When Trump came to office and did exactly what Obama, Bush, and Clinton did -----came down hard on immigrants for their VOTER BLOCK-----we suggested that maybe the MUSLIMS being exported were those tied to global mercenary corporations now our US military------our US military now looks just like the OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE ROMAN EMPIRE----with global military corporations hiring soldiers categorized as US MILITARY always led to believe citizenship was on the agenda.
THIS HAS BEEN MODUS OPERANDI OF THE FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS AND WHEN A NATION REDUCES ITSELF TO LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING ALL 99% OF AMERICANS SUFFER AS DO THESE GLOBAL MILITARY CITIZENS.
Congress knows this happens over and over so this PRETEND SUPPORT IS JUST THAT.
Our global 99% of citizens just have to understand our US government is captured these few decades by far-right wing pols caring nothing about laws, morals, ethics, calling this LAISSEZ-FAIRE.
We showed a few weeks back where that 1% established in Turkistan during this war-----the global yogurt king------made out well while that 99% will not. That is ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE----EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY----the global citizens have no rights or ability to gain wealth-----coming to US citizens.
Foreign-born recruits, promised citizenship by the Pentagon, flee the country to avoid deportation
By Alex Horton July 17 at 6:30 AM
U.S. troops are sworn in as naturalized citizens on Nov. 2, 2012, at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.
(State Department)Frustrated by delayed promises from the U.S. military for citizenship, and in fear of the Islamic State if he were deported back to Iraq, Ranj Rafeeq has given up the American Dream for a Canadian one.
Rafeeq was eager as a teenager to translate for U.S. troops stationed in his home town of Kirkuk in 2005. He immigrated to Portland, Ore., to study seven years later, hoping to don an Army uniform after earning his graduate degree in civil engineering.
He signed an enlistment contract in January 2016, with a training date set in September.
“I loved American soldiers. It was my dream to be a part of them,” Rafeeq, now 29, told The Washington Post.
But Rafeeq’s plans to serve imploded as the Pentagon’s program, designed to leverage medical and language skills of immigrants in exchange for fast-tracked citizenship, was log-jammed with additional security measures for recruits last fall, stressing an already overburdened screening process.
The program was put on hold in September 2016 — just as he was scheduled to report for training — sparking fear in Rafeeq and across the recruit population that their path to citizenship would abruptly end.
Then he received a letter from Kurdish officials warning of sweeps targeting Kurds for deportation and watched as news reports of the program’s struggles mounted.
Rafeeq’s student visa was set to expire on Aug. 1. He faced a decision: wait for the Pentagon’s bureaucracy to untangle itself as the Trump administration seeks to expand deportation powers, or flee.
He chose to flee. On June 11, Rafeeq went to Vancouver to apply for asylum in Canada. His biggest fear with deportation is the chance that Islamic State militants would prize his capture if they uncovered his attempt to enlist.
“I can’t go back to Kirkuk,” he said. “They would kill me.”
Pentagon proposals spark fear
On June 26, The Post first reported on the Defense Department’s internal recommendations to shutter the Military Accessions Vital to National Interest program, which has naturalized 10,400 troops since 2009, and to cancel the contracts of 1,800 of recruits like Rafeeq who are waiting to train.
About 1,000 of those recruits have waited so long that they have fallen out of legal immigration status. An internal Defense Department memo obtained by The Post acknowledges that canceling these contracts would expose the recruits to deportation. In response, lawmakers urged Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to honor the contracts of those recruits.
The recruits, who have already sworn allegiance to the United States in their oaths of enlistment, could potentially face harsh interrogations or jail time if they are deported to countries such as China or Russia, said Tom Malinowski, former assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor in the Obama administration.
“These are not rule of law societies, and if they want to put pressure on [recruits], they will,” Malinowski told The Post.
Malinowski said public announcements and photos of enlistments on social media could easily be exploited by adversarial intelligence agencies, in a potential propaganda victory attacking not just the United States but its most revered institution — the military.
Those governments could force the recruits to “tell the honest story of how America betrayed them,” he said.
“The basic purpose of Russian propaganda is not to extol Russia, but to convince people that America is amoral,” Malinowski said.
The Chinese government’s charge of treason, which it finds in cases threatening to national security, ranges from 10 years of confinement to death, according to the Chinese People’s Congress.
Along with South Korea, China is one of the main sources of program recruits, according to a Pentagon assessment of the program.
Media reports on the memo ignited discussion among the program’s recruits and hopefuls, who closely track developments in tightknit online forums, with one Facebook page alone listing 20,000 members.
A recruit from India who administers some of pages told The Post he has seen an increase in the discussion of recruits seeking preemptive refuge. He estimates that hundreds of the 1,000 potentially under threat of deportation have either fled or are seriously considering fleeing to Canada, Germany, Australia and other countries.
One Chinese national, who declined to give his name, enlisted in the program and expected to leave for training in July 2016, but the program’s suspension and a closing window for his immigration status prompted him to file for asylum in the United States last month.
China has a nativist culture, he said, and if deported he would face persecution from neighbors suspicious of his activities after living in the United States for six years.
“I wish people would see us as assets, not liabilities,” he said. “I love the United States a great deal, and I would do anything to defend this country.”
The program was created after military officials determined that certain medical skills and language proficiencies — such as Russian, Mandarin Chinese and Korean — were vital to national security but in short supply among U.S.-born troops. The program promises citizenship in months instead of the years-long naturalization process.
Program recruits are especially valuable to the Special Operations Command because of deep cultural and language skills necessary to train and advise foreign militaries and militias, according to a 2013 Pentagon review of the program.
Rafeeq’s case is emblematic of sudden widespread distrust in the program at a time when the military seeks to ramp up personnel numbers after years of Obama-led troop level drawdowns, said Margaret Stock, a retired Army officer who led the program’s design and implementation and is now an immigration lawyer.
“The Defense Department has undermined the program in such a way that it is unlikely that the damage can be undone at this point,” she said. “Immigrant recruits are unlikely to trust the military in the future, and recruiting will suffer.”
