With a three-week reprieve to a government shutdown, immigration now moves front and center in the congressional debate. Democrats want a resolution to the dispute over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program by which the “Dreamers,” minors who came to the United States illegally, often with their parents, while President Trump wants funding for the U.S.-Mexico border wall.

The “Dreamers” do present a moral quandary. Most do not bear any personal responsibility for the decision to enter the U.S. illegally, and many have lived in the U.S. for years, even decades, and do not have any functional memory of their country of citizenship. Yet it is wrong for their supporters to suggest that they do not already have a path to citizenship.

Writing over at OpsLens, a website whose stable of writers all have prior operational experience in military, special operations, intelligence, diplomatic, or police work, Bart Marcois, a former diplomat and principal deputy assistant secretary of energy for international affairs during the George W. Bush administration, notes that there is nothing preventing Dreamers from using service in the U.S. military as a fast track to citizenship.

He writes:

Supporters of DACA refer to enrollees as children, but most of them are no longer minors. ... The majority of enrollees are now between 18 and 36 years old. Many of their contemporaries are serving in the armed forces. Some of their former classmates from school have died in battle, or are learning to live with traumatic brain injuries, or adjusting to life with artificial body parts.

Marcois points out that, on July 3, 2002, Bush signed an executive order to enable any noncitizen to apply for citizenship by serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services explains the various pathways the military provides to citizenship.

True, those joining the military must behave honorably and be of good character but, then again, why should the U.S. accept any immigrant, legal or not, who is not of good character?

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and his political allies appear ready once again to shut down government in order to force a solution for DACA residents. But, if a path for illegal aliens (or “undocumented immigrants” as today’s doublespeak mandates) exists, then why exactly does Congress have to demand a new one? And why shouldn’t citizenship — especially after years of illegal residence — come with a service requirement, of the very sort that many countries already have?

Perhaps Dreamers believe it unfair they would have to serve, when so many of their peers choose not to do so. The growing cultural gap between those who serve and those who do not is a problem, but it is also true that the parents and grandparents of many of today’s students did serve in World War II, Korea, or Vietnam. They understood then what so many today forget: The United States is not a land of endless entitlement. Those who seek the benefits of citizenship should also be willing to pay a price.

President John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” How sad it is that a sentiment that was met with bipartisan applause in 1961 has been so abandoned today by those who advocate for illegal or undocumented immigrants who are able-bodied and could easily walk into a recruitment office and, within a matter of months, be on the path to win their citizenship.

Michael Rubin (@Mrubin1971) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former Pentagon official.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.