I thought we would debate this topic, I can't remember it ever being brought up in the D&D (at least since I started posting here)... On the "Anderson Cooper 360" show earlier tonight, he had a segment about a young American boy from Philly named Michael Levin (sp?). Michael grew up all his life as an American, from an Orthodox Jewish community. Michael's life-long dream was to serve not in the military...the Israeli military that is. A few days ago, Michael was serving in the IDF when he apparently was killed by Hezbollah. His parents were interviewed and they said that they were immensely proud of him "defending his people"! They interviewed another Jewish American girl who is currently serving in the IDF, and she spoke about how much she's always been looking forward to serving "my people". Apparently, there are hundreds of Americans serving in the IDF. I guess my question is this: is it OK (both legally and in a non-legal way) for an American citizen, who has either explicitly of implicitly given his/her sole allegiance to this nation, to be fighting for a foreign state? Now, I understand that some Americans believe that there is a 'special arrangement' of sorts with Israel, but would it be OK if -- say -- an Italian-American decided to serve in the Italian military? What about an Egyptian or a Jordanian American serving in the Egyptian or Jordanian military? Keep in mind that those are 'friendly' allied nations of the U.S., I have intentionally left out states considered 'enemy' or 'unfriendly' to the U.S. What do you guys think?
I think anyone dying for their religious beliefs is an %$*&@#%*(. People fighting over some stupid rock that has been there for 4.6 billion years is unbelievable. Once people get over this whole "I am more righteous than you" bit, we can finally move on as a people. DD
Since it's okay for foreigners to serve in the US military, I don't see why it wouldn't be okay for Americans to serve in foreign militaries.
this reminds me of that episode from band of brothers where an american met a capture nazi who was from georgia, usa. he said his parents told him that all aryans had to come back to the fatherland to fight or some crap.
I always thought that an American serving in a foreign military was tantamount to him/her renouncing US citizenship. And special relation or no, the IDF is still a foreign army.
That is my understanding. It is illegal for an American to fight for foreign armies, regardless of the country involved, when it is in their uniform, and under the command of the other country. Of course, if it is as an American soldier on assignment attached to a foreign military, that is completely different, in the eyes of American law. Keep D&D Civil.
I'm not sure that is the case. See the RAF Eagle squadron from WWII. When the U.S. entered the war, there was zero fuss about them fighting for the RAF. Their ranks were even kept (more or less) when they were transfered to the U.S. Air Corps. I guess, had any of the Americans been captured by the Germans, it would have had stickier circumstances attached to it.
I wonder if the mandatory nature of military service for Israeli citizens has anything to do with it? And I know that the special relationship of Israel to the US has a lot to do with it. I heard this guy on talk radio last week: The Lonely Soldier http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/08...0446199-9861629?redirect=true&ie=UTF8&s=books
I do believe that many American Jews who move to Israel do this and I wonder if they give up their US citizenship to do so. Interesting question.
Thank goodness for google. From the state department *********** Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Foreign Military Service ADVICE ABOUT POSSIBLE LOSS OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND FOREIGN MILITARY SERVICE A U.S. citizen who is a resident or citizen of a foreign country may be subject to compulsory military service in that country. Although the United States opposes service by U.S. citizens in foreign armed forces, there is little that we can do to prevent it since each sovereign country has the right to make its own laws on military service and apply them as it sees fit to its citizens and residents. Such participation by citizens of our country in the internal affairs of foreign countries can cause problems in the conduct of our foreign relations and may involve U.S. citizens in hostilities against countries with which we are at peace. For this reason, U.S. citizens facing the possibility of foreign military service should do what is legally possible to avoid such service. Federal statutes long in force prohibit certain aspects of foreign military service originating within the United States. The current laws are set forth in Section 958-960 of Title 18 of the United States Code. In Wiborg v. U.S. , 163 U.S. 632 (1985), the Supreme Court endorsed a lower court ruling that it was not a crime under U.S. law for an individual to go abroad for the purpose of enlisting in a foreign army; however, when someone has been recruited or hired in he United States, a violation may have occurred. The prosecution of persons who have violated 18 U.S.C. 958-960 is the responsibility of the Department of Justice. Although a person's enlistment in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, it could subject him or her to Section 349(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] which provides for loss of U.S. nationality if an American voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship enters or serves in foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer. Loss of U.S. nationality was almost immediate consequences of foreign military service and the other acts listed in Section 349(a) until 1967 when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Afroyim v. Rusk , 387 U.S. 253. In that decision, the court declared unconstitutional the provisions of Section 349(a) which provided for loss of nationality by voting in a foreign election. In so doing, the Supreme Court indicated foreign election. In so doing, the Supreme Court indicated that a U.S. citizen "has a constitutional right to remain a citizen... unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship." Further confirmation of the necessity to establish the citizen's intent to relinquish nationality before expatriation will result came in the opinion in Vance v. Terrazas , 444 U.S. 252 (1980). The Court stated that "expatriation depends on the will of the citizen rather than on the will of Congress and its assessment of his conduct." The Court also indicated that a person's intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship may be shown by statements or actions. Military service in foreign countries usually does not cause loss of citizenship since an intention to relinquish citizenship normally is lacking. Service as a high-ranking officer, particularly in a policy-making position, could be viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Pursuant to Section 351(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a person who served in foreign armed forces while under the age of eighteen is not considered subject to the provisions of Section 