Pentagon spokesman Johnny Michael declined to comment on any aspect of the program, citing ongoing lawsuits related to the program filed against the agency. It is unclear whether the recommendations will be implemented.
The action memo revealed by The Post draws on agency concerns that infiltrators could use the program but does not mention whether any have exploited the program.
Officials assigned threat level tiers to the nearly 10,000 program recruits, both in the service and waiting to serve, based on characteristics such as proximity to classified information and how thoroughly they have been vetted.
Stock said program recruits are the most vetted in the military, and infiltrators likely would not risk screenings in the process involving the departments of State and Homeland Security, and various intelligence agencies.
“Instead of improving overall vetting of all individuals who pose a risk, the Defense Department has chosen to waste valuable vetting resources, time and energy on ‘extreme vetting’ of people who pose little risk,” Stock said.
‘I was looking for ways to make America great’
Rafeeq has watched Iraq burn from Portland. His family fled violence in Kirkuk after his younger brother was injured by a car bomb. The Islamic State battled Kurdish militias there in 2014, and militants have been active there as recently as October.
For years he has wanted to lend the United States his native tongue of Kurdish and Arabic in the fight against the Islamic State. That has changed.
“I lost all my faith in the military. I felt like they were lying to me and all my brothers and sisters,” Rafeeq said. “I was looking for ways to make America great in the world while they were trying to kick us out.”
If Canada grants him asylum, Rafeeq wants to join the military, with a maple leaf on his shoulder.
“In Afghanistan, in Syria, I will serve them,” he said. “They are hospitable and respectful toward me.”
Below, this is to what left social progressives had to listen from a far-right wing Clinton neo-liberal now controlling our people's Democratic Party. National media played hard that Bill Clinton was DOWNSIZING OUR PUBLIC MILITARY----CLOSING BASES-----and yet, our military budget under Clinton rose. This was Clinton privatizing our US military -------getting rid of our US troops ----sending those military corporations overseas-----AND it was the first time in modern history the US went with MERCENARY soldiers------brought in from Foreign Economic Zones overseas told they would become Americans as has been the pathway to citizenship for 300 years.
CLINTON DOWN-SIZED THE US MILITARY JUST SO BUSH COULD COME BACK AND PRIVATIZE THE HECK OUT OF OUR US MILITARY.
Bush made this foreign mercenary public policy SOAR----once our US military went private global corporations dismantled all laws regarding recruitment and just left that pathway to citizenship stand knowing they would not honor it. We saw this throughout the Bush war years------and yes, lots and lots of foreign soldiers brought into the US military through these private global military corporations were promised citizenship and did not get it.
This was especially true of our Department of Defense ----as it was sent overseas as private military contracting corporations what was a strong professional job for US citizens became that same Foreign Economic Zone global factory employment. Much of this work was classified and as such workers needed CLEARANCE including citizenship.
Human Events is a right wing think tank and here we see REVISIONIST history-----most people understood that Clinton was downsizing to privatize -----as we knew Obama was downsizing our nuclear arsenal to build new bombs. So, when a REAGAN spends billions of dollars on a nuclear arms race leaving more bombs then could ever be used---it was to SPEND THE MONEY AND GROW THE MILITARY INDUSTRY-----our global 99% of citizens need to know these far-right wing pols are never interested in CITIZENSHIP.
Defense & National Security
Bill Clinton and the Decline of the Military
Lynn Wooley | Thursday Dec 21, 2006 12:59 AM
President Bush has officially put a stake into the heart of the “peace dividend”—all that money we were going to save because the Cold War ended. Bush now says he believes the Army and Marine Corps should be expanded.
With the world the way it is, a lot of people agree with Bush. But take a look back to the days of his father’s administration and the presidency of Bill Clinton. The world was a nasty place then, too. But during that period, we went through years of declining military budgets. For my book “Clear Moral Objectives,” I built a timeline of what was happening in the world and how we addressed those events with our Defense Department budgets.
Pick up the story with newly-sworn-in President Bill Clinton’s first budget, submitted on March 27, 1993. He asked for $263.4 billion—$10 billion less than the final budget under the first President Bush. The budget scrapped most funds for President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, called “Star Wars” by the media.
After all, Clinton lived by his slogan: “It’s the economy, stupid!”
At that time, the U.S. was still involved in a humanitarian mission to Somalia that turned bad when eighteen of our solders were killed in a gunfight and one of them was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.
Clinton deployed troops to several other trouble spots around the world including Haiti, Bosnia, and the former Yugoslavia. He also launched twenty-three Tomahawk cruise misses at Iraq, ostensibly in retaliation for a threat on the life of George H.W. Bush.
In 1994, troops were sent to Haiti, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Clinton asked for a Defense increase of just $2.8 billion but Congress approved a decrease of $17.1 billion. The shrinking budget caused sharp reductions at the Pentagon.
There were more peacekeeping missions to come, including in Somalia where 1,800 Marines provided cover for the withdrawal of UN peacekeepers. But the downsizing of the military continued with 40,000 troops removed from Europe. The Base Closure Commission recommended shuttering 79 more bases. Clinton’s budget request for fiscal 1996 was $10.2 billion lower than the prior year.
At this point, we are well into the Clinton presidency and the eleventh straight year of declining military budgets. The president and the Congress have slashed the defense budget to the point where, after adjusting for inflation, it is some 40% less than in 1985 during the second Reagan term.
The year 1996 saw cruise missile strikes against Iraq and 18,000 U.S. troops stationed in the Balkans as part of a NATO force. Clinton sent the U.S. aircraft carrier Independence and three other ships to the Taiwan Strait because of tensions between Taiwan and China. For 1997, Clinton sought another $10 billion reduction, though the bill he eventually signed set aside $244 billion for defense—finally halting the long string of declining budgets, but just barely.
It was a bit calmer overseas in 1997, though 8,500 Americans were still keeping the peace in Bosnia. The Defense budget rose to $268 billion but Clinton proposed more base closures. The Senate rejected the recommendation.
