Except for the Indigenous Native

Except for the indigenous Native American population, the United States is truly a country of immigrants. Indeed, most modern Americans can trace their ancestry to the nations of Europe, Asia and Africa and it is reasonable to suggest that the vast majority of U.S. citizens today have ancestors who were immigrants at some point. It is not surprising, then, that the United States has historically turned to this immigrant population in times of war.

Because immigrants have by definition intended to permanent relocate from one country to another, it was in the best interests of immigrants seeking permanent residence in the United States to serve in the armed forces because such service represented a fast track to citizenship. It has also been in the best interests of the U.S. armed forces to recruit immigrants for military service because of their proven track record of largely faithful, dedicated and heroic service in times of war.

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, though, the naturalization waters became slightly more muddied for some immigrants serving in the military. The purpose of this study was to provide a review of the relevant literature to determine the historical and modern contribution and importance of immigrants serving in the U.S. armed forces, including an assessment of the effect of the recent Development, Relief, and Education Act for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. A summary of the research and important findings are presented in the concluding chapter.

Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction Statement of the Problem Purpose of Study Importance of Study Rationale of Study Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature Chapter 3: Summary and Conclusions The Contribution and Importance of Immigrants Serving in the U.S. Armed Forces Chapter 1: Introduction This study provides a brief history of immigrants and their historic role in serving in the U.S. military, some of the contributions they have made and why immigrants serving in the U.S.

military today are critical to the defense of the United States, especially in a time of ongoing wars and conflicts, rising demands of military recruits, foreign language translators and experts in other cultures. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush issued an Executive Order in an apparent effort to facilitate the recruitment of immigrants into the U.S. military.

Some authorities, though, suggest that the Executive Order was redundant to existing immigration and naturalization laws and actually made it more difficult for immigrants and their families to become naturalized citizens. Finally, a discussion of the promise of legislation such as the Development, Relief, and Education Act for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act and the positive impact this legislation would have on immigration reform and military recruitment is followed by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.

Statement of the Problem Today, the United States' armed forces are stretched razor thin, with shooting wars being prosecuted in Afghanistan and Iraq, a significant military presence in Western Europe and South Korea, as well as commitments to United Nations peace-keeping operations in far-flung regions of the world. Despite aggressive recruitment efforts by all of the U.S. armed forces, there remains an ongoing need to highly qualified and motivated young people who are willing to make the personal sacrifices that go hand-in-hand with military service.

A recent report from Stock (2009) emphasizes that, "From the Revolutionary War to the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, immigrants have made significant contributions to the United States by serving in our military forces. Today, immigrants voluntarily serve in all branches of the U.S. military and are a vital asset to the Department of Defense" (4). According to Davis (2007), though, the enlistment and expedited naturalization of illegal immigrants serving in the armed forces was already specifically authorized in U.S.

law but on July 3, 2002, an Executive Order was issued by President Bush that provided for the "expedited naturalization for aliens and noncitizen nationals serving in an active-duty status in the Armed Forces of the United States during the period of the war against terrorists of global reach" (quoted in Davis at 32). Pursuant to the provisions of this Executive Order, any immigrant serving in the U.S. armed forces is eligible to apply for expedited citizenship on the first day a uniform is donned (Davis 32).

According to Davis, "Not only is this order still in effect, but it has been codified in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2006, that authorizes the enlistment of (1) nationals of the United States; (2) aliens who have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence (green card); (3) residents of several former U.S. territories; and (4) any other person 'if the Secretary of Defense determines that such enlistment is vital to the national interest'" (32).

This means that even immigrants who status is illegal can legally serve in the armed forces if the Secretary of Defense approves such service. Because the laws concerning immigrant service in the armed forces are codified, some authorities are questioning the manner in which immigrants who are serving in the military are treated by the U.S. Department of Defense as well as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). For instance, Lieutenant Colonel Margeret Stock, a nationally recognized immigration attorney and professor of military law at the U.S.

Military Academy suggests that, "Apparently, nobody at the Pentagon reviewed the [regulations] on immigrants when the war started. If the Pentagon has any immigration attorneys, I haven't met them" (quoted in Davis at 32).

