View Full Version : Stanley cites benefits of DREAM Act passage
Stanley cites benefits of DREAM Act passage
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Dec 7, 2010 11:08:43 EST
On the eve of a key vote on controversial immigration legislation, a top Pentagon official said allowing undocumented foreigners to receive permanent legal status in return for serving two years in the military would benefit national security.
Clifford Stanley, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said the pool of people eligible to serve in the military would grow by 50,000 to 60,000 if Congress approves the DREAM Act, a bill aimed at allowing people who entered the U.S. illegally before age 16 to become permanent residents after serving at least two years in the military or going to college for two years.
"We have to bring in 200,000 to 300,000 people a year, so this really would make a difference," Stanley said.
To enlist, undocumented foreigners would have to graduate from high school or have a high school equivalency degree. Also, no one with a felony conviction or more than two misdemeanor convictions could serve. Anyone up to age 35 might be able to enlist under the proposed legislation.
Because of those standards, Stanley said people who made the cut would be well-qualified recruits. The fact they are not citizens would prevent them from serving in jobs requiring security clearances, but Stanley said there are "lots of jobs that are unclassified."
The military currently allows non-citizens to enlist, but not anyone who entered the country illegally.
In a news conference arranged by the White House, Stanley said the services are meeting and exceeding recruiting goals, both in terms of numbers and quality, so there is no immediate need for undocumented youths to help fill the ranks.
But, Stanley, a retired Marine major general, said one of the things he learned in his 33 years of service is that recruiting runs in cycles. It may
be strong today, but "that will change. It always has," Stanley said.
The DREAM Act, short for the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, could come to a vote in the Senate as early as Wednesday.
Passage is not assured. There is strong Republican opposition to the measure because it is viewed by some as an amnesty program for people who entered the country illegally - possibly sparking a flood of even more illegal immigrants.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Monday that he believes allowing undocumented youths to enlist would hurt, not help, the military because many felony crimes committed by minors routinely are reduced to lesser charges.
"Two misdemeanor drug convictions would not bar you from being protected under this act and being able to have a guaranteed path to citizenship,"
Sessions said.
He also has concerns about fraud. "How do we prove somebody came here at the age of 15 instead of the age of 18? How do we prove they have been here five years?" he said. "Who is going to investigate that and dispute it?"
Think I'd rather see the draft return!.......
Masochist
12-08-2010, 11:23
Clifford Stanley, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said the pool of people eligible to serve in the military would grow by 50,000 to 60,000 if Congress approves the DREAM Act, a bill aimed at allowing people who entered the U.S. illegally before age 16 to become permanent residents after serving at least two years in the military or going to college for two years.
Stanley takes into account that they would need a high school degree/GED and no felony convictions (or more than two misdemeanor convictions), but does he factor in age and medical conditions? He's making a broad assumption that more than 1/4 of the estimated yearly pull will be young enough, able to pass a psych eval and MEPS physical and WILLING to enlist. And isn't entering the country illegally ... well, illegal? Does this count as a waiver, like some might receive for a drug conviction as a kid?
Because of those standards, Stanley said people who made the cut would be well-qualified recruits.
No, this would make them the bare minimum suitable for military service. Other factors on top of these minimums would make them well-qualified.
Stanley said the services are meeting and exceeding recruiting goals, both in terms of numbers and quality, so there is no immediate need for undocumented youths to help fill the ranks.
But, Stanley, a retired Marine major general, said one of the things he learned in his 33 years of service is that recruiting runs in cycles. It may be strong today, but "that will change. It always has," Stanley said.
Very valid foresight. Nice to see someone who can see past the edge of the desk.
He also has concerns about fraud. "How do we prove somebody came here at the age of 15 instead of the age of 18? How do we prove they have been here five years?" he said. "Who is going to investigate that and dispute it?"
Another valid point. Just ask major league baseball how many foreign-born players are turning out to be 5-10 years older than suspected, or having used a falsified name, after they have their American citizenship and a $10 million contract. See José Contreras, Miguel Tejada, Rolando Arrojo, Osvaldo Fernandez ...
Think I'd rather see the draft return!.......
I feel that everyone should be required to serve their country in some way or another - regardless of race, creed or social status. Not all have to be front-line combat ... there are plenty of support roles both here and overseas that could be filled.
alright4u
12-08-2010, 15:03
Stanley takes into account that they would need a high school degree/GED and no felony convictions (or more than two misdemeanor convictions), but does he factor in age and medical conditions? He's making a broad assumption that more than 1/4 of the estimated yearly pull will be young enough, able to pass a psych eval and MEPS physical and WILLING to enlist. And isn't entering the country illegally ... well, illegal? Does this count as a waiver, like some might receive for a drug conviction as a kid?
No, this would make them the bare minimum suitable for military service. Other factors on top of these minimums would make them well-qualified.
Very valid foresight. Nice to see someone who can see past the edge of the desk.
Another valid point. Just ask major league baseball how many foreign-born players are turning out to be 5-10 years older than suspected, or having used a falsified name, after they have their American citizenship and a $10 million contract. See José Contreras, Miguel Tejada, Rolando Arrojo, Osvaldo Fernandez ...
I feel that everyone should be required to serve their country in some way or another - regardless of race, creed or social status. Not all have to be front-line combat ... there are plenty of support roles both here and overseas that could be filled.