In 1998, the U.S. and Britain struck military targets in Iraq because Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors. Clinton also launched missiles against targets in Afghanistan and the Sudan. These attacks came on August 20, three days after Clinton admitted on TV that he had misled the nation about “that woman.”
Defense Secretary William Cohen had become concerned about his budget, and so he called for more base closings—and more money. The Joint Chiefs said that unless funding levels could be increased, some weapons systems or overseas deployments would have to be eliminated. In 1999, the budget was at $250 billion—the same year we were using our military to halt Slobodan Milosevic’s “ethnic cleansing” in Kosovo.
For fiscal 2000, Defense requested $267.2 billion billion, including a pay raise for soldiers. The USS Cole was bombed and peacekeeping efforts continued in the usual spots like Kosovo and Bosnia. Clinton’s presidency was winding down and his final Defense budget totaled $288 billion with a supplemental bill of $6.5 billon to help pay for all the peacekeeping.
After Bush was elected and the country had suffered the 9/11 attacks, former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger said Clinton had cut back the military so much that we might not be able to fight a war on terrorism on several fronts. He listed the problems brought on during the Clinton years: lost air and sea lift capacity, two or three years during which nothing was procured for the military, and cuts in R&D.
Now, in the waning days of his presidency, Bush is ready to rebuild. It’s not the economy, stupid, and there is no peace dividend. The world’s remaining superpower cannot run its military on the cheap.
We we saw under Bush and sadly Obama was BUSH THREE------was indeed incredible loss of any kind of humanity all MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE maximizing wealth for a global 1%. What happened during Bush era was this------the destruction of society in nations' under attack left no employment inside these nations and foreign citizens were FORCED to consider any job including working for global mercenary corporations. Fear and intimidation brought these MUSLIM citizens to jobs in the US -----as US soldiers were deliberately burned out with unheard-of length of tours of service. When Obama came to office our US citizens normally wanting to join the military stayed away----that was fine said CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA because we are MOVING FORWARD to a global labor pool mercenary structure.
This took the US to a hybrid system of recruitment ignoring centuries of hiring laws---ignoring centuries of pathway to citizenship for foreign citizens serving in a US public military----because global corporations do not follow sovereign nations' laws----and BUSH/CHENEY built global/multinational military corporations just for this reason.
We have through Bush/Obama allowed these global Wall Street pols to build a global military presence with foreign employees likely never to be US citizens.
Wilkerson lamented, “We’ve privatized the ultimate public function: war.”
This is why that series of UNITED NATIONS protests against Trump actions whether for global women or global Muslims was pretend-----anyone wanting to march for Muslims in US would have marched during Clinton/Obama. It is the BUILDUP of this global military complex done during Clinton/Obama setting the stage for Bush era to go wild all aimed at Middle-Far Eastern Muslim nations.
It is also when we started to have these PURGES of immigrants whether Latino or Muslim at the beginning of each new Presidential term. Global Wall Street is simply USING THESE FOREIGN CITIZENS in military and WE THE PEOPLE must think where this leads. The answer is-------a large percentage of US citizens these few decades will be made military employees stationed oversea in Foreign Economic Zones all around the world---that is a high--percentage of US employment tied to war and security.
Tuesday, Mar 29, 2016 11:58 AM EST
“We are the death merchant of the world”: Ex-Bush official Lawrence Wilkerson condemns military-industrial complex
The military-industrial complex "is much more pernicious than Eisenhower ever thought," says the retired US colonel Ben Norton
Lawrence Wilkerson (Credit: AP/Lawrence Jackson)Col. Lawrence Wilkerson is tired of “the corporate interests that we go abroad to slay monsters for.”
As the former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Wilkerson played an important role in the George W. Bush administration. In the years since, however, the former Bush official has established himself as a prominent critic of U.S. foreign policy.
“I think Smedley Butler was onto something,” explained Lawrence Wilkerson, in an extended interview with Salon.
In his day, in the early 20th century, Butler was the highest ranked and most honored official in the history of the U.S. Marine Corps. He helped lead wars throughout the world over a series of decades, before later becoming a vociferous opponent of American imperialism, declaring “war is a racket.”
Wilkerson spoke highly of Butler, referencing the late general’s famous quote: “Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
“I think the problem that Smedley identified, quite eloquently actually,” Wilkerson said, “especially for a Marine — I had to say that as a soldier,” the retired Army colonel added with a laugh; “I think the problem is much deeper and more profound today, and much more subtle and sophisticated.”
Today, the military-industrial complex “is much more pernicious than Eisenhower ever thought it would be,” Wilkerson warned.
In his farewell address in 1961, former President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously cautioned Americans that the military and corporate interests were increasingly working together, contrary to the best interests of the citizenry. He called this phenomenon the military-industrial complex.
As a case study of how the contemporary military-industrial complex works, Wilkerson pointed to leading weapons corporations like Lockheed Martin, and their work with draconian, repressive Western-allied regimes in the Gulf, or in inflaming tensions in Korea.
“Was Bill Clinton’s expansion of NATO — after George H. W. Bush and [his Secretary of State] James Baker had assured Gorbachev and then Yeltsin that we wouldn’t go an inch further east — was this for Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, and Boeing, and others, to increase their network of potential weapon sales?” Wilkerson asked.
“You bet it was,” he answered.
“Is there a penchant on behalf of the Congress to bless the use of force more often than not because of the constituencies they have and the money they get from the defense contractors?” Wilkerson continued.
Again, he answered his own question: “You bet.”
“It’s not like Dick Cheney or someone like that went and said let’s have a war because we want to make money for Halliburton, but it is a pernicious on decision-making,” the former Bush official explained. “And the fact that they donate so much money to congressional elections and to PACs and so forth is another pernicious influence.”
“Those who deny this are just being utterly naive, or they are complicit too,” Wilkerson added.
“And some of my best friends work for Lockheed Martin,” along with Raytheon, Boeing and Halliburton, he quipped.
Wilkerson — who in the same interview with Salon defended Edward Snowden, saying the whistle-blower performed an important service and did not endanger U.S. national security — was also intensely critical of the growing movement to “privatize public functions, like prisons.”