In the spirit of "don't ask, don't tell," Stock believes that although the Department of Defense is cognizant of the controlling legislation and the president's Executive Order of July 3, 2002, military leaders are "afraid there would be a political backlash" if the use of immigrant labor for the war were discussed openly" and adds, "By the way, the Pentagon has ALWAYS had the authority to recruit foreigners in wartime. ..

The only thing that changed in January 2006 [when Bush signed the NDAA] was that Congress made it HARDER for the Pentagon to recruit foreigners who are not Lawful Permanent Residents. It used to be that ANYONE could join the military in wartime-even undocumented immigrants-but now the Service Secretaries have to find that an undocumented person's enlistment is 'in the vital interest' of the United States" (quoted in Davis at 32).

In support of this assertion, Stock points to a section of the 2006 Immigration and Nationalization Law that specifically stipulates that the naturalization of immigrants who serve in the armed forces in war zones such as in Iraq is congruent with the same immigrant naturalizations that took place "during World War I, World War II, Korean hostilities, Vietnam hostilities, [and] other periods of military hostilities" (quoted in Davis at 32).

During these periods of American history, citizenship was granted to any immigrant following a minimum of 3 years of honorable service or an otherwise honorable separation from the U.S. armed forces, irrespective of whether the veteran ever resided in the United States (Davis 2007) Although military service is not an absolute guarantee to becoming a naturalized citizen in the United States today, it does provide immigrants with some advantages. For example, according to Stock (2009), "To recognize their unique contribution, immigrants serving honorably in the military who are not yet U.S.

citizens are granted significant advantages in the naturalization process. Over the past eight years, Congress has amended military-related enlistment and naturalization rules to allow expanded benefits for immigrants and their families and encourage recruitment of immigrants into the U.S. Armed Forces. Without the contributions of immigrants, the military could not meet its recruiting goals and could not fill its need for foreign-language translators, interpreters, and cultural experts" (4).

In this environment, identifying the respective constituents of the military to determine their contributions and potential for future service represents a timely and valuable enterprise that is directly related to the purpose of this study which is discussed further below. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study was to review the relevant peer-reviewed and scholarly literature to determine the historical and modern contribution and importance of immigrants serving in the U.S.

armed forces, including an assessment of the effect of the recent Development, Relief, and Education Act for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. Importance of Study Even prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the debate over immigration reformed loomed large on the American political horizon. In this regard, Bloemraad (2002) notes that following the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (the "Welfare Reform Act") on August 22, 1996, the importance of the legal status of immigrants and the need for U.S. citizenship became particularly pronounced.

According to Bloemraad, "In general, the Act mandates that social service benefits only be provided to citizens of the United States, whether native-born or naturalized. Immigrant advocates and social service providers immediately expressed alarm" (193). This alarm was justified given recent U.S. Census Bureau estimates that indicate just slight more than a third (35% of the 26 million or so foreign-born residents living in the United States in March 1997 had attained their U.S. citizenship (Bloemraad 2002). Given the ongoing need for qualified recruits by the U.S.

armed forces, it just makes sense to determine the extent of enlistment in the armed forces by immigrants to identify their personal reasons for doing so. To the extent that these reasons are directly related to their desire to obtain American citizenship rather than a sense of patriotic responsibilities is the extent to which military service may represent a viable alternative to more time-consuming, expensive and complication naturalization procedures.

It is important, though, to ensure that these immigrant recruits are provided with accurate information concerning how military service will affect their naturalization status and efforts to secure ultimate citizenship. Rationale of Study Military recruiters typically experience increases in enlistments during periods of economic downturn because of limited employment opportunities elsewhere in the private sector. Nevertheless, recruiting adequate numbers of high-quality and motivated service members is more challenging during periods of armed hostilities. One authority suggests that the solution is clear: "The obvious solution is to resurrect the draft.

That remains a noble ideal, but an increasingly impractical one. A draft, remember, might not just draw in the elite; it could also pressure the military to accept those it now prides itself on weeding out" (Waldman 1996:27). The idea of resurrecting the draft, however, is anathema to many politicians and it is reasonable to suggest that military recruiters will continue to focus on those segments of American society that offer the best chances of filling the ranks, segments which include immigrants in increasing numbers.

