A Quicker Way to Become a U.S. Citizen

The United States continues to be the most popular country in the world for immigration. People leaving other nations are more likely to travel to the U.S., and settle permanently there, than to any other nation in the world.

These immigrants often eventually desire citizenship, and are eager to find a way to accelerate that process.

According to journalist Stewart Smith, “every year, more than 8,000” people who are not U.S. citizens join the U.S. military. This represents a fast track to education, employment opportunities, better incomes, and eventual citizenship in the United States.

Recruiters find that “there is great interest from all over the world from foreigners wanting to serve in the United States Military.” Individuals want to join the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or Coast Guard for a variety of reasons — educational opportunities and improved income among them — and “they know it can be a pathway to citizenship.” Smith adds that military members often “have an expedited process.”

Put simply, “a non-citizen can enlist in the military,” and “can go to the U.S. military recruiter of the branch of service” she or he might desire — like citizens, non-citizens can choose from among the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or Coast Guard — and also, National Guard and Reserves.

The government has procedures “to allow military members from foreign countries to have an accelerated path to citizenship.” Smith explains the details: “In 1990, in the early days of Gulf War One, President George H.W. Bush signed an executive order which allowed any military member (active duty, Reserves, or National Guard) to apply for citizenship, without any residency requirement. This saves the military member five years” as compared to other applicants “for citizenship.” In other words, “the military helps” the applicant to “accelerate the process.”

Smith goes on to summarize: “Since July 3, 2002, under special provisions in Section 329 of the INA, President Bush signed an executive order authorizing all non-citizens who have served honorably in the U.S. armed forces on or after Sept. 11, 2001, to immediately file for citizenship. This order also covers veterans of certain designated past wars and conflicts. The authorization will remain in effect until a date designated by a future presidential executive order,” and is in fact still in effect.

In many cases, not only can a member of the military be on a fast track to citizenship, but her or his spouse can receive similar benefits, as Stewart Smith explains:

Special provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) state: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may expedite the application and naturalization process for current members of the U.S. armed forces and recently discharged service members. Qualifying military service includes serving in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and National Guard. In addition, spouses of members of the U.S. armed forces who are or will be deployed may be eligible for expedited naturalization. Other provisions of the law also allow certain spouses to complete the naturalization process abroad.

The exact text defining these benefits is found the U.S. Code, at 8 USC 1440.

Clinton Orders Massive Bombing of Iraq

In 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered the U.S. military to undertake a large-scale aerial attack on Iraq. This offensive was provoked by Sadaam Hussein’s multiple offenses: as the dictator of Iraq, he’d violated human rights, he’d developed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and he’d arrogantly defied UN requests to inspect his weapon-producing facilities, despite the fact that he’d previously agreed to allow such inspections.

Although the Iraqi people were not of themselves violent, Iraq under the tyranny of Sadaam Hussein was a threat to neighboring nations, having already attacked and invaded Kuwait, causing thousands of deaths in the 1990/1991 war, as historian Gregory Ball writes:

In response to Saddam Hussein’s continued refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors, the United States Government planned Operation DESERT FOX in the fall of 1998. The primary mission of DESERT FOX was to strike military targets in Iraq that contributed to its ability to produce, store, maintain, and deliver weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The U.S. government expected to achieve several goals with the operation. First, it would degrade Iraq’s ability to create and employ WMD. Second, the attacks would diminish Iraq’s capability to wage war against its neighbors. Third, the operation would impress upon Saddam Hussein the consequences of violating international agreements, including allowing United Nations inspectors unfettered access to Iraqi sites. The United States and Great Britain launched Operation DESERT FOX on December 16, 1998, after U.N. Chief Inspector Richard Butler notified the U.N. that Iraq had failed to provide full cooperation during inspections.

Although Operation Desert Fox was short in duration, lasting only a few days, it nonetheless inflicted massive destruction and numerous casualties on Iraq. President Clinton was able to demonstrate his willingness to engage in warfare, and his commitment to serving the United Nations and to implementing the consequences which Sadaam Hussein brought upon himself for violating UN agreements — agreements to which Hussein had committed himself.

Understanding Obama: Part 02

The axiomatic property of the Obama administration was that Obama did not understand, like, or trust the United States, the American people, or the Constitution. Built into Obama’s presidency was therefore an essential irony: he did not like the people who elected him, and did not trust the constitutional system which put him into the White House.

The checks and balances which the Constitution built into the structure of the government are designed to slow the process of legislation. This was conceived as a safeguard to protect the people from the government.

There is a natural temptation to want a strong government. It is assumed that a strong government could and would quickly address and fix problems and crises.

Yet there is great danger in a strong government. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” In other words, the government can only do things for you in proportion to what it can do to you.

A weak government is the surest way to protect individual political liberty and personal freedom. But protecting freedom and liberty was not among Obama’s goals. As historian David Limbaugh wrote in 2012:

President Obama has repeatedly revealed his impatience with our Constitution’s separation of powers and its checks and balances, lamenting that democracy is sometimes messy and frustrating. He just wants the other branches to get out of his way, because he can’t allow a silly inconvenience like the Constitution to obstruct his utopian vision for America.

Obama subjected the nation to great risks: shortcutting constitutional processes in one circumstance would allow eventually for shortcutting them in other circumstances. Eventually, due process and equal standing before the law would be endangered.

It is telling that many of the voters who elected Obama in 2008 and 2012 were the voters who chose to vote for President Trump in 2016. This was a telling rejection of Obama’s methods by the very electorate who placed him into the White House in the first place.

Understanding Obama: Part 01

What happened in the United States in November 2008? And what happened in the United States between January 2009 and January 2017? The election of Barack Obama and the presidency of Barack Obama constitute a shocking narrative: the country’s president did not like, trust, or understand the nation or its constitution.

To parse the verbs, the reader will note that Obama expressed a distaste both for the people of the United States and for the Constitution of the United States; he placed no confidence in, and refused to rely upon, the nation or the process which the nation codified into its constitution; and he demonstrated a lack of insight or comprension regarding the very people who voted for him and the very constitutional system which put him into the nation’s highest office.

The irony will not be lost: the president did not like, trust, or understand the citizens who voted for him and the constitutional process which made him president

Further irony lies in the fact that Obama was at one time paid to be a professor of constitutional law at a university.

In any case, historian David Limbaugh notes that “the destructive policies and actions of the Obama administration” form “Obama’s broad-based assault on the American republic.” Obama conducted a “war on our Constitution and our political economic liberties,” and an “assault on America’s economic, social, cultural, national security, business, and industrial institutions.”

The net result of Obama’s presidency is that many - millions - of voters who enthusiastically cast their ballots for him were dismayed enough, after observing his behavior in office, to vote for President Donald Trump.

The election of President Trump - whether the reader loves or hates him - is the ultimate fruit of the Obama administration.

Obama’s performance in office - from his appointment of corrupt and incompetent individuals like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, to the 1.7 billion dollars he wasted trying to start a healthcare website - drove citizens to vote against the candidate who seemed to be a continuation of Obama’s policies.

The reader should not, however, hold Obama responsible for the failure of his presidency and his administration. The culpability lies rather with his handlers - the people who found and groomed him, directed his campaigns and political career, shaped his policies and wrote the speeches he delivered. Obama was, in some ways, a victim of a political machine which used him as a mouthpiece and as a frontman.