“I fault us Republicans for this majorly,” he confessed — although a good many prominent Democrats have also jumped on the neoliberal bandwagon. In a 2011 speech, for instance, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared, “It’s time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity” for U.S. corporations.
Wilkerson lamented, “We’ve privatized the ultimate public function: war.”
“In many respects it is now private interests that benefit most from our use of military force,” he continued. “Whether it’s private security contractors, that are still all over Iraq or Afghanistan, or it’s the bigger-known defense contractors, like the number one in the world, Lockheed Martin.”
Journalist Antony Loewenstein detailed how the U.S. privatized its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in another interview with Salon. There are an estimated 30,000 military contractors working for the Pentagon in Afghanistan today; they outnumber U.S. troops three-to-one. Thousands more are in Iraq.
Lockheed Martin simply “plans to sell every aspect of missile defense that it can,” regardless of whether it is needed, Wilkerson said. And what is best to maximize corporate interest is by no means necessarily the same as what is best for average citizens.
“We dwarf the Russians or anyone else who sells weapons in the world,” the retired Army colonel continued.
“We are the death merchant of the world.”
Here we have 2009 Obama MOVING FORWARD in bringing global labor pool into all areas of US military-----while 2009 had US citizens in the lowest and longest-term unemployment ESPECIALLY for our health care workers-----here were the front line of OBAMA'S expansion of global labor pool human capital distribution system. When we read the article above where immigrants tied to US military are being deported ---this is from where it comes. Obama PRETENDED to be downsizing US presence in Afghanistan when he too was simply taking those US troops to privatized and global labor pool status.
Some of these foreign workers tied to US military made it to US----some worked overseas in war zones having been promised citizenship for their service.
Obama KNEW these foreign military workers would not make citizenship because that has been the policy of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.
Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest
(MAVNI) is a recruitment program by the Department of Defense, USA, through which legal non-immigrants (not citizens or legal permanent residents of USA) with certain critical skills are recruited into the military services of US. Certain health care professionals and experts in certain languages meet eligibility requirements for recruitment through this program. MAVNI was spearheaded by immigration attorney Margaret Stock, a former U.S. Army Reserve and West Point professor.
Soldiers belonging to the enlisted rank, and recruited through this program, become citizen of the United States usually at the end of their Basic Combat Training (BCT). An announcement from the Pentagon in October 2014 declared that certain people belonging to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) category may become eligible for the MAVNI program.
In 2008, when the program started, it was a one-year pilot program with a cap of 1000 recruits. Following the success of the pilot, the program was renewed. As of December 2014, the program has been extended until 2016, with a raised cap of 5000 recruits. Enlistments are permitted for both active-duty and reserve assignments, but not in the National Guard.
The MAVNI program has several notable recruiting successes; for example, the program enlisted Saral Shrestha, the U.S. Army Soldier of the Year for 2012, and Augustus Maiyo, the winner of the 2012 Marine Corps Marathon. MAVNI recruits of the Army have a lower attrition rate than other recruits, and many hold higher educational credentials than other enlistees. Around 30% of MAVNI recruits were assigned to Special Operations units due to their language abilities, which facilitate operations in foreign speaking lands. Several MAVNI recruits have written about their experiences in the program.
As of December 2016, MAVNI is under review and closed indefinitely.
Of course a majority of this hiring these several years have been in Muslim nations and this is from where our Muslim immigrant citizens are recruited. When Clinton allowed these exceptions Bush had a purge in immigrants---when Bush allowed these exceptions O bama had a purge of immigrants---so when Obama allowed these exceptions TRUMP HAD A PURGE OF IMMIGRANTS. Our United Nations knows all this injustice has been occurring especially harming our Muslim immigrants ----IT IS MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE creating these human rights and immigrant citizenship injustices and global Wall Street PRETEND justice organizations NEVER MENTION THAT.
US Government Announcement: Non-Citizen Military Recruitment Program
» US Government Announcement: Non-Citizen Military Recruitment Program
"US Government Announcement: Non-Citizen Military Recruitment Program" and "US Army Non-Citizen Recruitment Program Detailed Summary" both refer to a one-year pilot program by the US Army, called "Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest" (MAVNI). The purpose of the program is to recruit up to 1,000 foreign nationals currently in the United States with specific skills: physicians, nurses and those with fluency in certain foreign languages and cultures. In exchange, participants will be able to immediately apply for U.S. citizenship without having to first obtain Permanent Residency. Those in health care must enlist for at least three years of active duty; those with special language and cultural backgrounds must enlist for at least four years of active duty. The opportunity is open to both men and women. The program was announced in February 2009 and is scheduled to end on December 31, 2009, or whenever the Army meets its projected recruiting needs.
The Army has established two special web sites for non-citizens who are interested in finding out more about the MAVNI pilot program. The links are:http://www.goarmy.com/info/mavni/healthcare (for doctors and nurses)
http://www.goarmy.com/info/mavni (for persons with language skills who are interested in enlisted health care jobs)
Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI)
Although it isn’t a military secret per se, MAVNI is a small and very exclusive program that benefits immigrants and the U.S. military. Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) is a special recruiting program that may be available to some immigrants interested in joining the U.S. military. Generally, immigrants must be permanent residents to join the military (see Military Enlistment Requirements); once enlisted these green card soldiers can take advantage of expedited citizenship. However, MAVNI allows certain non-citizens in the United States to join the military and thereby gain eligibility for U.S. citizenship without first having to go through the lengthy process of obtaining a green card. The MAVNI program began in 2009 and remains a pilot program. Recently, the program was extended through fiscal year 2016 (September 30, 2016) and will recruit up to 5,200 people.
How to Qualify for MAVNI
Generally, applicants must be in a legal immigration status. Legal status means that applicants must be asylees, refugees, recipients of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) or hold any of the following non-immigrant visas: E, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, O, P, Q, R, S, T, TC, TD, TN, U or V.