Overview of Study This study used a three-chapter format to achieve the above-stated research purpose. Chapter one of the study was used to introduce the topics to be considered, and to provide a statement of the problem, the purpose and importance of the study, as well as its rationale. Chapter two of the study was used to deliver a review of the juried and scholarly literature concerning the historic patterns of immigrant service in the armed forces and their contributions, as well as a discussion of current and future trends.

Finally, chapter three provides a summary of the research and important findings. Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature Chapter Introduction This chapter provides a brief history of military service by immigrants throughout U.S. history, followed by a discussion concerning the importance of the contributions historically made by immigrants serving in the U.S. armed forces and an assessment of current and future trends including the effect of the Development, Relief, and Education Act for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. A summary of the research concludes this chapter.

Brief History of Military Service by Immigrants in the U.S. The relationship between citizenship and an obligation for military service is truly ancient and can be found among the Greeks and Romans. According to Gross (1999), in Roman society, the importance of citizenship cannot be overstated: "Citizenship gave to everyone his basic rights: the right to marry a Roman, to trade (connubium, commercium), commercial contracts had legal validity; it protected a person and his family in its dealings with Roman authorities" (31).

Roman citizenship also carried some heavy responsibilities that included military service for males. In this regard, Gross reports that, "But it also involved duties, above all military service and participation in government, in various assemblies and courts -- but again, it opened opportunities to various offices. Moreover, a citizen and his actions were protected by ius civile, Roman law, the law of the land binding all citizens. Hence, a citizen could take action in court" (Gross 1999:31).

Likewise, today, citizenship is not a free ride (even though many natural-born Americans may believe otherwise) and Zilbershats (2001) reports that, "Citizenship is the embodiment of the strongest link between the individual and the State, a link which is reflected by the fact that the citizen is entitled to all the rights which the States grants and is subject to all the duties which it imposes" (689).

This point is also made by Gribbin (1999) who emphasizes that the provision of citizenship carries with it certain responsibilities: "Each nation decides to whom it will grant citizenship and how it will grant it. Some sell it. The Central American country of Belize does. But most give it away, and the gift demands a payback that consists of duties to be accepted and a pledge of allegiance and loyalty" (9).

It is not surprising, then, that immigrants may seek to expedite their acquisition of citizenship in countries that offer this fast track when it is available. For the purposes of this study, then, immigrants will be regarded as intending to establish a permanent residence in another country, in this case the United States, an assumption that is consistent with the legal definition. For instance, according to Black's Law Dictionary (1990), an immigrant is "an alien in a country" and "one who leaves a country to permanently settle in another" (750).

Immigrants have long taken advantage of this expeditious path to American citizenship and the benefits it confers. For example, according to Moore (2003), "Since the American Revolution, the concept of the citizen soldier has existed in the United States. Historically, racial and ethnic minorities were afforded no more rights than noncitizens; many served in the armed services with the expectation of attaining the citizenship rights denied them" (1).

In fact, this legacy continues today in principle and function with the United States generally requiring 5 years of residency in the country to establish eligibility for citizenship applications but immigrants who have served on active duty in the armed forces have no residence requirement at all (Bloemraad 2002). The track record of immigrant contributions in the military dates back to the country's inception. For example, Stock (2009) notes that, "Immigrants have been eligible to enlist in the U.S.

military since the Revolutionary War and have served in times of war with great distinction. Many have won the Congressional Medal of Honor, this nation's highest military decoration" (5). Enlistment and service in the armed forces has traditionally been regarded as qualifying an immigrant for citizenship. Indeed, Stock emphasizes that, "It has long been an American tradition that service in the armed forces can lead to U.S. citizenship" (5). Some salient examples of immigrants who served in the U.S.

armed forces with distinction include Alfred Rascon, described by Stock as being "an undocumented immigrant from Mexico who won the Medal of Honor during the Vietnam War and later became a U.S. citizen and eventually the Director of the Selective Service System" (5). Other significant examples of immigrants who served in the military with distinction include General John Shalikashvili, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who was immigrated to the U.S. from Poland following the end of World War II (Stock 2009).

