National Review
By MATT SCHOENFELDT
December 10, 2023
Senator Durbin’s proposal would hinder good order and discipline, strain resources, and detract from essential training for national-security preparedness.
Two of the many problems facing America today are an out-of-control immigration crisis and a failure of military-service branches to meet their recruiting targets. In recent remarks on the Senate floor, Senator Dick Durbin (D., Ill) outlined a ridiculous proposal to kill these two birds with one stone:
We have 780,000 DACA recipients . . . many of whom want to serve the country where they grew up. But there’s an obstacle — Congress. We have not given them a pathway to citizenship. This should be a pathway. You ought to open up your opportunities, across the board in the military, to Dreamers and to DACA recipients, who really want to serve this country.
Durbin, that is, wants to provide illegal immigrants with a pathway to citizenship and to turn the military into a social-welfare program. Democrats have dreamed about the latter for decades. In a press release for his proposal, Durbin highlighted comments from General Daniel Hokanson, chief of the National Guard Bureau, summarized thus: “General Hokanson noted that educational and health benefits are what interest recruits most.”
As for the former: It is galling enough to react to missed recruiting goals among the pool of U.S. citizens not by thinking about how to recruit them better but instead by looking to noncitizens to fill the gap. But we must not overlook the immense damage such a proposal, if enacted, would do to the U.S. military. Throughout my more than 20 years as an active-duty officer with at least Secret-level clearance status, I learned that having foreign contacts and associations complicates and delays clearance reviews. While it does not immediately disqualify someone from receiving clearance, split loyalty remains a significant consideration our enemies would be eager to exploit. Entrusting our national security to foreign nationals with clear foreign ties and possible divided allegiances is a bad idea.
A story from my own service helps illustrate why. I once assisted three of my interpreters from Iraq to immigrate to the United States. All three of them are now working professionals living in this country. While I owe my life to each of these men, when I was serving with them, I always had to stay guarded about what information I could share with them. After all, they lived in Iraq with their family and friends. Another interpreter was killed by insurgents in Iraq. His cousin, Ali, was one of those I helped bring here. If we could ask Ali honestly whether he would have tried to prevent his cousin’s death by providing information about our patrols or missions, he would have said yes. You can’t blame him. At the end of his week with us, he would go back to living on the streets of Baghdad until his next shift.
Should we have granted him clearance? Absolutely not. Yet I owe him my life. Our enemies search for leverage to exploit, and foreign associations are a significant vulnerability. I exercised caution around Ali and other interpreters even when the information shared was nonclassified. In Iraq, we did not have a choice to trust Ali or not; we needed interpreters, and we needed them at a very high volume. It is also worth noting that we did not enlist our interpreters in the Army; we knew the potential security risk of foreign nationals serving in uniform. While Ali and all my interpreters were a tremendous value-add to the unit, there are many documented cases of interpreters selling information, spying, or even going as far as turning on their units. These cases are rare. But when we take insider-threat training, ideology, national split loyalties, and blackmail are three of the most common reasons for espionage. Being a foreign national makes you more susceptible to all three of these categories.
If I had even the slightest concerns regarding the loyalty of those under my command, there is no way we could have functioned effectively as a fighting force. While it is likely that some DACA members may have little contact with their country of origin, many do. There would be no practical way to create a screening policy to account for this without creating a massive administrative burden on the military. Even potential recruits with little contact back to their home country would still have to face greater scrutiny for screening. Why would we unnecessarily gamble on national security for illegal immigrants?
Integrating illegal immigrants into military formations would create a substantial administrative burden in other ways. The military would be responsible for tracking these members and aiding them in obtaining legal status. Historically, the procedure of onboarding new recruits (what we call the “accessions process”) has aimed to minimize any legal or medical issues that could burden units intended to receive new recruits’ support. This policy proposal completely overturns that principle. It forces additional bureaucratic wrangling onto units instead of letting them focus on combat-readiness priorities.
Not to mention that, during the accessions process, the medical and legal history required to make determinations for fitness to serve would be incomplete. There is strict scrutiny at Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS) concerning barriers to service for American citizens. But Senator Durbin wants us, in effect, to waive those same concerns for illegal immigrants, both from a medical and legal-status standpoint. When will we see this proposal for what it is: a blatant attempt to use the military for another of our liberal elite’s social priorities?
If legislation like this were to pass, it would exploit the military’s administrative capabilities in order to provide support for legalization pathways while offering pay and benefits to illegal immigrants. And it would do so using resources dedicated primarily for protecting our nation and its citizens. One can imagine a young staff officer having to track and report all “Dreamers” within his commands while straining already overburdened chains of command.
The military has limited time and resources. But Senator Durbin and his allies would further strain the wherewithal of an institution that, for all its struggles, remains competent and trusted, all in service of their political goals. So let’s be blunt: Durbin’s proposal would hinder good order and discipline, strain resources, and detract from essential training for national-security preparedness. If he wants to solve our immigration and military-recruiting crises, he should look elsewhere — and maybe start by looking in a mirror.
