Abstract
Military
service by qualified individuals as pertaining to the acquisition of U.S.
citizenship is a long held tradition, but at this time is only a single option
available at this time to perspective immigrants. While the concept of obtaining citizenship through
military service is not a new one, and existing legislature and regulations
already provide for this path of entry, it has never been a mainstay method or
prerequisite for obtaining citizenship.
This proposed case study will serve as an outline as to the formulation,
structure, and implementation of military service as a basic requirement for
any immigrant seeking citizenship and qualified by age or physical limitation
to enter the service.
Introduction
The
United States of America was founded by immigrants. It was the very belief that the new country
would be a safe haven and refuge from the governments that they were leaving
behind, that motivated the idea of creating a new civilization in the 'new
world'. It is this belief still today
which motivates peoples from countries around the world to uproot their daily
lives and start afresh in the U.S.A.
The
use of military service as a way to gain citizenship is not a new idea...
during the American Revolution and Civil War; the issue of nationality was a
non sequitur, there was a need for soldiers and the armies would recruit
anyone, regardless of race or nationality, to fight with them (Bredbenner,
2012). Even during World Wars I and II,
the government utilized foreign nationals as soldiers. There was a feeling that if an individual
wanted to fight for the United States, then they would be allowed to live in
the U.S.
Immigration
in this country has become a point of contention, both between U.S. citizens
and the federal government, as well as with those seeking to enter the United
States and the current immigration process.
In an attempt to lessen these disagreements, the federal government,
with the cooperation of the United States Customs & Immigration Service, will
need to work hard to come up with a workable solution that is acceptable by the
administration as well as the populace.
The
topic of immigration is a widely debated and highly volatile issue which will
be one of the deciding factors in the upcoming 2016 Presidential election. Not only are the candidates at odds over this
topic, but it seems that everyone, from the Pope in Italy to the random woman
at the grocery store in Boise, Idaho, has their own ideas as to what is to be
done about immigration. Presidential
front runner, Donald Trump, proposes that building a wall and/or fence to keep
illegal immigrants out is an answer, while others suggest that the answer is
the simple deportation of any immigrant found to be illegal (Chavez, L.,
2015). Strangely, no one has suggested
simply legalizing mass immigration and assimilating these people into our
society, such as was done approximately 100 years ago and many times prior,
with a commensurate boost in our economy by this work force.
While
a wall may seem to be a smart idea, as a short term, stop gap measure, it is
not a feasible option for the long term.
Throughout history, there have been numerous cities such as Berlin,
Jericho, or Vatican City which have had walls built around them to stop
outsiders from entering, with little to no effect. Effective for a time, they all have eventually
fallen. Even during their time of
effect, their weakness was not in the structure itself, but in the inherent
nature of the humans who manned its ramparts and gates. Walls have also proven to be ineffective
against tunnels and, as mentioned previously, it is the people who man who are
it are susceptible to bribery or blackmail who will prove to be its ultimate
weakness; allowing those who wish to cross passage in return for rewards. The wall proposed by Trump's campaign will
have all of these inherent weaknesses, it will cost incredible amounts of
money, it blames others for the problem, and it will divert this country’s
focus from the real needs of its people, such as medical access, food and
education for the lower income sectors.
According to Donald Trump, “The Mexican
government has taken the United States to the cleaners. They are responsible
for this problem, and they must help pay to clean it up.”
The
current President of the United States, Barak Obama, in his address to the
American people on November 20, 2014 stated that he would be using his power to
stem the flow of undocumented and illegal immigrants at U.S. borders and speed
up the process for those who do legally cross the border. He also stated that he would be making it
easier for entrepreneurs, college graduates and other highly skilled immigrants
to come to the United States and contribute to the economy by bringing their
business ideas and jobs here (Obama, 2014).