In fact, during the most recent complete federal fiscal year (FY 2009), 10,505 active duty service members in the military were naturalized (see Figure 1 below), the highest level in a decade, and the level of immigrant naturalization through military service are highest during times of war when recruitment challenges are otherwise especially acute (Stock 5). Figure 1. Members of U.S. Armed Forces Naturalized in United States & Abroad, FY 2001-2009 Source: Stock at 5 The importance of becoming an American citizen for immigrants (who by definition are seeking to relocate to the U.S.

permanently) can account for this increase in naturalization through military service when the lengthy, expensive and complicated legal alternatives are less attractive. American citizenship can be gained in a number of ways: 1. Virtually all children born on U.S. soil (even to children born to illegal border crossers) become American citizens as well as children born anywhere to U.S. citizens. 2. Adults can also become U.S. citizens through naturalization (Gribbin 9).

In order to become eligible for naturalization as a citizen, immigrants must be at least 18 years old and have resided in the U.S. with a status as a legal resident for at least 5 years; but immigrants who are married to U.S. citizens can apply after 3 years and those who have served on active duty in the U.S. armed forces can apply for naturalization immediately (Gribbin 9).

Besides these qualifications, immigrants seeking citizenship through naturalization must also be able to speak, read and write conversational English; however, there are some grey areas for this requirement and anecdotal accounts from across the country suggest that this requirement is not given that much attention in some jurisdictions (Gribbin 1999). In addition, immigrants seeking citizenship through the naturalization process must also be able to show that they are capable of understanding the operation of the U.S. government and have a basic knowledge of U.S.

history, but some disabled immigrants are exempted from this requirement (Gribbin 1999). Upon successful completion of the foregoing requirements, immigrants can receive American citizenship; however, the assignment of these fundamental rights is accompanied by a concomitant obligation to the nation contained in the oath immigrants are required to take when becoming citizens wherein they are asked to renounce "allegiance and fidelity to any foreign. state"; although this oath is not actively enforced, immigrants who become naturalized citizens, like all other American citizens, are expected to: 1.

Support and defend the Constitution and U.S. laws. 2. Have "true faith" in and "allegiance" to the Constitution and laws of the land. 3. Fight for the United States, or serve in the U.S. armed forces as a noncombatant, or do work "of national importance under civilian direction," when required by law (Gribben 9). These commitments are not taken lightly either and there are criminal consequences involved for naturalized citizens who fail to comply with these obligations (Gribben 1999).

Once again turning to Black's, the definition of citizen shows that the concept is inextricably interrelated with the concept of civic responsibility. A citizen, Black's advises, is "one who under the Constitution and laws of the United States or of a particular state is a member of the political community owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside" (244).

Therefore, like the ancient Greeks, most modern nations, including the United States, view military service as a corresponding requirement (at least for males) of American citizenship, a feature that further supports the granting of citizenship for immigrants who fulfill active military service. In this regard, Moore (2003) advises, "Participation in the American armed services has always been viewed as an obligation of male citizens -- free, white men. Military service emerged as the hallmark of citizenship and citizenship as the hallmark of a political democracy.

For minorities, military service was viewed as an avenue of upward mobility" (1). Although public sentiment concerning immigration has waxed and waned over the years, the needs of the nation during times of war have historically trumped any other considerations. For example, according to Moore, "Although U.S. citizenship initially was reserved for native-born white males, the shortage of white manpower during wars often led to the recruitment of racial minorities, particularly African-Americans but also Americans of Hispanic and Native (American Indian) descent. In addition, European and Asian immigrants were recruited" (1).

By and large, the American government has made good on its promises to grant citizenship to immigrants in exchange for military service, particularly for European male immigrants, but the contributions and achievements of these members of the armed forces are quickly forgotten when the debate over illegal immigration becomes heated once again (Moore 2003). Perhaps because of this short-term national memory problem, an interesting issue that emerged from the literature review concerned the pragmatic attitude of many immigrants towards military service as a means to gaining citizenship vs.

The potential for adverse outcomes. Immigrants from all parts of the world have historically banded together when they reached the shores of America to help each other become established and to provide mutual support during their assimilation into mainstream society. As a result, military service at a given point in American history may or may not have been viewed as a viable alternative to the standard naturalization process.

