouts” as he called them). He would thereby win over George Shultz (then Secretary of Labor) and his team, as well as congressmen from both parties who had centers in their district.

The plan worked. Centers were cut, but the Job Corps survived.

Getting closer to the punchline, and the answer to LilyBart’s question.

There is no doubt that the Job Corps has positively affected the lives of many people from the lowest rungs of society.

Just as military service will benefit some of the DREAMERs individually.

The question, of course, is whether, taking into account the many failures, the Job Corps successes justify the cost ($1.7 billion this year). Fahrenthold cites a comprehensive study that suggests the answer may well be “no.”

My father would almost certainly dissent. But he would probably acknowledge the inherent shortcomings of government-provided job training.

He used to tell the story of a Job Corps center in Indiana (I think) that trained welders. The welders, virtually all of whom were Black, would then seek employment at a shipyard in Alabama. Invariably, they would be rejected.

Inside the Department of Labor, the party line was that the man in charge in Alabama was a racist. But my father dug deeper. He called the guy, who said he was willing to take Job Corps alumni, but insisted they just weren’t good enough at welding.

My father invited the Alabaman to spend a few days at the Indiana center. He agreed.

At the end of his visit, he told my father, “Bill, not only are your welders not good enough to work for me, your teachers aren’t good enough to work for me.”

They say that those who can, do, and those who can’t, teach. It may also be the case that those who can’t teach end up teaching in government-run training programs.

The military is not a social justice program; it is a weapon.

If the standards are changed in the least degree to avoid the inevitable charges of “racism” and “discrimination”, then the fallout from “affirmative action enlistment” will be horrendous.

* * *
I do not know if enlistment standards were changed when the services were opened to blacks, but I think they actually had to work twice as hard to be just as good, because this was before Johnson’s Civil Rights legislation was passed. Up to a certain rank, I don’t see that blacks get a “pass”; political promotion of the brass is different. Any military readers here know different?
I do know that the standards unquestionably were changed for women; though I support allowing women to serve in any capacity for which they are physically able, I do not support relaxing necessary standards to give them a “pass”. Of course, the standards for state-side desk-jockeys and for front-line combat troops are not, and should not be, the same.

AesopFan on May 22, 2014 at 4:33 PM

Doing a background check on someone WHO HAS NO RELIABLE BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS TO CHECK endangers our military and the security of our country.

5. Do we want our military to be modeled after the French Foreign Legion?

fred5678 on May 22, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Points 1-4 were good too, but this is the most important one.
Also, just to point out the obvious, everyone is arguing from the presumption that all of the DREAMers and ENLISTers will be innocent young Hispanics just yearning to be free.
The reality IIRC is that this legislation does not limit the ethnicity or country of origin of the individual concerned; I don’t know what limits it puts on criminal background, assuming the government bothers to check and the alien (not a citizen yet) is honest about his (or her) past.
However, because of the need to “stay in the shadows” any documentation produced (including that needed to qualify for these preferences in the first place) should be considered suspect at the best and most likely fraudulent.

Again, refer above, Obama’s EO “legalizing” DREAMers is the foundation for extending benefits to the ENLISTers; this is a continuous forward-looping gambit that will stretch to complete amnesty with no intervening legislation, if that’s all they can get.

AesopFan on May 22, 2014 at 4:42 PM

Why try to out-pander the Dems for 54% of (already Democrat) Hispanics and LOSE your base just because Chuck Schumer says you have to, instead of appealing to the 40% of (law-respecting) Hispanics who favor attrition through enforcement and KEEP your base?

READ THE DARN POLL!!

http://www.jmisys.com/immigrationmarches/zogby5.html

fred5678 on May 22, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Indeed.
Which means the Republican “leadership” pushing amnesty have other interests than those of the base and legal residents.

I still don’t understand why the companies lusting after low-cost labor want amnesty, as that will drive up the cost of their current (illegal) employees, once they have to pay all the labor taxes and mandated wages; replacing them with a new wave of illegals would be time-consuming and possibly more expensive in the long run.
What am I missing here?

(Maybe they are just trying to be fair and do the right thing by bringing their beloved servants in from the shadows, but that is probably not the way to bet.)

AesopFan on May 22, 2014 at 4:49 PM

The military is far too conservative, but that little problem is being solved as we speak, one more obstacle falls.

DFCtomm on May 22, 2014 at 4:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2