Defense Funding Bill Shouldn't Allow Illegal Immigrants to Enlist in the Military

Maj. Tyler Ellison, a Thunderbirds pilot, administers the Oath of Enlistment to enlist Florida's newest Airmen. (Photo: U.S. Air Force/Sipa USA/Newscom)

Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA): Despite the fact that the U.S. House of Representatives has voted down repeated attempts to encourage the recruitment of illegal immigrants into the military, we are seeing yet another attempt to encourage such recruitment recently inserted into a must-pass defense funding bill.

Even worse, the push to recruit illegal immigrants is happening at a time when U.S. citizens are being downsized from the military or turned away by recruiters.

The House Armed Services Committee recently approved an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that encourages the secretary of defense to declare that illegal immigrants categorized under President Barack Obama’s first executive amnesty—Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)—are “vital” to America’s national interest and thus eligible to enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces. Congressman Ruben Gallego’s, D-Ariz., amendment passed the committee with six Republicans joining all 27 Democrats.

The recruitment is being encouraged at the very same time the Pentagon is laying off tens of thousands of American troops. According to Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno, the active Army will be cut by more than 80,000 uniformed personnel by the end of fiscal year 2017.

Moreover, competition for enlistment is already so challenging that American high school graduates now face “more difficulty qualifying for the armed services than ever in the 40-year history of the all-volunteer force,” according to media reports.

Knowing these statistics, do these members of the Armed Services Committee really believe that military service is one of those “jobs Americans won’t do”?

Once again, it seems that some in Washington are more inclined to promote the interests of illegal immigrants at the expense of the American citizens they were elected to represent.

Even more alarming is that certain members of Congress are trying to use military funding as a bargaining chip to cement the president’s unconstitutional amnesty actions with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The House of Representatives has voted to defund this executive order three times: in 2013, 2014 and January 2015.

An additional concern is that enlistment could lead to amnesty. Retired U.S. military leaders wrote last year to the House Armed Services Committee, warning that such a recruitment policy “would enable adoption by the Congress of measures that would confer amnesty on millions of immigrants illegally in this country, and, by failing to secure the borders, ensure that millions more will be headed here in due course.”

Beyond the harm that we do to our own citizens already being let go from military service, why would we encourage another surge of unaccompanied minors to make the life-threatening trek across the border in the hopes that they might gain amnesty through enlistment?

To try to stop this, I am co-sponsoring an amendment with Congressman Mo Brooks, R-AL, to remove this language from the National Defense Authorization Act before it's voted on later this week. Congress serves as a body to check and balance the powers of the executive branch in accordance with the Constitution, not to aid the White House in violating the Constitution.

Especially in this time of increased terrorism, the funding of our national security should not be threatened by the inclusion of such a controversial measure in the National Defense Authorization Act.

---

Update on National Defense Authorization Act

Bill Smith, Editor, ARRA News Service: As a retired Air Force officer and having served a tour as an AFROTC Det Commander and Administrative Officer recruiting cadets, training and commissioning new officers and having served over five years in the enlisted ranks before I was commissioned as an officer, I oppose the recruiting of illegals into the military!  With so many unemployed, we could even return to the draft if needed. I do not oppose the enlistment of legal aliens without any criminal records or failed background checks as long as their legal alien status was not granted through amnesty and they are willing to renounce their allegiance to their former country while serving and I support their being granted status as an American citizen after having served honorably for four years (or two years in overseas combat) and having met all other citizenship requirements.   I firmly oppose recruiting and commissioning officer candidates who previously entered the United States illegally.

Update on the Brooks' Amendment which was co-sponsored by Rep. Brat.  It was passed (221 - 202). All 182 Democrats voted “NO” and were joined by 20 Republicans. The "hire illegal aliens provision" had been inserted in the bill during its mark-up by Freshman Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ).

Roll Call noted: “The House should not take action to legitimize the president’s unconstitutional overreach on immigration,” proclaimed Judiciary Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte, R-Va., referring to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that protects from deportation the certain undocumented immigrants who would be eligible for military enlistment in some future scenario."

Brietbart in an article announced the "20 TRAITORS: REPUBLICANS WHO VOTED TO GUT AMERICA’S MILITARY USING AMNESTIED ILLEGAL ALIENS." They were: Reps. Jeff Denham (R-CA), Mike Coffman (R-CO), Adam Kinzinger (R-IL). Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA), Carlos Curbelo (R-FL), Charles Dent (R-PA), Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Bob Dold (R-IL), Chris Gibson (R-NY), Richard Hanna (R-NY), John Katko (R-NY), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), Tom MacArthur (R-NJ), Martha McSally (R-AZ), Dan Newhouse (R-WA), Dave Reichert (R-WA), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Fred Upton (R-MI) and David Valadao (R-CA).

It is noted that some Republicans: House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-TX), House Armed Services Committee chairman Mac Thornberry (TX), and Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT) opposed the provision but voted in Committee for the inclusion of the provision because of the a "rancorous battle"  with democrats and four Republican activist who were preventing a vote to bring the bill to the floor for a vote. The three then opposed the provision on the House floor and supported the Brook's amendment.

ARRA News Service reported today, "The House reconvened today at 9 AM. and proceeded to H.R. 1735 — "To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes." After considering several amendments to the bill, at 11:02 AM, the House passed (269-151) H.R. 1735. A 2011 bipartisan budget deal placed caps on defense and domestic spending. The defense bill skirts the limits of a 2011 bipartisan deal placing caps on defense and domestic spending by putting $89 billion of the total into an emergency war-fighting fund exempt from the caps. Again the U.S. House, under Republican leadership, has timely passed another appropriations bill. Will the Senate be able to do the same? However, President Obama has threatened to veto the bill.

H/T The Daily Signal for Rep Brat's article. 

---

Tags: Mo Brooks, Dave Brat, amendment, removing amnesty amendment, Defense Appropriations bill, update, H.R. 1735, ARRA News Service  To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!