Notwithstanding any patriotic zeal that may have caused some immigrants to serve their country throughout American history, other immigrants viewed conflicts such as the Civil War as being contrary to their best interests and banded together in order to take advantage of whatever alternatives were available to military service (Chinchilla and Hamilton 1999). The views of some immigrants towards military service will likely relate to how long they have lived in the United States and their status relative to the mainstream society.

It is reasonable to suggest that newly arrived immigrants may be motivated to join an armed service today in order to facilitate their citizenship application process besides the other substantial benefits that accrue to veterans of military service, while those who have lived in the country longer and have become assimilated into the mainstream to a greater degree may be compelled to serve in the military out of a sense of patriotism to their newly adopted country.

This assertion is congruent with Zilbershats (2001) who reports, "The longer one lives in a State, the closer one gets to the status of nationality in the sense of belonging and nexus, and in this way provides a greater contribution to society in terms of the payment of taxes, military service, and involvement in society" (690).

This point is also made by Foner (2009) concerning the European immigrants to American during the past century: "Despite the continued ties many European immigrants maintained to their home countries, those who remained in the United States generally developed an allegiance to American society, became involved in a variety of U.S. institutions and worked to build lives for themselves and their children in this country" (8).

Certainly, many newly arrived European immigrants during the mid-19th century received a less-than-cordial welcome by American citizens who feared the flood of immigrants would increase competition for jobs and threaten domestic security in ways that contributed to their lack of patriotic zeal, particularly since there were alternatives paths to citizenship available to them.

In this regard, Zilbershats emphasizes that, "When a population lives for many years in a State and, in practice, functions as a population of citizens but it is not given the full right to become a population of citizens, a category of second-class persons is created, a result which is unjustified, immoral and dangerous to democracy, with the potential to lead to uprisings and civil revolt" (690).

Indeed, during the Civil War, tens of thousands of immigrants living in New York and its environs managed to avoid conscription by the North in one fashion or another. During the Civil War, Anbinder (2006) reports that, "The pattern that emerges from this data is unmistakable: immigrants were not disproportionately forced into the army as a result of the draft. In most instances, in fact, immigrants were underrepresented in the ranks of those held to service.

From Maine and New Hampshire to Ohio and Illinois, immigrants in the nation's major and mid-size cities were almost always less likely than natives to serve in the army as a result of the draft" (345).

An examination of the enlistment patterns of immigrants during the Civil War shows that even the most economically disadvantaged immigrant group, the Irish, served in the military forces of the Union in disproportionately smaller numbers compared to their representation in the larger American society as a result of the draft, but there were some exceptions to this pattern.

For example, by 1864, more German immigrants were serving or had served in the military service of the North as a result of conscription in larger percentages compared to their representation in the larger American society (Anbinder 2006). Taken together, though, more immigrants elected to sit the Civil War out compared to those who elected to take this expedited path to citizenship.

In this regard, Anbinder notes that, "If one considers all those forced to contribute to the war effort as a result of the draft, by combining those forced to serve with those who hired substitutes or paid the commutation fee, then immigrants lag even further behind natives in their contributions. This study indicates that one group does appear to have been disproportionately forced into service as a result of the draft -- native-born laborers, especially those residing in rural areas" (2006:345).

Notwithstanding their understandable lack of patriotic zeal during the Civil War for one side or the other at least, immigrants have gone on to serve the United States in the steady stream of world wars and conflicts of the 20th century, but in ways that inevitably relate to a mix of pragmatic "what's in it for me" and a growing sense of civic responsibility and patriotism for their adopted country the longer they live in it.

For example, Mccune (2002) cites as good examples of this the Italians of New Haven, Connecticut and the East European Jews of New York City. "Both these populations were the largest immigrant groups in their respective cities," Mccune writes and adds, "Both groups were overwhelmingly working-class and maintained close connections to their homelands though that relationship differed: many Italians desired to return one day to Italy, viewing their sojourn to America as temporary, whereas few Jews envisioned returning to [Palestine]" (486).