While
the President's actions may have sounded good on paper, his use of executive
power has created waves within the hierarchy of the United States
government. According to the article,
Divided We Stand: Constitutionalizing Executive Immigration Reform Through
Subfederal Regulation by B. Figueroa-Santana (2015), without further action by
the legislature regarding immigration reform, President Obama's policies will
have "little lasting effect".
While there is a need for immigration reform here in the United States,
the question of what kind of reform, remains.
In
order to stem the flow of immigrants to the U.S., this study proposes that all
potential immigrants between the ages of 18 and 35, who are found to be
physically able, should be required to join the United States Armed Forces and
serve a minimum of 5 years before being granted citizenship. In addition to expanding the ranks of the
United States military, this solution would also allow for
Literature
Review
Article One Review
The
first article, by Iliona Bray (2015), How to Get U.S. Citizenship Through
Military Service, talks about becoming a United States citizen through service
in the military. It goes on to explain
what the process is during peacetime as well as how one can become naturalized
during wartime. As it stands right now,
the Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.) does allow for a person to obtain
citizenship through military service without going through the complicated
process of having to get a green card.
By cutting out this step, the time that the person would have to wait
can be cut by months, or even years.
Military
service may include the Army, Navy, the Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard and now
even the National Guard when recognized as a reserve unit (Bray, 2015). Once the foreign national has served at least
one year of honorable service within one of these organizations, they can then
apply for citizenship. The person must be at least 18, of good character, able
to show knowledge about American history, must speak, write and read English
and must show that they know and understand the United States
constitution. They must also complete
and file Form N-426, a Request for Certification of Military or Naval Service,
from the USCIS. This form must be filled
out and signed by a United States Military Official. Unlike regular applicants, however, the
person will not have to pay the N-400 application fee (Bray, 2015).
During
war-time, however, a foreign national may gain citizenship within one day after
the start of military service. This
applies even during times of a cease-fire or lull in fighting; currently, a
foreign national wishing to become a citizen may apply within one day. According to Bray (2015), "Various
periods of wartime count, including the time that began September 11, 2001 and
will end whenever the U.S. President announces a cease to the
hostilities.".
Article Two Review
In her
article, A Duty to Defend? The Evolution of Aliens’ Military Obligations to the
United States, 1792 to 1946 (2012), Candace Bredbenner talks about the history
of immigration in the United States and the role that military enlistment had
in the past. The article then goes on to
explore how the public viewed the "citizen-soldier" and what the
requirements were for the "citizen-soldier" to become citizens.
The
article talks about how gender and race have caused the exclusion of many
citizens from military service and how these restrictions have created a rift
between the federal government and the citizens of the United States. However, the article does go on to determine
that there were times in the past when these exclusions became a moot subject,
such as during the Civil War or the American Revolution; there was a need for
soldiers, therefore the Colonial militia laws then identified eligibility only
in terms of sex and age. The fact that a
man was not a U.S. citizen did not make them ineligible for service
(Bredbenner, 2012).
During
World War I, the American army drafted both citizens and non-citizens,
regardless of whether or not they had volunteered for military service. This caused a resentment to form toward
immigrants, especially those who had not volunteered to serve the country. Toward this end, the United States made it
mandatory that immigrants wanting to become citizens would enter the military
and fight with the American forces (Bredbenner, 2012).
Because
of the introduction of conscription during the Wilson era, the view was that
volunteerism had become an obstacle in the government's ability to control the
armed forces. In 1917, the Selective
Service Draft Act gave the president an unconventional amount of control over
the armed forces, and the drafting of men, regardless of nationality, became
the norm; over 70% of enlisted men were conscripted. In fact, the recruitment of volunteers to
serve in the Army was ultimately prohibited (Bredbenner, 2012).
According
to the article by Bredbenner, during the Wilson era, selective conscription has
been viewed as being a basic principle of a democratic citizenship that had
been spoken of by George Washington - "Every citizen who enjoyed the
benefits of a free government [is] obligated to render service in its defense.
(Bredbenner, 2012)".