MAVNI Open to DACA Recipients
Individuals who have been granted deferred action by the Department of Homeland Security pursuant to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) process are eligible for consideration. Generally the MAVNI requirements stipulate a legal immigration status. However, the military service may on a case by case basis waive the requirement that the foreign national be in a status described above.
The applicant must have been in valid status in one of the above categories for at least two years immediately prior to the enlistment date. However, it does not have to be the same category as the one held on the date of enlistment. Plus, the applicant must not have had any single absence from the United States of more than 90 days during the two year period immediately preceding the date of enlistment.
The MAVNI program is also restricted to healthcare professionals or experts in certain key languages with associated cultural backgrounds.
Applicants in the healthcare professional recruit category must:
- Fill medical specialties where the service has a shortfall
- Meet all qualification criteria required for their medical specialty, and the criteria for foreign-trained DoD medical personnel recruited under other authorities
- Demonstrate proficiency in English
- Commit to at least 3 years of active duty, or six years in the Selected Reserve
- Possess specific language and culture capabilities in a language critical to DoD (full list of languages here)
- Demonstrate a language proficiency
- Meet all existing enlistment eligibility criteria
- Enlist for at least 4 years of active duty
How to Apply for MAVNI
To sign up for MAVNI, you will have to share your passport, I-94 card, I-797 Notice of Action, your employment authorization document, or other government issued documents proving your legal presence in the United States. Applicants will have to go through background checks, security screenings, and meet all the other general requirements of becoming a U.S. citizen. If you are interested, visit the U.S. Army MAVNI page or contact your local U.S. military recruiting office.
For immigrants with an interest in military service and U.S. citizenship, the MAVNI program may provide a path to citizenship that many non-permanent residents would not normally be afforded. What’s more, they fill a necessary gap in military recruitment and provide services that otherwise would be difficult and costly to train.
This training of foreign military forces whether by the CIA or now by our US global mercenary military corporations is of course the source of all the intense civil wars and unrest in regions of the world global banking is EMPIRE-BUILDING----global Wall Street wants to install FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES in Africa so it finds that brutal 1% dictator and sends in military help in keeping that brutal dictator in power. Once done by the CIA---now main stream US military privatized global mercenary corporations.
What we are getting is a global subset of militias always tied to the global 1% whether the region is at war or not----this is happening because of MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE and Africa will have just a 1% of citizens made billionaires while 99% of its citizens are enslaved in global corporate factories---this has been the modus operandus of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and it is from these encounters that the global mercenary corporations field which global citizen will be hired as an official US military foreign soldier. Mali is one of those nations around the coming Foreign Economic Zone including Ghana at the headwaters of what is vital fresh water for the African people which will be polluted just as in China from these factories.
These soldiers are being trained to fight sovereign Mali citizens who don't want a global banking PUPPET ruling their nation----just as US 99% of citizens are feeling TODAY. From this training a Mali soldier seen as strong will likely be recruited to the BUSH/CHENEY GLOBAL MERCENARY MILITARY CORPORATIONS.
This is from where African immigrants tied to military recruitment may be brought to US thinking THEY will get citizenship for being that intelligence source====and of course most are not made citizens.
This is where our US citizens tied to life-time military service with private mercenary corporations lose that humanity and developed nation feel for international law ----it becomes one continuous cycle of WAR. Now, if WE THE PEOPLE the 99% do not believe this civil war/civil unrest is coming to US soon ----with US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones as central in this unrest---with these trained soldiers acting as a UNITED NATIONS force inside America----WAKE UP---THAT IS MOVING FORWARD.
Is America Training Too Many Foreign Armies?
Events in Mali show why it’s time to take a fresh look at the Pentagon’s military assistance programs.
- By John Norris
- January 28, 2013
Gen. Carter Ham, the head of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), made an unusually blunt admission last week regarding the failure of U.S. military training to instill respect for human rights in a Malian army now accused of massacring Arabs and Tuaregs as it fights its way north into rebel-held territory. "We didn’t spend probably the requisite time focusing on values, ethics, and a military ethos," Ham acknowledged, saying that most U.S. training for the Malians focused on tactics, strategy, and "technical matters."
Since 1985, the United States has sponsored approximately 156 Malian military officers and non-commissioned officers at U.S. professional military schools and given them training focused on professionalizing the military forces. Over the past three years, this funding has reached at least roughly $400,000 annually, and it is possible U.S. intelligence agencies have also funneled in support as well. Sadly, Mali is hardly an isolated case of U.S. military assistance programs operating with dangerously little oversight and lacking a compelling central rationale. There are many examples of successful U.S. military training programs, but lots of headline cases that have gone badly wrong over the years — from training Indonesian troops that carried out atrocities in East Timor to the billions poured into the Egyptian military to the scores of tainted graduates from the School of the Americas that ran riot in Central America during the 1980s.
In looking at the patterns of U.S. military assistance the question is not who gets American military aid, but who doesn’t. In 2012 the United States delivered bilateral security assistance to 134 countries — meaning that every country on Earth had about a 75 percent chance of receiving U.S. military aid. Once you weed out places like North Korea and Vatican City, you are pretty much assured of receiving military aid no matter how large or small your country, no matter how democratic or despotic your regime, no matter how lofty or minimal your GDP.
At a time when not a day goes by without Beltway handwringing about the impact of a potential sequester, there has been almost zero discussion of how to better focus U.S. military assistance around clear objectives and direct it to countries where it can make a lasting difference. And these aren’t insignificant sums when taken together. The administration requested $9.8 billion in security assistance funding for fiscal year 2013.
Much of this military assistance — through programs like Foreign Military Financing; International Military Education and Training; Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related Programs; International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement; Peacekeeping Operations; and the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund -- is supposed to be overseen by the State Department with the Defense Department doing the heavy lifting of actually delivering aid and training.