349(a)(3) if, within six months of attaining the age of eighteen, he or she asserts a claim to United States citizenship in the manner prescribed by the Secretary of State. LOSS OF NATIONALITY AND TAXATION P.L. 104-191 contains changes in the taxation of U.S. citizens who renounce or otherwise lose U.S. citizenship. In general, any person who lost U.S. citizenship within 10 years immediately preceding the close of the taxable year, whose principle purpose in losing citizenship was to avoid taxation, will be subject to continued taxation. For the purposes of this statute, persons are presumed to have a principle purpose of avoiding taxation if 1) their average annual net income tax for a five year period before the date of loss of citizenship is greater than $100,000, or 2) their net worth on the date of the loss of U.S. nationality is $500,000 or more (subject to cost of living adjustments). The effective date of the law is retroactive to February 6, 1995. Copies of approved Certificates of Loss of Nationality are provided by the Department of State to the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to P.L. 104-191. Questions regarding United States taxation consequences upon loss of U.S. nationality, should be addressed to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION See also information flyers on related subject available via the Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs home page on the internet at http://travel.state.gov or via our automated fax service at 202-647-3000. These flyers include: http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_780.html
Thanks for the link, glynch, that's informative enough. And giddyup, those Jewish Americans Anderson Cooper interviewed volunteered to serve in the IDF, and as you know Israel's citizenship is based entirely on your 'Jewishness', and it's a complicated process, but as long as you're Jewish and you reside in Israel, then you will be granted the Israeli citizenship'; it's a race-based/ethnic-based state. The more interviews I see with IDF soldiers the more I realize just how many Americans are serving in the Israeli military, most of whom also happened to be spokesmen for the IDF, which makes sense I guess (the target audience is Americans more than anyone else, they want Americans to 'relate' to the Israelis, and what better way to do that than have an American -- speaking with an American accent -- speaking to them on their TV screes; pretty smart, actually). I think that while the State Dept is clear about the laws of this country in regards to foreign military service, in certain circumstances they are willing to 'look the other way' as long as it doesn't conflict with U.S. interests for the moment. I think, however, that unless the State Dept begins cracking down on it, it will set a dangerous precedent. What if a Kurdish-American wants to go overseas and join the PKK (not a state, I know) to fight for/protect "his people"? A Palestinian? A Shi'ite Lebanese? There is an issue here, IMO, that should be addressed. When you become a US citizen (or if you're born as one), you basically renounce any previous allegiances you might have had to a foreign state, and the U.S. doesn't allow its citizens to carry a 'dual citizenship', despite the fact that many do (usually secretly) carry foreign passports. I am just not comfortable with the whole idea of serving a foreign state, even if it's a friendly one (as we all know, that could change in a short period of time; see Iran pre and post-revolution, or Saddam's Iraq pre and post-invasion of Kuwait). The whole concept of America is immigrants from every part of the world abandoning their old allegiances and coming together to form one nation; if every 'hyphenated'-American started serving "his people" (meaning a specific ethnic/religious group, not his/her fellow Americans), then this nation is in serious trouble.
i agree with that. if you are a citizen of the united states, your obligations should lie with the u.s. alone. some sort of a line needs to be drawn or else, as tigermission1 stated, our country is going to end up much more fractured.
I remember when Leiberman was running for VP there was a question of where would his loyalties lie US or Isreal? I do not think it was an unneccessary question. If he had to make a decision that would hurt Isreal but help the US . . . what would he do? That is the question I have for these citizens also where do your loyalty lie? Isreal is a military state Everyone seems to be in the military or former military If the U S went to war with Isreal . .which side would they be on? Contrary to popular beleif .. American Interest and Isreali Interest are not always compatible. Rocket River
I would have to check, but unless I'm mistaken, they were volunteers, frequently "posing" as Canadians (sort of a CD wink-wink deal, if you will), who were fighting prior to Pearl and our entry into the conflict. Also, things were much more fluid back then, with many in the government, including FDR, doing what they could to help Britain, despite an isolationist Congress and public opinion against entering, "another European war." Remember, that was over 60 years ago. One heck of a lot happened without people finding out, or with unofficial approval, but approval, nonetheless. The Flying Tigers fighting in China is another example. Honestly, we live today in a society that is, in many ways, far more regimented than it was then, with far less opportunity to "slip through the cracks." In some ways, a society far less appealing, in my opinion. edit: thanks for the info, glynch... looks like they put back some of the "cracks," people can slip through, in order to serve in a military other than that of the US. Keep D&D Civil.
I think that's a fair question. I was exempted from French military service because I lived abroad (and I sure wasn't going to fly over so I could serve), but my loyalty to that country is strong. If France and the US found themselves on opposite ends of a war, I couldn't bring myself to fight against either side. And, on more gray areas, I find myself arguing France's position just like many American Jews find themselves trying to justify Israel's actions. (Of course, the only reason I do that is because of the criticism. If everyone was saying what a great thing France was doing, I'd find myself objecting.) And, if I was a politician with some sway over international relations, you can bet I'd be more conciliatory toward France than other countries.
An excellent, honest answer. Nice to see someone not marching in lock-step with the masses regarding a question like this, which is really tough for those with a foot in more than one country. Sometimes I feel that way as a Texan. I'm proud of our state employees, and ashamed of our state government. I'm proud of our history as a state apart from the rest, a maverick, and ashamed that we rank at the bottom, or near the bottom in most measurements of things like health and human services, childcare for poor kids, help for the aged. I often rip my state a new one, so to speak, but I'll defend it obstinately to someone speaking badly of Texas, who's from out of state. It can be a quandry. Keep D&D Civil.