The
introduction of conscription caused lawmakers to make changes in the
naturalization process in order to facilitate the citizenship of foreign-born
men who had honorable service within the military during times of war. The normal application fees were waived, as
were the need to provide proof of five years' residency and a declaration of
intention. Also, the procedure for the
naturalization of soldiers who were stationed overseas was facilitated - over
244,000 soldiers and veterans who would have been excluded from citizenship due
to race, were naturalized. This occurrence,
however, prompted the view that these developments had “destroyed the
underpinning of the great structure of hand-picked citizenry,” and ultimately,
the old restrictions to citizenship were reaffirmed (Bredbenner, 2012).
Article Three Review
In
article three, author James Burk (1995) explores the relationship between
military service and the willingness of the public to accept an immigrant as an
American citizen. In the article,
Citizenship Status and Military Service: The Quest for Inclusion by Minorities and
Conscientious Objectors (1995), Burk also shows how throughout the past, there
has been both an economic and a political inequality between natural born and
naturalized citizens and the role that military enlistment has had on this
inequality.
The
article also examines the link between citizenship status, military service and
how those people are viewed in society.
It seems that the military has begun to include more minorities,
however, lawmakers and others within the political community has become less
persistent in its insistence that citizens should perform military
service. It also goes on to state that
researchers have been reticent in studying the effect of citizenship on social
standing within the community. The
article explores the history of how immigrants who enroll in military service
have graduated from being viewed as slaves, or second rate citizens, to a more
accepted, even revered, first rate citizen status (Burk, 1995).
The
question regarding women, military service and citizenship is also explored in
this article. In his article, Burk
states that while women have become more accepted in the auspices of the
military, there is still a disconnect between their service and
citizenship. As with African-Americans
before, women were seen as having a lesser status and not allowed to perform
their military duties of citizenship (Burk, 1995).
Article Four Review
In the
fourth article, Naturalization, Immigration and Citizenship: Select U.S.
Policies, author Irene Calvillo (2014) explains the immigration process,
focusing on the various processes and requirements that those who wish to
become citizens of the United State face.
Calvillo then explains how military service has shortened the process
for those who opt to join a branch of the armed services, as well as their
families. The author then goes on to
explore the debate that rages on regarding whether or not a child born in the
United States to alien parents is, in fact, a United States citizen.
She
states that the number of immigrants who are eligible to become legal permanent
residents (LPRs) of the United States currently is more than the number set by
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Due to this, in order to facilitate the fair processing of visas, LPRs
are subject to numerous limits and categories based on family, skills and
geographic diversity (Calvillo, 2014).
Surprisingly,
research has determined, according to Calvillo's research, that immigrants who
are refugees or asylees are more inclined to become naturalized citizens than
those immigrants who are simply relatives of United States residents. The same is true of immigrants from less
democratic and more politically oppressive countries than those which are more
democratic (Calvillo, 2014).
This
article also brings up the position that the ability to speak the national
Language-English, should be made a prerequisite to citizenship. Many argue, however, that language proficiency
as well as civil rights education should be the responsibility of the immigrant
and not the federal government.
According
to Cavillo (2014), the period beginning on September 11, 2001 was designated by
then President George W. Bush as a "period of hostilities" and began
a period which is still ongoing to this day, in which active-duty service
members are immediately eligible for naturalization. This was done to expedite the naturalization
process for noncitizens who are/were serving in the United States military.
Article Five Review
In his
article, Legacies For Citizenship: Pinpointing Americans During And After World
War I (2014), author Christopher Capozzola talks about how World War I had been
a pivotal point in the history of the United States regarding U.S.
citizenship. The war transformed the
structure of U.S. politics as well as the cultural meaning of United States
citizenship for generations to come. Capozzola then goes on to discuss how the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, ratified in 1868 - a time of social
upheaval and migration - struggled to define citizenship. The article also tells how, during World War
I, the United States capitalized on the idea of militarizing U.S. citizenship.
