Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited / The authors examine the history of immigrant military service in the United States, explore the motivations of noncitizen enlistees, and analyze the military performance of noncitizens relative to that of citizen enlistees. Information sources include a comprehensive review of literature, focused interviews with a small sample of noncitizen enlistees, and cohort data files of enlisted personnel who entered the military from 1990 through 1998. The history of noncitizen service corresponds roughly to the nation's history of immigration and naturalization policy, with military service having offered immigrants economic benefits, as well as a path toward assimilation. Service by noncitizens has also provided the country a way to meet its military manpower needs. The results of statistical analyses suggest noncitizens have lower predicted rates of first-term attrition, and higher estimated rates of retention beyond the first term and promotion to E-4. The authors conclude that noncitizens provide a valuable source of manpower, and fulfill important roles as influencers for the next generation. Thus, it may be worthwhile to provide noncitizens more information about enlistment opportunities, and to implement unique reenlistment incentives including expedited green-card status for family members. Future research should examine specific ethnic categories of interest within the population of noncitizens. / First Lieutenant, Turkish Army / Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy

This is a collection of four papers about the All-Affected Principle (AAP): the view that every person whose morally weighty interests are affected by a democratic decision has the right to participate in that decision. The first paper ('Narrow Possibilism about Democratic Enfranchisement') examines how we should distribute democratic participation rights: a plausible version of AAP must avoid treating unlike cases alike, which would be procedurally unfair. The solution is to distribute participation rights proportionately to the risk that a person's interests will be affected. AAP thus implies an account of political equality that requires adherence to the 'one person-one vote' model only if interests are indeed equally affected. The second paper ('Economic Participation Rights and the AAP') argues that AAP supporters have paid insufficient attention to economic participation rights. The exercise of such rights raises unique worries about democratic accountability, which is why their exercise is constrained by a number of duties. The third paper ('What AAP Is, and How (Not) to Fight It') explores how AAP fares in light of possible objections from desirability and feasibility. Unlike crude versions of AAP, a plausibly restricted version of AAP cannot be dismissed as easily as many AAP sceptics may have thought. My reflections here are useful for AAP supporters and sceptics alike: this paper helps clarify what kind of objection can cast serious doubt on AAP. The fourth paper ('Criminal Disenfranchisement, Political Wrongdoing, and Affected Interests') asks: is AAP compatible with criminal disenfranchisement? AAP, when endorsed in combination with a plausible theory of punishment, is compatible with disenfranchising a narrow set of criminal wrongdoers only: those guilty of 'political wrongdoing', which is wrong primarily because it undermines democratic procedures and institutions for private gain. The upshot is that current blanket policies of criminal disenfranchisement are incompatible with AAP.