This is another Gen officer whose apparently so far removed from troops he does not know squat. Can someone tell me how these clowns got promoted with no combat? No wonder the Captains in the Career course laughed at Army Gens some 5-8 years or so back. Look at this clown's BIO from 69.http://www.defense.gov/bios/biographydetail.aspx?biographyid=245
The Reaper
12-08-2010, 15:35
I feel that everyone should be required to serve their country in some way or another....
I agree. What is "their" country?
TR
I just wish a certain mindset within our government would stop seeing the military as a place to experiment with their social/political agendas. Especially in times such as we have today. Based upon what's best for the military's mission today and in the future. Perhaps we should leave experimentation to other organizations but, figure the odds....jd
EX-Gold Falcon
12-08-2010, 15:59
It will be a race to see who picks him or her up first.
ICE or a recruiter.
T
Masochist
12-08-2010, 16:39
I agree. What is "their" country?
TR
TR,
“They” being legalized Americans and “their country” being the United States.
Oldrotorhead
12-08-2010, 17:45
It will be a race to see who picks him or her up first.
ICE or a recruiter.
T
I'll vote for ICE.
I might be wrong, but it seems to me that most General Officers that stay in the lime light are news whores or political hacks.
Stanley seems to be sucking up to the current Administration. This "pool" of 50 to 60 k people might produce 500 to 600 actual recruits. :munchin
mark46th
12-08-2010, 18:17
Verifying documents is problematic. I could go to the Echo park area of Los Angeles and within an hour I could have a Social Security card and a valid California Driver's license for about $100.00. I could go on line and have a valid GED with raised stamp on the certificate for $200.00 from an accredited source.
What bothers me about all of this is that genuine, deserving U.S. citizens are being denied access by the ones already in the schools. U. S. Citizens should have first shot at the slots...
A question I've asked many times.I just wish a certain mindset within our government would stop seeing the military as a place to experiment with their social/political agendas. When in American history have the armed forces not been a place for such experimentation?:confused:
I'm not sure on the specifics of this bill.
I don't understand the idea of being completely against illegal immigrants being able to serve and become citizens. A number of heroes came here by other than legal means and served honorably...such as Larry thorne.
CoLawman
12-09-2010, 06:50
This is classic putting the cart before the horse. There should be no consideration given to legislation designed to allow a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens.
Reagan proved the folly of such foolhardy attempts at dealing with illegals when he passed the Immigration and Control Act in 1986. That law gave citizenship to 3 million illegal aliens with the promise of securing the border. The problem is we never got around to securing the border.
We now have an estimated 20 million illegal aliens with the same porous border.
Just watched a news report on the bill - immigrants must be in the US before the age of 16 and demonstrate 5 years of good behavior which includes graduation from high school and 2 years spent in post-HS education or military service.
I don't think it'll pass in the Senate, though.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
alright4u
12-09-2010, 22:37
Is the Group in the AL AO?
ZonieDiver
12-18-2010, 15:30
Just watched a news report on the bill - immigrants must be in the US before the age of 16 and demonstrate 5 years of good behavior which includes graduation from high school and 2 years spent in post-HS education or military service.
I don't think it'll pass in the Senate, though.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
The Dream Act has been defeated in the Senate. It failed to get the required 60 votes to bring it to a vote. The vote was 55-41. Interestingly, this was the AP headline on Yahoo:
Republicans block youth immigration bill
The vote was 55 for and 41 against - meaning they were only FIVE votes shy of bringing it to a vote. Note that three Republicans (Bennett, Murkowski, and Lugar) voted FOR it, and FIVE Democrats (Baucus, Tester, Hagan, Nelson, and Pryor) voted against it, as well as ONE Democrat (Manchin) didn't vote (along with three Republicans). Had the Five Democrats who voted against it, voted FOR it - it would have passed.
So... how did the Republicans block youth immigration bill???
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101218/ap_on_go_co/us_immigration_students
The Reaper
12-18-2010, 16:05
The Dream Act has been defeated in the Senate. It failed to get the required 60 votes to bring it to a vote. The vote was 55-41. Interestingly, this was the AP headline on Yahoo:
Republicans block youth immigration bill
The vote was 55 for and 41 against - meaning they were only FIVE votes shy of bringing it to a vote. Note that three Republicans (Bennett, Murkowski, and Lugar) voted FOR it, and FIVE Democrats (Baucus, Tester, Hagan, Nelson, and Pryor) voted against it, as well as ONE Democrat (Manchin) didn't vote (along with three Republicans). Had the Five Democrats who voted against it, voted FOR it - it would have passed.
So... how did the Republicans block youth immigration bill???
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101218/ap_on_go_co/us_immigration_students
Murkowski voted for DADT repeal and amnesty, in addition to being a pork lover.
I hope that the conservatives who voted for her are happy.:rolleyes:
TR
Oldrotorhead
12-18-2010, 16:37
Murkowski voted for DADT repeal and amnesty, in addition to being a pork lover.
I hope that the conservatives who voted for her are happy.:rolleyes:
TR
Sorry sir, the business as usual, you can buy my vote Republicans voted for her. I am truly sorry that the current court case in Alaska is unlikely to change to result.
:(
Sorry sir, the business as usual, you can buy my vote Republicans voted for her. I am truly sorry that the current court case in Alaska is unlikely to change to result.
:(
Wrong - It was the native American small village write in vote that won it for her.
The "keep the money flowing so we can get drunk crowd". Another example of the welfare vote.