Article Six Review
In
their article, Expedited Citizenship for Sale: Estimating the effect of
Executive Order 13269 on noncitizen military enlistments (2014), authors J.
Cunha, R. Sullivan, M. Can & H. Yalcinkaya discuss some of the
ramifications of recruiting immigrants into the military as a way of becoming
U.S. citizens. According to Executive
Order (EO) 13269, the wait time to become a citizen has been reduced to one day
for military service members. Despite
this, only about 0.06% of eligible noncitizens actually enter the military in
any given month. The article then goes
on to compare the numbers of citizen vs. noncitizen enrollments in the military
in an attempt to determine whether the Executive Order, as well as other
incentives, may have played a role in the numbers of citizen vs. noncitizen
recruits.
Current
federal law, according to the article, residents who hold green cards are
eligible for military service. However,
undocumented aliens, i.e. those who are in the United States illegally, are
not. However, only about .03% of those
non-citizens who are eligible actually enlist in combat military services such
as the Army, Marines or Navy. It has
been found that there is evidence that the Executive Order may have recruited
noncitizens into the less combative branches of the armed forces by offering
incentives (Can, Cunha, Sullivan & Yalcinkaya, 2014).
The
article goes on to follow the number of ascensions by citizens as compared to
those ascensions by noncitizens. It
concluded that only 0.03% of eligible noncitizens went into the military before
the Executive Order went into effect.
These results also found that the accessions were based on the time of
year - more individuals seemed to join the military during the summer months,
especially after high school graduation, than during the winter (Can, Cunha,
Sullivan & Yalcinkaya, 2014).
Article Seven Review
In
this article, authored by the writers for AmericanRevolution.org (2015), it is
surmised that, during the Revolutionary war, many of the Hessian troops were
encouraged by the U.S. Congress to desert.
In fact, Washington drew up papers to give to the troops just days after
their having landed on America's shores.
The papers promised 50 acres of land to every man who came over.
This
paper follows the pattern of events which took place following General
Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown during the Revolutionary war. It goes on to talk about the German
mercenaries and their impact on the new country during 1776 and continuing
through 1783. It states that out of the
over 20,000 men who came to America at the beginning of the war, only 17,313
were known to have returned to Germany.
The men who elected to stay in the newly formed country were given
silver and other subsidies as payment for their services. It is also known that at the time that the
Hessians (Germans) arrived in America, Congress provided papers to the new
arrivals which promised land, oxen, cows and sows to each soldier which
deserted. Now, military service was not
a requirement, but the hope was that these new recruits would "devote
themselves to the improvement of their estates (JDN Group LLC, The.,
2015)".
Article Eight Review
The
article - Expatriation: Loss Of Citizenship, as found in Justia U.S. Law (2015)
describes and defines the various naturalization laws as well as defines the
different statutes and laws governing immigration, many of which have been
repealed. In addition, this article also
examines various laws which were proposed but ultimately vetoed.
In the
section, 'Rights of Naturalized Persons', the article outlines the rights that
native citizens enjoy as compared to those that a naturalized citizen has. It goes on to reiterate that citizenship
through naturalization does not make the person a second-class citizen- they
enjoy the same rights that a native citizen enjoys, with all of the same
privileges (Justia U.S. Law, 2015).
However,
naturalized citizens are subject to requirements that a native citizen is
not. This includes the requirement of
taking an oath of allegiance to the United States and, the requirement that a
naturalized citizen cannot, within five years of gaining U.S. citizenship,
leave and reside back in his or her native country for any period of time. This statute has been seen to be
discriminatory, due to the fact that native citizens are free to live and work
abroad without fear of losing citizenship for as long as they like (Justia U.S.
Law, 2015).
Article Nine Review
According
to the article Citizenship and Compulsory Military Service: The Revolutionary
Origins of Conscription in the United States, written by M. Kestnbaum (2000),
it is the obligation of any and all citizens, both natural and naturalized, to
serve in the military. Throughout
history, starting in the American War until it's end in 1973, the concept of
citizen service became the cornerstone of military recruitment.