YOU MEAN HILLARY STATE DEPARTMENT? YOU BETCHA----YOU MEAN COLIN POWELL STATE DEPARTMENT?---YOU BETCHA--
The rationale on paper for such assistance is straightforward and usually receives uncritical congressional support. U.S. military aid helps train security forces, finance the purchase of military equipment, bolster the ability of law enforcement to tackle the illegal narcotics trade, and shape cooperation on nonproliferation issues. But more than anything, the Pentagon has always insisted that spreading military assistance so broadly is all about building relationships with fellow militaries — a cost effective way of establishing contacts who will pick up the phone in a ministry of defense when needed. For those who say U.S. dollars propped up an autocratic military in Egypt, other argue that it was the senior flag relationships between the Pentagon and Cairo that kept the military from opening fire on democratic protesters during the Arab Spring.
But U.S. military aid looks much better on paper than in practice, in large part because it is often delivered as if on autopilot without a reasoned discussion of its merits. The State Department largely offers rubber-stamp approvals, and the Foreign Service currently lacks personnel with the expertise needed to engage in a rigorous debate with the Pentagon about who deserves aid and why. As Gordon Adams of the Stimson Center has argued, the State Department’s "internal capacity to plan, budget, and manage these programs needs to be seriously strengthened." This, combined with the general tendency of Congress to treat military spending requests as something just short of a papal writ, has meant that U.S. security assistance programs receive very little oversight.
Equally troubling, military and economic assistance are treated as quite different creatures. For economic assistance, the United States has increasingly insisted that aid recipients at least demonstrate some marginal commitment to democracy and open markets. Not so on the military side, where concerns about corruption, the rule of law, and human rights are treated as something we are too polite to ask about. Indeed, we probably would offer military training to everyone if it were not for the minor restrictions imposed by Senate Democrats like the Leahy Law, which prohibits U.S. military assistance to known thugs and war criminals that violate human rights with impunity. Yes, having military-to-military contacts through U.S. military training and aid is often useful and can build important relations and lasting trust. But it is equally true that the list of U.S.-trained officers that have led coups against their sitting governments is a lengthy one in countries ranging from Honduras to Haiti to the Gambia. Contrary to what Ham’s remark suggested, a few months spent studying tactics and logistics in Kansas or Georgia rarely seems to slow down a power-hungry colonel when he is hell bent on toppling the elected government that just threatened to cut his budget.
Underwriting security assistance to countries with autocratic leadership or nations that are of little strategic significance doesn’t make much sense. U.S. military aid and training should be concentrated in a far fewer countries rather than being sprinkled all around the globe like fairy dust in hopes that good relations result. Nations should be chosen to receive such military aid and training based on their commitment to reform — both within the military and within the broader structures of democratic governance, free markets, and respect for human rights. Such aid should be a reward for high-performing countries, not a party favor dispensed at the door.
General Ham sounded genuinely surprised that American-trained officers were up to nefarious deeds. But the accusations of indcriminate killing should not come as much of a surprise. A U.S. trained captain led a coup against the government of Mali just last March — the first incident that led Ham to think that we might need to take a second look at training.
Take the fun quiz: which of the nations below were slated to receive U.S. military assistance in 2012:
Sao Tome and Principe
Trinidad and Tobago
Well, all of them, of course.
These few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA has seen these structures soar and as we said many of those foreign citizens brought to the US military with promises of PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP are recruited at these trainings-----pushed into service ----and then released as non-citizens back to those nations-----used for just that span of years. Again, if we look at the Roman Empire subscription structure ------the same structure exists with foreign leaders tied to a ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE sends a mercenary team to fight in all wars-----this is the EXPANSION OF NATO pushed into place by CLINTON.
THIS IS TO WHERE THAT MASSIVE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET HAS GONE THESE FEW DECADES AND THIS GLOBAL STRUCTURE IS WORKING FOR GLOBAL CORPORATE TRIBUNAL ======NOT WE THE PEOPLE IN AMERICA.
'The analysis showed that every year about 200,000 foreign soldiers, police and other personnel received training.
“What you have stumbled across is a systematic lack of strategic thinking, a systematic lack of evaluation, but a massive commitment of people and money and time in a growing number of countries,” Gordon Adams, formerly a senior White House official for national security and foreign policy budgets, told The Intercept.
“I think the word ‘system’ is a misnomer. This is a headless system,” he said'.
This sets the stage for global citizens being angry at the US ------it happens all the time and it has happened these few decades. This is why we DO NOT CONSIDER GLOBAL SOVEREIGN CITIZENS TERRORISTS. It is without coincidence that our US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones are filling with this global system of soldiers and police----and it is also no coincidence that the nations' having police trained by US mercenary corporations are found to be the most brutal and criminal ----
It is without coincidence that our US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones are filling with this global system of soldiers and police----and it is also no coincidence that the nations' having police trained by US mercenary corporations are found to be the most brutal and criminal ----
When we shout that Baltimore has a global militarized policing and security corporation tied to our city police department---this is what we mean----and indeed this is why our US policing has become so brutal and unjust....they are not attached to US Rule of Law or US citizens' rights.
‘Headless system’: US military trains global network of foreign soldiers & police
Published time: 14 Jul, 2016 03:15
Get short URL
SPLA soldiers secure © Stringer / Reuters
If police tactics suppressing citizens’ protests worldwide are starting to look familiar, it could be the result of an extensive global training program by the US military of foreign soldiers and police, according to an analysis of WikiLeaks documents.The program, however, is largely unknown by Americans and has little oversight or scrutiny, an exclusive report by The Intercept finds.
Since 9/11, the US Department of Defense has spent $122 billion in training foreign soldiers and police programs in 471 locations in 120 countries on “every continent but Antarctica,” the Intercept reported Wednesday.
They discovered that the State Department officials engaged in a rapid vetting program known as the Leahy Law, to confirm that police officers, soldiers, sailors and airmen from 11 countries have not committed human rights violations. Officials certify names at a rate of one every two minutes and 23 seconds.
Under such vetting, they found that 32 Egyptians were approved for instruction in Apache helicopter gunship maintenance and flight simulators for the Black Hawk, while Azerbaijanis were cleared for a US Army course on identifying bio-warfare agents in Maryland. Meanwhile, 32 Iraqis were certified to attend a State Department training session for bodyguards, and Ukrainian police were selected for peacekeeping training in Italy.
