I thought when I read the item that the authors had forgotten about the old 3 year requirement v. 5 years. So I Googled naturalization requirements and found the EO report.
Cheers
John
I thought when I read the item that the authors had forgotten about the old 3 year requirement v. 5 years. So I Googled naturalization requirements and found the EO report.
Cheers
John
three quick points. 1) while expedited naturalization is offered it isn't having the effect you'd think. The standards for the ASVAB (armed services vocational apptitude battery) the basic test all applicants for enlistment take have not changed. Without a solid grasp of written English the eligible legal aliens struggle with this test. And the key here is eligible legal aliens. Illegals are strictly verboten. Imagine the political flak 'US enlists illegals to fight Iraqi Insurgents' or 'US recruiters at border crossings enlist illegals because real Americans dont want to fight' or 'foriegners lives are less valuable than Americans'---no thanks.
2) This quote is wrong, sorry Army the price of business I guess, it only applies to you, the Marine Corps has not reduced standards at this time. --" Skeptics might point out that in the just-concluded fiscal year, the military met most of its recruiting and retention goals. But this was done only by relaxing age and aptitude restrictions, allowing in more individuals with criminal records, "
3) the second part of the quote is about more recruiters on the street. Ok sure we aren't stupid, if you need to increase the size of the force you need to increase the number of recruiters, duh.
Anyway the idea of a 'Foriegn Legion' fighting in the place of Americans, doing jobs American don't want to do, its bad business. If Americans don't want to do it then WHY are we fighting the fight in the first place? It would make us appear more cold and distant perhaps evil to the world at large a true Media nightmare for the U.S.
Hi Footslogger
I agree and like your approach. Yes the Army's ASFAB was fairly low for years, and in the 80's went from the DC standards to (God knows where, but higher HS standards). That meant most had to take the test again. We got rid of tons of Bravo Sierra then and rightfully so.
Why can't people who believe in our system first fight for our system ? Seems fair to me. I have gone on several missions where I am. Nobody seemed overly stressed about it
When the POTUS was here, he made it clear to all. Not a lot of bitchin' and as a matter of fact, most were for the idea.
Who wants to join my new militia?
Ryan,
I'm ready
But I get to drive the Bradley
Yea, me too. It will give me a chance to break out the new SOCOM rifle I just bought.
- 30 yrs late and a dollar short yet again, damn . I suppose I could send some beef jerky and kool aid packs when you get where you're going. I would be hell on wheels in a supply truck though.....I ain't slowed any in that respect
Ultimately, it seems like our whole Federal government is being outsourced. There was an interesting article on that in the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal on how much of our Federal Government depends on contractors. It's going to bite us some day.
The Brits had a similar system, and for the same reasons the French did, which was to protect their colonies. While there are several advantages to having a multi-cultural force composed of U.S. citizens I don't see any advanatages to recruiting non-U.S. citizens to do our bidding. If we can't recruit from our pool of citizens, then the war isn't worth fighting. We obviously don't have enough political will to carry on the fight anyway if that is the case.Anyway the idea of a 'Foriegn Legion' fighting in the place of Americans, doing jobs American don't want to do, its bad business. If Americans don't want to do it then WHY are we fighting the fight in the first place?
Last edited by Bill Moore; 04-01-2007 at 04:46 AM.
Well said.Originally Posted by Bill Moore
Bookmarks