During
the American Revolution, all able-bodied white, property-owning men between of
the ages 16-50 were required to enter into military service. This ultimately became the cornerstone of the
revolutionary government and helped to create the belief that "liberty
could only be won by force of arms ... to be waged by citizens as a self-consciously
political act on their own behalf." (Kestnbaum, M, 2000).
The
idea of citizen service, as laid out in the article, is hinged on the principle
of patriotism and stems from the formation of the first full-time military
force that was put together in America - The Continental Army. It was based on the idea that by enlisting in
the military, it showed how patriotic a man was and that by taking up arms in
defense of the country, the men showed that they had a stake in their
communities (Kestnbaum, M, 2000).
Article Ten Review
Many
people, from Theodore Roosevelt to Leonid Brezhnev thought that military
service was an important step in creating cohesive and unified society (Krebs,
Ronald R., 2006). Many leaders in
ancient Greece and Rome saw military service as being a way to bring different
ethnic groups together. The book goes on
to say that citizenship and military service have traditionally gone
hand-in-hand in the belief that by merging the different backgrounds of these
individuals into a common and collaborative unit, military service will help
people to realize that they are part of a larger group and will teach them how
to communicate and work together in a highly structured environment. This is the epitome of what America was
founded to be - a melting pot of different nationalities (Krebs, 2006).
Unfortunately,
minorities have traditionally been segregated, limited to support units or even
used as cannon fodder with little or no training and old or outdated equipment
in the belief that in this role, they would do the least damage to national
security or that this is the role that most suited them due to their limited
intelligence or physical abilities (Krebs, 2006). The sequel to the role of minorities in the
military is that once discharged, any respect, comradery or acknowledgement of
their service or even humanity seems to vaporize like a puff of smoke.
The
impact that military service has on the attitudes of society really depends on
a social environment that is accepting or even consistent with the military
norm. Veterans are thrust into society
with little or no debriefing in order to enter civilian life and find it
difficult to adapt. However, there seems
to be evidence that once a soldier enters a nonveteran society, he or she
reverts to a preservice normalcy (Krebs, 2006).
From
the perspective of the author, the various conceptions of nation building seem
to change the definitions of what nationality is just as often as military
attitudes change. According to these
perceptions, identity is both cognitive and subjective: nationality is the
summation of the individual consciousness’s within the nation (Krebs, 2006).
Article Eleven Review
After
returning from World War I, Sgt-Maj. Tokutaro Nishimura Slocum was informed by
the Bureau of Naturalization in St. Paul, MN that he was ineligible for
citizenship because of the color of his skin (Salyer, 2004). Slocum was not alone in his frustration;
hundreds of other Asian immigrants who served in the war were hearing similar
arguments. In 1952, this practice was repealed and Asians were finally allowed
to apply for citizenship.
In May
of 1918, Congress allowed the naturalization of all immigrants who had joined
the military. All the soldier needed to
do is show that they were on active duty and get two superiors to certify that
they were, in fact, loyal to the U.S.
This action also helped to reinforce the idea that citizen service was
instrumental in creating a cohesive nation (Salyer, 2004).
According
to the article by Salyer, Baptism by Fire (2004), World War I and II seem to
actually deepen the divide between races and caused more intolerance between
peoples. While the hope had been that
military service would create more meaningful citizenship for minorities, it
resulted in immigration policies that were the most constrictive on record.
Article Twelve Review
In the
book by Rogers M. Smith, Civic Ideals: Conflicting visions of citizenship in US
history (1999), the idea of a United States, brimming with people from
different cultures and races, seems to be simply the distant dream of activist
Martin Luther King Jr. No longer does
his dream seem possible, but it seems almost unwanted. With tensions between peoples running high,
the need for more communitarian features within America's citizenship laws,
stressing individual rights for all has proven to be a far more complex issue
than one would assume (Smith, R. M., 1999).