The analysis showed that every year about 200,000 foreign soldiers, police and other personnel received training.
“What you have stumbled across is a systematic lack of strategic thinking, a systematic lack of evaluation, but a massive commitment of people and money and time in a growing number of countries,” Gordon Adams, formerly a senior White House official for national security and foreign policy budgets, told The Intercept.
“I think the word ‘system’ is a misnomer. This is a headless system,” he said.
The analysis comes from more than 6,000 diplomatic cables from 2010 and 2011, which were leaked to WikiLeaks by whistleblower and former US Army private Chelsea Manning. A military court sentenced Manning to serve 35 years in a military prison for the leak.
The breadth of the global training network could be much larger, as the diplomatic cables are not complete and there is little information for countries such as Pakistan and Colombia, where US foreign security and military aid is considerable and extensive.
“Because training is provided through multiple authorities, appropriations accounts, and geographic combatant commands, there is currently no single database that provides a total figure for the number of foreign security forces trained,” Lt. Col. Joe Sowers, a Department of Defense spokesperson, told The Intercept.
Occasionally, the American public does find out the success or failure of foreign training programs. In 2015, the Pentagon admitted that a $500 million program to create a 15,000-strong fighting force of “moderate” Syrian rebels had yielded only 60 recruits, which then dwindled to single digits. The US had hoped to have 3,000 by the end of the year.
Testifying alongside the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, Carter told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that few Syrian volunteers from a pool of 7,000 were able to pass the rigorous vetting process, from physical tests to background checks.
The process, Carter explained, involves a “counterintelligence screening” to make sure any recruits “meet standards prescribed by US law.”
Here we have GLOBAL WALL STREET NATIONAL PUBLIC MEDIA telling us this is all about building a DIVERSE POLICE DEPARTMENT in US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones. At the same time our global Wall Street Baltimore Development 'labor and justice' organizations are PRETENDING they are working on cultural awareness------building community voice in policing KNOWING these are UNITED NATIONS global policing and security forces being MOVED FORWARD into our US cities.
As with our Latino immigrant citizens brought in to US Foreign Economic Zone cities to build those MASSIVE GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES AND GLOBAL FACTORIES----these immigrant workers are often told if they play by the rules---they will have a PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP. PLAY BY THE RULES----global Wall Street pols love saying that-----
What we are getting is a global police/military/security force installed in our US cities trained overseas by global mercenary corporations as we said finding the best candidates to add to our US military and by extension our US city police departments. These foreign soldiers will serve overseas for some years and then be rotated into civil policing. When these immigrant soldiers/police come to Baltimore City thinking they are on that PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP---they are just some years away from rotating to another global assignment in another Foreign Economic Zone. Our US citizens are now being thrown into this global mercenary corporation having the goal of keeping citizens as EX-PATS for a lifetime.
YES, THAT DASTARDLY 5% TO THE 1% BALTIMORE CITY FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL WALL STREET POL AND PLAYER KNOWS THIS IS THE GOAL AS THEY PROMOTE ALL THIS AS DIVERSIFYING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR THE GOOD OF LOW-INCOME CITIZENS.
This is what those global 1% UNITED NATIONS fake protestor marches see as protecting diversity-------know what? The 99% of citizens whether global labor pool or US -----would appreciate it if global Wall Street pols and players GET OUT OF OUR US CITIES. This international structure of global mercenary military and policing is what creates that impossibility of citizens being victims getting JUSTICE from abuse and unjustifiable homicide. When global Wall Street 5% players keep pretending they are holding police accountable never mentioning all this-----DON'T LISTEN TO THEM....
Remember, the goal of far-right global Wall Street in MOVING FORWARD is far-right wing, authoritarian, militaristic, dictatorship-style LIBERTARIAN MARXISM.....and these are the policing structures one sees. The more foreign immigrant soldiers/policing employees the more they are NOT TIED to what it means to be an AMERICAN CITIZENS WITH RIGHTS.
Can diverse police departments ease community tension?
BY Jen Fifield, Stateline August 22, 2016 at 9:04 AM EDT
Police officers armed with rifles guard the entrance to Our Lady of the Lake Hospital after a fatal shooting of police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S. July 17, 2016. REUTERS/Jeffrey Dubinsky
Normally, when the Dallas Police Department hosts its monthly testing for people interested in becoming police officers, about 70 to 80 people show up. This past weekend though, the department was expecting about 280.
The larger turnout followed a call from Dallas Police Chief David Brown to join the force after five officers were killed and others injured in a targeted ambush there last month. The chief asked young black men to stop protesting, to start applying, and to help fix the problems they see in their community.
As police-involved shootings have increased tensions between police and black communities across the country, some law enforcement agencies have put out similar calls for help in hopes of recruiting a more diverse force as one way to re-establish community trust. Leaders in Indianapolis, Minneapolis and Knoxville, Tennessee, recently refocused their efforts to attract and hire more minorities.
But officials say that having a diverse force is only one way of moving forward. In fact, they point out, research is mixed as to whether diversity helps reduce tensions. Other strategies, they say, help as much or more, such as hiring officers who know and understand the community, asking officers to build better relationships with neighborhoods they serve, reducing officers’ use of aggressive arrest tactics and increasing officer training.
In Baltimore, the police force is fairly diverse — about 42 percent black, compared to 63 percent of the general population.
Yet in a scathing report released this month, the U.S. Justice Department said Baltimore’s policing strategies lead to “severe and unjustified disparities in the rates of stops, searches and arrests of African Americans.”
Aggressive policing tactics hardened a “long-simmering distrust of law enforcement” in parts of the community, the report said.
Conflicts between the police and the community stem from much deeper issues — ones that police are not trained to solve, said Thomas Harvey, co-founder and executive director of ArchCity Defenders, a nonprofit advocacy group that provides legal services for indigent people in Ferguson and the rest of St. Louis County, Missouri.
