I was discussing a myriad of topics with a co-worker,and this can lead into a rather complex arena. im going to give some bullets and would like to gather a general consensus....

in Germany after graduating your required to either serve in the military or nursing corp

what if you didnt have the right to vote, but had to earn it.
by serving the nation as a whole. ie in the medical field or military. for those unable to do either they would have to get an education....either through a trades program or to complete their general studies through college.

we cannot deport 20 million illegals and lets face it, even if we did it wouldnt happen, but amnesty could be given, and they could earn their right to be here as our forefathers did.

for those that put forth to better society they have earned the right to be called US citizens and can vote
for those who wish to get by their voting right is taken away and are simply civillians.

and this isnt just for illegals but also for people that are willing to ride out our welfare system

There are levels of folks on welfare. There are those who work
a job and recieve the "hand up". By all means, they deserve a voice.
Then, you have, what I will call the welfare-ho. Male/female can qualify in this category. They only consume and can't be trusted to make informed decisions. Their drug, welfare, blinds them to what be best for the people. Their only concern is the selfish, you owe me, mentality.

It is a great idea for all 18 to 30 year olds to serve their obligation to the military. We could use the manpower to round up the approx 25 million illegals and patrol every square inch of all the borders. They could also be posted inspecting all containers entering the country.
The service would teach then dicipline, team work and strong work ethics that many of todays youth and adults don't grasp.

One of the notions used by all sides to justify the draft, is that “rights impose obligations.” Obligations, to whom?—and imposed, by whom? Ideologically, that notion is worse than the evil it attempts to justify: it implies that rights are a gift from the state, and that a man has to buy them by offering something (his life) in return. Logically, that notion is a contradiction: since the only proper function of a government is to protect man’s rights, it cannot claim title to his life in exchange for that protection.

The only “obligation” involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html

Draft

¶

Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man’s fundamental right—the right to life—and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man’s life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time.

If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and crippling, in a war declared at the state’s discretion, for a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required to send him into unspeakable martyrdom—then, in principle, all rights are negated in that state, and its government is not man’s protector any longer. What else is there left to protect?

The most immoral contradiction—in the chaos of today’s anti-ideological groups—is that of the so-called “conservatives,” who posture as defenders of individual rights, particularly property rights, but uphold and advocate the draft. By what infernal evasion can they hope to justify the proposition that creatures who have no right to life, have the right to a bank account? A slightly higher—though not much higher—rung of hell should be reserved for those “liberals” who claim that man has the “right” to economic security, public housing, medical care, education, recreation, but no right to life, or: that man has the right to livelihood, but not to life.

One of the notions used by all sides to justify the draft, is that “rights impose obligations.” Obligations, to whom?—and imposed, by whom? Ideologically, that notion is worse than the evil it attempts to justify: it implies that rights are a gift from the state, and that a man has to buy them by offering something (his life) in return. Logically, that notion is a contradiction: since the only proper function of a government is to protect man’s rights, it cannot claim title to his life in exchange for that protection.

The only “obligation” involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected.

Politically, the draft is clearly unconstitutional. No amount of rationalization, neither by the Supreme Court nor by private individuals, can alter the fact that it represents “involuntary servitude.”

A volunteer army is the only proper, moral—and practical—way to defend a free country. Should a man volunteer to fight, if his country is attacked? Yes—if he values his own rights and freedom. A free (or even semi-free) country has never lacked volunteers in the face of foreign aggression. Many military authorities have testified that a volunteer army—an army of men who know what they are fighting for and why—is the best, most effective army, and that a drafted one is the least effective.

It is often asked: “But what if a country cannot find a sufficient number of volunteers?” Even so, this would not give the rest of the population a right to the lives of the country’s young men. But, in fact, the lack of volunteers occurs for one of two reasons: (1) If a country is demoralized by a corrupt, authoritarian government, its citizens will not volunteer to defend it. But neither will they fight for long, if drafted. For example, observe the literal disintegration of the Czarist Russian army in World War I. (2) If a country’s government undertakes to fight a war for some reason other than self-defense, for a purpose which the citizens neither share nor understand, it will not find many volunteers. Thus a volunteer army is one of the best protectors of peace, not only against foreign aggression, but also against any warlike ideologies or projects on the part of a country’s own government.

Not many men would volunteer for such wars as Korea or Vietnam. Without the power to draft, the makers of our foreign policy would not be able to embark on adventures of that kind. This is one of the best practical reasons for the abolition of the draft.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/draft.html

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/duty.html

During the War of 1812, Daniel Webster eloquently made the case that a military draft was unconstitutional:

"Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine had no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that the instrument was intended as the basis of a free government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our government."

Another eloquent opponent of the draft was former President Ronald Reagan who in a 1979 column on conscription said:

"...it rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state — not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers — to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea."

I'm on my phone so, I can't look it up.
Fed law states, all, and I believe, it states, males between the ages of 18 to 35 have a 4 or 6 year obligation to serve. Discharged vets can also be recalled.

this isnt about a draft really.
its more about the right to vote...hence citizen vs. civillian
not everyone deserves their voice to be heard
if you cannot contribute to society you are a burden and lose the right to say anything.