Article Thirteen Review
The
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services website has numerous
resources that can be found useful by military members and their families when
seeking U.S. Citizenship. There are
links to needed forms, as well as current news and information to assist in
making the decision to become naturalized (United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services, 2015).
Article Fourteen Review
This
article also goes over the steps needed to become a U.S. citizen through
military service, as well as the eligibility requirements needed. Spouses may also receive citizenship after
meeting the citizenship requirements. If
approved, the applicant must complete at least five years of military service
or risk having the citizenship revoked (U.S. Immigration, November 11, 2001).
Proposed
Research Methods and Design
When
completing this study, the researcher has found that by utilizing both the
qualitative and quantitative methods of research, the most complete and
practical conclusions can be discovered.
By using questionnaires, surveys and interviews, as well as by
disseminating historical data on the subject of immigration in the past, the
researcher will be able to propose the most appropriate solution to the problem
at hand.
Multistage
cluster sampling with stratification sampling will be utilized in order to
determine the numbers of military age immigrants seeking citizenship or
naturalization at each of the border ports.
By
then performing in-depth interviews of past immigrants, current and past
immigration officers, immigrants currently seeking citizenship, as well as
regular citizens to get their views on the immigration problem in the United
States, the researcher will be able to disseminate useful and informative
information which will
As a
form of quantitative research, the researcher proposes to hand out
questionnaires and surveys to a randomly selected portion of the
population. Subjects will be chosen from
border cities and from cities which have international airports. There will also be surveys and questionnaires
mailed out to random addresses which will be obtained from mailing lists
Another
form of quantitative research that the researcher proposes using is social
media such as Twitter or Facebook. While
this may not be a highly useful source of information, simply posting the
question to find out citizens' views on the subject of immigration and what
solutions they offer would give the researcher valuable insight as to the diverse
views of the populace and may shed light on problem areas as well as propose
concepts that may not have been conceived by the researcher.
By
striking up conversations with people and asking questions about their views on
immigration and what they think should be done about the problem of continued
illegal immigration as well as those immigrants already ensconced within our
society, a diversity of viewpoints can be acquired and a consensus determined
as to the understanding of the average person as to the severity of the
perceived problem and the variegated methods of dealing with it.
Ethics
Before
beginning this study, all of the potential parties will be assured that any and
all information that will be gathered as a part of the survey will remain
confidential and will not be used for any other fashion. This may cause some who previously would not
have been willing to participate to come forward with information that may be
vital to this study. The participants
will also be reassured that they may leave the study at any time that they feel
uncomfortable and that no questions will be asked of their decision to leave.
When
interviews are performed, a consent form will be provided, at the beginning of
the study. Those subjects who decide to
opt out of the study will be allowed to leave and no further involvement of
them will be asked.
The
targeted mailings will be anonymous, with the only information available being
the area of the country that they were mailed back from. This will also give the researcher valuable
information regarding the atmosphere surrounding the idea of immigration from
different sections of society.
Expected
Results
From
this research, the author expects to find a multitude of opinions as to what
should be done to create a more stable answer to the question of what to do
with, and how to handle, the multitude of peoples who wish to enter the United
States.
Further
study will be needed to determine how the new immigrants will be housed. Will there be a need to expand military bases
to accommodate the influx of new recruits?
This decision will be left up to the individual states. As it stands
right now, for 2016, there is a refugee ceiling of only 75,000 (Refugee
Admission and Assimilation Process., 2016).
This number will need to be raised or abolished to accommodate new
military recruits and their families.
Conclusion
The
subject of how to address the issue of immigration is not an easy one. There is no 'one size fits all' solution that
can or will suit everyone. Every person
seeking entry into the United States has their own unique issues, their own
problems. By treating all immigrants the
same, those in power are, in essence, undermining the very fabric of the
nation. The United States has always
been, and should always be, a "melting pot" of peoples seeking to
start a better life. Every citizen is,
in some way, an immigrant.
