In Our View: Thoughtful Discussion

As the debate about immigration spilled over into discussion about the defense budget last week, Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Camas, offered some articulate insight.

At issue was a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, a $612 billion funding of the military for fiscal year 2016. The provision, written by Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., a Marine veteran, would have urged Pentagon officials to re-evaluate existing policy when it comes to the military enlistment of people covered by President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy. That policy gives temporary legal status to immigrants brought to this country illegally by their parents at a young age.

“I’m proud that in America, citizenship means something. It is worthy to be earned,” Herrera Beutler said on the floor of the House of Representatives. “Amnesty, to me, means giving it away, and I don’t support that. I do support the ability to earn citizenship, and if a person has the courage and conviction to take the oath and to join our nation’s warriors to defend you and I, what more can they do to prove their allegiance? The military is not a jobs program. And if someone through their merit and their hard work earns acceptance into that elite fighting force, where they could die defending you and me, then I leave you with this question: What country’s flag would you have draped on the casket of that brave soul?”

In simply urging the Pentagon to reconsider its policy and accept such immigrants — people who have spent much of their lives in the United States, attending American schools and establishing roots in their communities — the proposal was fairly innocuous. But it did bring to the forefront the contentious debate that inevitably surrounds the issue of immigration. “To take military service jobs from Americans and from lawful immigrants in order to give them to illegal aliens is outrageous and unconscionable,” said Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala.

Brooks introduced a measure to strip the amendment from the spending bill, and his position won out in a 221-202 vote. All Democrats on the floor and about 20 Republicans — including Herrera Beutler — voted against Brooks’ proposal. The spending bill eventually passed the House with support from Herrera Beutler.

The annual defense funding bill is a rare bastion of bipartisanship in Washington, D.C. While questions can and should be raised about whether $612 billion is necessary, the allocation typically has little trouble passing, lest representatives be viewed as soft on defense. But the tiny amendment regarding the enlistment of young immigrants raised the rancor. Herrera Beutler was correct in challenging the characterization of Gallego’s proposal as some sort of amnesty, and in drawing a distinction between being handed a path to citizenship and in earning it. There are few better ways to demonstrate love of country — and to bolster that country — than by serving honorably in the military.

Yes, spots in the armed forces should first go to citizens and to legal immigrants — if there is a shortage of openings. And, yes, there are national security concerns that must be considered when seeking to ensure loyalty among those who enlist. But the issue deserves better than House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., calling Republicans “xenophobic” for voting down the proposal. And it deserves better than a right-wing website saying in a headline that Republicans who supported it are “traitors.” No, the issue deserves some thoughtful discussion, and Herrera Beutler contributed just that last week.