Notwithstanding this significant difference in initial perceptions of these two immigrant groups concerning the First World War, by 1918, Italian and Jewish immigrants living in the U.S. responded to the American war effort in comparable ways -- but for different reasons. According to Mccune (2002), "Italians in New Haven initially responded much more positively to the call for mobilization than did New York's Jews, and these reactions were closely connected to the immigrants' assessment of the geopolitical implications of the war" (487).

By contrast, Jewish immigrants were less convinced about the positive outcome of the war in the favor of the Allies and were concerned about supporting the anti-Semitism that existed among many of the Allied powers (Mccune 2002). Despite these concerns, the Selective Service registration process in New York City garnered the support of the federal and local governments and produced hundreds of Jewish recruits for the war effort (Mccune 2002).

As an extension of this interaction between the federal and local government and immigrants, Mccune cites the manner in which military training was provided to immigrant recruits from New Haven's Italians in the community-based "Yankee Division" and for Jewish immigrants serving in the U.S. Army's so-called "Melting Pot Division" (Mccune 2002). These episodes serve to demonstrate the important role played by the national government, the military in particular, in assimilating immigrants into mainstream American society as citizens in an expedited fashion (Mccune 2002).

Importance of Military Service by Immigrants Today Service in the U.S. armed forces requires a level of commitment and wherewithal that some people simply do not possess, but for those who do, the opportunities afforded active duty service members and veterans are well documented as being a way to achieve personal and professional goals for those who might not otherwise have such opportunities. For example, Waldman (1996) cites that case of a newly arrived immigrant from Jamaica, Tenn Chowfren, who arrived in the United States in 1989.

According to Waldman, "He had 19 years of life experience, a high school degree, and 'no skills' So his parents did what desperate parents have done for generations: They encouraged him to enlist. In no time, he found himself in Army basic training. Soon, he not only had plenty of skills, but also what he calls 'mental toughness,' girded by a five-month deployment in Persian Gulf heat" (26).

This bootstrap approach to personal development is certainly not unique to this young immigrant nor is the manner in which he achieved it, but his election to serve in the military highlights the importance of the opportunities offered by the armed forces even during periods of economic downturn.

Although Waldman does not address the citizenship aspects of Chowfren's military service, he does highlight the traditional role that has been played by the armed forces in helping young immigrants with little other opportunities to gain the skills, training and discipline they will need to succeed in life. In this regard, Waldman concludes that after gaining rank in the Army, Chowfren made the decision to become a commissioned officer while continuing his education.

As a result, "Today, [Chowfren] is an electrical engineering student at Howard University, as well as its Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) battalion commander. If he stays in the military, he will rise far. If he does not, he now has the skills and leadership experience 'corporate America is looking for.' The military has always been an important force in assimilating and equipping immigrants like Chowfren for success" (Waldman 1996:26).

This combination of valuable training and other benefits that accrue to active duty service members and an expedited path to citizenship would appear to be irresistible for some immigrants, but things have changed following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and these issues are discussed further below. Current and Future Trends As noted above, the United States as it is known today was established by immigrants and the nation has come full circle from its founding era.

For instance, according to Foner (2009), "Once again, the United States is truly a nation of immigrants. In the wake of the huge influx since the late 1960s, the number of immigrants in the United States has risen to an all-time high. According to the U.S. Census, in 2007 more than 38 million of the nation's residents were foreign-born, 12.6% of the population of 302 million" (7).

Although estimates vary, especially in terms of the number of illegal aliens living in the United States today, their numbers are greater than during previous periods in America's history.

For instance, Foner emphasizes that, "Even at the peak of the last great wave of immigration in the early 20th century, the number of immigrants living in the United States then (13.5 million in 1910) was much less than half of what it is today - although immigrants' proportion of the total population back then (14.7% in 1910) was higher because the country had far fewer people (92 million)" (2009:7).

In the post-September 11, 2001 climate, though, there has been growing concern among many American citizens and their like-minded political leaders concerning this massive influx of foreign-born residents on America's soil. For instance, according to Foner, "Some express concerns about immigrant loyalty to the U.S.

As the new arrivals, most from Latin America, Asia and the Caribbean, settle throughout the country, some Americans worry that today's immigrants will be less attached to the United States than the millions of Eastern and Southern Europeans who came in the last great wave 100 years ago" (7).

