At a time when this country is under attack, when we are at war abroad, when the number of our armed forces is dangerously low, the American government has decided to turn its back on a group that has been critical to our protection, not just in this war but in all wars. I refer here to the noncitizen soldier.

Since the American Revolution, noncitizens have served as a large and important part of this country’s military. Of the 3,405 recipients of this country’s highest military distinction, the Congressional Medal of Honor, 20% have been noncitizens.

From the Union Army, of which one-fifth to one-quarter were noncitizens, through World Wars I and II, the Korean War and war in Vietnam (where 462 noncitizens died in combat), the percentage of noncitizens has been significant. Today, roughly 60,000 immigrants serve on active duty in the American military.

Despite the above history, certain officials in the American government now seek to deny the right of citizenship to noncitizens who serve in the military. This issue has come to light in the context of a case that is to be heard today by the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The government argues that a single criminal conviction – including a crime as minor as a misdemeanor theft of a video game – is sufficient to bar any consideration of a veteran’s life history and current character in deciding whether to grant citizenship.

The case arose when Hollis Boatswain applied for citizenship. Mr. Boatswain, an immigrant from Trinidad, was granted the status of permanent legal resident in 1974. The next year, Mr. Boatswain fulfilled what he undoubtedly believed to be his duty to America: He left his job as a shipyard pipe fitter and volunteered – during the Vietnam War – for the U.S. Army. A year and a half later, he was honorably discharged.

Subsequent to his service in the military, Mr. Boatswain returned to work and raised a family. By all accounts, Mr. Boatswain was an exceptional father, instilling strong values in each of his children – one of his daughters was a vice president at a bank; another daughter studied criminal justice; a son worked while attending classes at Columbia. All of his children are American citizens.

On a number of occasions, he was convicted of misdemeanor possession and sale of small amounts of marijuana. He also agreed to use his Medicaid card to fill a fake prescription in return for $300. The Medicaid conviction landed him in jail for a year and he realized just how much he had jeopardized as a result of his problem with marijuana use.

Five years ago, at the age of 57, Mr. Boatswain filed an application for citizenship. At the time of his hearing for naturalization, the court heard testimony from Mr. Boatswain’s family. The court also heard testimony from a psychiatric specialist as to Mr. Boatswain’s reformed character.

None of this, however, was of any interest to the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, which took the position that Mr. Boatswain was automatically precluded from citizenship. The agency cited a statute that barred per se a non-citizen from being naturalized if he had committed certain offenses – even if those offenses were relatively minor.

The law is that while agencies may enact regulations interpreting and executing congressional legislation, they may not themselves create legislation nor may they exceed the authority granted to them by Congress.

In this case, the INS – in defiance of a congressional act exempting members of the military from the residency periods that would have triggered the automatic bar to citizenship and contrary to the historical contribution that noncitizens have made to the defense of this country – adopted a regulation that itself set off the automatic bar. The regulation adopted by the agency is thus outside the agency’s authority.

Even if it is conceded that the congressional law exempting noncitizen servicemen from the automatic bar is unclear, then the courts must still rule in favor of the exemption for members of the military. The Supreme Court, in King v. St. Vincent’s Hosp., has stated that ambiguous laws must be interpreted in favor of veterans owing to the “canon that provisions for benefits to members of the Armed Services are to be construed in the beneficiaries’ favor.”

Mr. Boatswain is not asking to be granted citizenship simply because he is a veteran. He is instead asking for a chance to prove that he is now a man of good character, a man who is likely to contribute to this nation. At the least, he deserves that.

Mr. Rips, who was a law clerk to Justice Brennan, practiced law in New York.