References
Batalova,
J. (2008). Immigration reform in the United States: raising key questions.
Generations, 32(4), 73-79 7p.
Bhagwati,
J., & Rivera-Batiz, F. (2013). A Kinder, Gentler Immigration Policy.
Foreign Affairs, 92(6), 9.
Bray,
J.D., Liona. (2015). How to get U.S. citizenship through military service. All
Law. Retrieved from
http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/how-get-citizenship-through-military-service.html
Bredbenner,
C. (2012). A Duty to Defend? The Evolution of Aliens’ Military Obligations to
the United States, 1792 to 1946. Journal Of Policy History, 24(2), 224-262.
doi:10.1017/S0898030612000036
Burk,
J. (1995). Citizenship status and military service: The quest for inclusion by
minorities and conscientious objectors. Armed forces & society, 21(4),
503-529.
Calvillo,
I. (2014). Naturalization, Immigration and Citizenship: Select U.S. Policies.
New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Capozzola,
C. (2014). Legacies for Citizenship: Pinpointing Americans during and after
World War I. Diplomatic History, 38(4), 713-726.
CHAVEZ,
L. (2015). Donald Trump's America. Commentary, 140(3), 13.
Cunha,
J. M., Sullivan, R., Can, M., & Yalcinkaya, H. (2014). Expedited
citizenship for sale: estimating the effect of Executive Order 13269 on
noncitizen military enlistments. Applied Economics, 46(11), 1291-1300.
doi:10.1080/00036846.2013.870658
Figueroa-Santana,
B. (2015). DIVIDED WE STAND: CONSTITUTIONALIZING EXECUTIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM
THROUGH SUBFEDERAL REGULATION. Columbia Law Review, 115(8), 2219-2264.
Immigration.
(2015). Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia, 1p. 1.
JDN
Group LLC, The. (2015). AmericanRevolution.org - your gateway to the american
revolution. The Hessians. Retrieved from
http://www.americanrevolution.org/hessians/hess24.php
Justia
U.S Law. (n.d.) Expatriation: loss of citizenship. Retrieved from
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/35-naturalization-and-citizenship.html
Kestnbaum,
M. (2000). Citizenship and Compulsory Military Service: The Revolutionary
Origins of Conscription in the United States. Armed Forces & Society
(0095327X), 27(1), 7-36.
Krebs,
Ronald R. (2006). Fighting for rights:
Military service and the politics of citizenship. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wRYC35IkJ8QC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=military+service,+citizenship&ots=IffcD0icwn&sig=v4au2I9CPnRblIDTSNgWL7DHGEo#v=onepage&q=military%20service%2C%20citizenship&f=false
OBAMA,
B. (2015). TO MAKE IMMIGRATION MORE FAIR AND MORE JUST. Vital Speeches Of The
Day, 81(1), 2-4.
Salyer,
L. E. (2004). Baptism by Fire: Race, Military Service, and U.S. Citizenship
Policy, 1918-1935. The Journal of American History, (3). 847.
Smith,
R. M. (1999). Civic ideals: Conflicting visions of citizenship in US history.
Yale University Press.
Stoll,
D. (2015). Comprehensive Immigration Reform and U.S. Labor Markets: Dilemmas
for Progressive Labor. New Labor Forum (Sage Publications Inc.), 24(1), 76-85.
doi:10.1177/1095796014562232
United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2015). Citizenship for Military
Personnel & Family Members.
Retrieved from
https://www.uscis.gov/military/citizenship-military-personnel-family-members
U.S.
Code of Federal Regulations. (2012). Title 8: Aliens and Nationality. Retreived from
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title8-vol1/pdf/CFR-2012-title8-vol1.pdf
U.S.
Immigration. (November 11, 2011). Naturalization through military service, the
facts. Retrieved from
https://www.us-immigration.com/us-immigration-news/us-citizenship/naturalization-through-military-service-the-facts/