In the post-"melting pot" era that characterized America's history in the late 19th and early 20th centuries where the multicultural aspects of the United States are frequently compared to a "salad bowl," military service would appear to be a way for newly arrived immigrants to prove their mettle and worth but the fear remains that few immigrants will take advantage of this alternative: "Whereas earlier European immigrants are often remembered as being committed to this country and becoming patriotic Americans, a common fear today is that the new immigrants will resist fitting in and fail to develop an allegiance to America and its traditions" (Foner 8).

The post-9/11 climate is even different in many ways from the culture of fear that emerged in the U.S. following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Despite being rounded up and placed in internment camps across the country, about 33,000 Japanese-Americans still enlisted in the armed forces during World War II and the vast majority served with distinction (Foner 2002). According to Foner, "Many came from concentration camps that were oppressing the families they left behind. The 442nd Nisei Regimental Combat Team fought heroically at Naples, Anzio and elsewhere" (15).

Indeed, this single unit experienced almost 10,000 casualties, and was awarded with seven Presidential Distinguished Unit Citations; moreover, these Japanese-American service members were awarded more than 18,000 individual citations for valor including one Congressional Medal of Honor, 47 Distinguished Service Crosses, 350 Silver Stars, 810 Bronze Stars, and more than 3,600 Purple Hearts (Foner 2002).

In sharp contrast to the internment camps that were used to confine the family members of this unit as well other Japanese-Americans during the war who were actually American citizens, the current law enforcement efforts by the Homeland Security Agency and others are directed specifically at immigrants in general and those from Middle Eastern countries in particular (Foner 2002).

According to Foner, "Unlike the Japanese-American concentration camps, the post-September 11 law enforcement initiatives aim largely not at citizens, but at alien visitors or enemies from Middle East countries whose cultures, textbooks and media spew forth with anti-American, anti-Semitic venom" (2002:15). Although tempers and emotions have cooled somewhat with time, the country's initial reaction to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and immigrants can be discerned from Foner's heated rhetoric that states: "Members of this group have taken no oath of loyalty to the United States.

Neither have they paid income or real estate taxes to build the country. They have not volunteered for military service to fight anti-American terrorism in Afghanistan or elsewhere. Virtually none have condemned the September 11 abominations as contrary to the Holy Koran and blasphemy deserving the death penalty" (Fein 2002:15). Clearly, then, volunteering for service in the military was regarded as a legitimate way to demonstrate worthiness for citizenship even in the immediate post-9/11 atmosphere.

Today, this perception remains highly salient for tens of thousands of immigrants who desire citizenship but also want to prove their worth while taking advantage of the opportunities available in the U.S. armed forces. For example, Foner (2009) recently reported that, "If joining the Armed Forces is a test of patriotism, then today's immigrants get high marks. According to a report published by the Migration Policy Institute, in February 2008, more than 65,000 immigrants - including naturalized citizens as well as non-U.S.

citizens - were serving on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces, roughly 5% of all active duty personnel" (7). Furthermore, military service has provided many immigrants with the citizenship that has traditionally gone hand-in-hand with military service: "Between 2001 and 2008, about 37,000 foreign-born members of the Armed Forces became U.S. citizens; posthumous citizenship was granted to 111 service members (Foner 2009:7).

As noted above, immigrants may be compelled to enlist in the military for a number of reasons that are either unrelated or only tangentially related to a desire for citizenship through an expected naturalization process, including the training and advancement opportunities that are available in the armed forces, particularly during periods of hostilities.

In this regard, Foner reports that, "A complex mix of factors explains why immigrants sign up for the military, including the possibility of gaining skills that will stand them in good stead when they return to civilian life. A sense of belonging to America - and a desire to show their patriotism - may also be involved" (7). This attitude appears to be especially pronounced among immigrants from Latin America, who represent the largest minority group in the country today.

According to Foner, "Latinos are very patriotic and see military service as a way to show their appreciation to America and to prove they can be 'real Americans'" (7). Whether they are patriotic or not upon enlistment, military service appears to engender this sense faster than for their civilian counterparts, and the process can result in a heightened desire for citizenship that develops as immigrants gain personal insights and knowledge of American values and lifestyles.