“Why do we as the public keep expecting police officers to fill the role of nurses, social workers, housing specialists, mental health experts, drug treatment providers, poverty experts and racial justice advocates?” he said. “We don’t need more police. We need to make a commitment to address the root causes of poverty, which is at the heart of what we call crime in America.”
Attempts at Diversity
Law enforcement has had some success attracting more minorities. The share of minority officers nationally has nearly doubled in three decades, growing from 14.6 to 27.3 percent since 1987, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
But that still doesn’t equal the share of minorities in the U.S., at 37.2 percent.
Small departments are less diverse. Departments serving less than 2,500 people are 84.4 percent white; departments that serve a million people or more are 53.4 percent white.
The Ferguson Police Department had two black officers when Michael Brown was shot and killed, two years ago, by a white police officer. To diffuse tensions, the U.S. Department of Justice recommended many changes to the police department — including hiring more minorities. Five more black officers have since been hired, including the new chief, Delrish Moss.
Yet it is unclear if having a diverse force will make a difference, Harvey said. “We can’t get trapped into thinking that individual police officers can change systems.”
A 2004 National Research Council report found that, “there is no credible evidence that officers of different racial or ethnic backgrounds perform differently during interactions with citizens simply because of race or ethnicity.”
White officers in Cincinnati were not more likely to arrest non-white suspects, under similar circumstances, but black officers were, a 2006 study found.
Racial bias in policing comes more from the culture of police departments, said Delores Jones-Brown, founding director of the Center on Race, Crime and Justice at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.
Jones-Brown said two types of training may help: one that teaches officers about their implicit biases, or stereotypes they form unconsciously, and another that teaches officers that if they are more respectful to the public, they will build community trust and justice.
The Justice Department announced in June that it would start giving its lawyers and law enforcement agents implicit bias training.
Why Minorities Don’t Apply
There are two major reasons why law enforcement struggles to recruit minorities, Jones-Brown said. When police treat communities that they are all criminals, they don’t want to be part of the agency. And when police enforce low-level crimes in communities of color, many people end up with criminal records that disqualify them from applying.
In Knoxville, past recruiting efforts had little success, said David Rausch, the chief of police. Of the 386 sworn officers there, 358 are white.
The lack of diversity could be the result of a lack of qualified minority candidates, Rausch said. But it also could be because of a stigma attached to police by the minority community, which has worsened with recent events across the country.
“We have folks where all they’ve ever heard in their life is law enforcement is the bad guys,” he said. “And quite frankly, my goal in the last five years is to change that.”
“We have folks where all they’ve ever heard in their life is law enforcement is the bad guys. And quite frankly, my goal in the last five years is to change that.”Last year, Knoxville police upped its efforts in recruiting minorities. As a result, Rausch estimates, about half of the applicants being interviewed are minorities, compared to the usual 20 percent.
In Indianapolis, the City-County Council voted in April to update its recruitment law to allow the chief of police to handpick 20 percent of applicants, with the rest chosen based on their qualifications, in hopes it would allow for more minority recruits.
Mirroring the Community
Sometimes the racial composition of law enforcement changes as the community changes, especially when a department tries to make the job more attractive.
That’s true in Texas, where the Hispanic population has increased significantly. The share of Hispanic recruits to the Texas Highway Patrol has increased from 31 to 41 percent since 2014.
Pay has increased. So, too, has recruitment. And much of the new hiring has been in communities near the U.S.-Mexico border, said Tom Vinger, press secretary for the state’s Department of Public Safety. Hispanics comprise a larger share of the population there.
Even in large police departments, only a few across the country approximately reflect the racial diversity of their communities, according to a 2015 New York Times analysis.
One of those, in Atlanta, has long been admired for its ability to attract a diverse force — 60 percent of sworn officers are black in a city where 52.4 percent of residents are.
Atlanta leaders have been deliberate about hiring minorities for decades, said Chief of Police George Turner, adding that it helps to involve minorities in recruiting. It also helps to promote minorities, he said. Twenty-three of the 43-member command staff are black, including Turner.
“If your command staff doesn’t reflect your community at the top of the organization, people feel like there is a ceiling in this agency, and they don’t feel like they have a chance of moving in,” Turner said.
Diversity, especially in leadership, can improve problem-solving and increase innovation, said Patrick Oliver, who runs a criminal justice program at Cedarville University, in Ohio, and worked in law enforcement for 27 years.
Diversity at the top also can prevent a culture of racial bias. Managers set expectations and policies, and supervise officers, Oliver said.
Communities see diverse police departments as more legitimate and are more likely to take ownership in policing when a department is diverse, a 2000 study found.
Having a good racial mix debunks stereotypes among officers, said Tammie Hughes, the assistant chief of police in Dallas. It also shows children in the community that “if she can be a police officer, I can be a police officer, too. Once you plant those seeds, they have something they can look forward to doing.”
Not Everyone Agrees
Calling for more diversity in police departments simply distracts from the real issue, said L’lerrét Ailith, communications manager with Black Youth Project 100, a group of 18- to 35-year-old black activists. The real issue, she said, is law enforcement is inherently anti-black and black communities do not receive enough social services.
“If the system is inherently anti-black, if the system is set up specifically to target our communities and oppress our people, regardless of what the officer looks like, regardless of what connection he has to the people he is locking up, he is still locking people up,” Ailith said.
The government should defund police and invest more in health care, mental health and recreation centers, Ailith said.
Police understanding of a community may be more important than its racial composition. In Baltimore, most officers are not from the city, and three-quarters of them don’t live there.
Officers who come from the community will know its history and what it needs, said Chris Burbank, a former Salt Lake City police chief who is now director of law enforcement engagement for a national nonprofit, the Center for Policing Equity.
“Whenever [a police department] is viewed as an occupying force, that is difficult for community members,” Burbank said. “But when it’s individuals who have grown up in the community who are now on the police force, that goes a long way.”
Training also helps. In 2012, Dallas began training officers in how to ease tense situations that have the potential to spiral out of control. Hughes, the assistant chief of police, calls it teaching officers how to “slow down a bit, and approach these incidents a bit more carefully.”
“One little incident can tear down all that effort you’ve made to build community trust.”