For example, Foner notes that, "Whatever the reasons for enlisting, the experience of being in the Armed Forces can strengthen immigrants' attachment to this country. Krystof Mistura, who came from Poland as a student in 1996 and joined the Army in 2006, said that it was time in the military that pushed him to seek naturalization in 2008" (7).

Even for many active duty service members who are immigrants and who are required to make enormous sacrifices -- including the ultimate one -- through military service, the high regard that citizenship holds in their lives makes this goal an important part of their lives and represents one of the fundamental reasons for their service in the armed forces. For example, Foner quotes Mistura thusly: "The first lieutenant in the Army Reserves said, 'When you're a soldier, you're more strongly connected with this nation by being a U.S.

citizen'" (quoted at 8). Today, the need for new qualified recruits to provide the human resources needed in by overstretched military has intensified efforts among recruiters to target immigrants with the promise of citizenship being used as a bargaining chip. According to Davis, though, recruiters faced with ambitious recruiting quotas are either stretching the truth or concealing important facts concerning how military service will qualify immigrants for citizenship.

In this regard, Davis writes, "In the Iraq war, citizenship is being used as a recruiting tool aimed specifically at young immigrants, who are told that by enlisting, they will be able to quickly get citizenship for themselves (sometimes true, depending on what the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) branch of the Department of Homeland security finds) and their entire families (not true; each family member has to go through a separate application process)" (32).

Because minorities typically experience higher levels of unemployment and poverty than the mainstream American society, these groups represent a particularly vulnerable target for military recruiters during periods of economic downturn. In this regard, Davis emphasizes that, "Nevertheless, with the political pressures on Latino families growing daily under this administration, many young Latinos are unable to resist the offer, which immigrants' rights activists see as blatant exploitation of a vulnerable population" (2007:32).

As noted in the introductory chapter, in July 2002, President Bush issued an Executive Order that allowed the Department of Defense to accept for enlistment in the armed forces several categories of immigrants, including aliens who have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence (green card); residents of several former U.S. territories; and any other person "if the Secretary of Defense determines that such enlistment is vital to the national interest" (quoted in Davis at 32).

This Executive Order was followed by a codification of its terms in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2006. The effects of this legislation are noted in the highlights of the most recent report from Stock (2009) concerning the current status of immigrants serving in the U.S. military: 1. As of June 30, 2009, there were 114,601 foreign-born individuals serving in the armed forces, representing 7.91% of the 1.4 million military personnel on active duty. Roughly 80.97% of foreign-born service members were naturalized U.S. citizens, while 12.66% were not U.S. citizens. 2.

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, 10,505 members of the U.S. military were naturalized. Naturalizations of immigrants in the military are at their highest during times of war. 3. The September 11 attacks precipitated immediate changes in policies on immigrants in the military. Once the nation was at war, immigrants in the armed forces were eligible for naturalization under the special wartime military naturalization statute. As of October 20, 2009, more than 53,000 immigrants had taken advantage of this provision to become U.S. citizens. 4.

Recognizing that immigrants could provide special assistance to the armed forces as translators, Congress in 2006 passed a law providing for up to 50 immigrant visas per year for translators serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress briefly expanded this number to 500, and later enacted laws allowing additional immigrant visas for Iraqis and Afghanis who had worked overseas for the U.S. government (Stock 2009:5). Despite these initiatives that clearly acknowledge the value of recruiting immigrants to serve in the U.S.

military, some observers suggest that at least some recruiters are continuing to exploit immigrants by either failing to disclose all of the facts or otherwise misleading them concerning how their military service relates to their naturalization as American citizens. According to Davis, for example, "Recruiters trying to fill slots have historically pressed vulnerable people into service. But for some people it's the only way they are ever going to get citizenship" (33).

This element of desperation is what concerns Davis and like-minded critics: "What recruiters do not tell their targets, however, is that the military itself has no authority to grant citizenship. It forwards their citizenship applications to ICE, which will then scrutinize them and their entire families for up to a year" (2007:33). Established pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to replace the law enforcement efforts of the Immigration and Naturalization Service as well as the U.S.

Customs Service, the ICE has been assigned the mandate "to more effectively enforce our immigration.