Let me tell you the story of a constituent of mine named Humberto. His parents brought him to the United States at the age of 2, moving to Colorado when Humberto was 6. A few years ago, Humberto graduated from Aurora Central High School, the high school I attended before leaving after my junior year to enlist in the Army.

Like me, Humberto’s dream was to serve his nation in uniform. He wants to be a Marine. Unlike me, due to his parent’s decision to bring him to the United States illegally when he was 2 years old, Humberto can’t go down to the local recruiter’s office and sign up to serve the only country he has ever known.

I believe we should give young people like Humberto the opportunity to serve in this country’s military, to serve the country they call home.

Recently during the debate on the annual defense bill, I supported keeping in language that would have urged the Department of Defense to look into whether enlisting people like Humberto made sense.

The language was ultimately stripped out of the defense bill, but I want to explain why I supported keeping it in and why it is in our military’s best interest.

Those arguing against the amendment reasoned that their opposition, in part, was based on the fact that there are plenty of young people who want to join the military so that broadening the pool of eligible applicants to people brought to this country illegally is not only unnecessary, but it is potentially unfair to U.S. citizens who might be edged out by the increased competition.

The reality is, according to the Department of Defense, only 1 percent of young people today are “eligible and inclined” to sign up to serve. In fact, last year the Pentagon estimated that 71 percent of 17- to 24-year-olds in the U.S. would not be eligible to serve in the military due to educational shortcomings, medical issues, drug and alcohol dependency, or criminal records.

That is because today’s military has incredibly high standards for enlistment. We have the most qualified personnel serving in uniform in the history of our country, thanks to those high standards.

I saw firsthand what low standards can do during my first deployment with the U.S. Army’s 1st Armored Division in Europe, 1972-1974, during the Cold War. The Army had just shifted to an all-volunteer force after Vietnam and was so desperate to fill its ranks that it was all too willing to take those with little formal education, low test scores, and even felons were encouraged to join. Judges were known to tell criminal defendants that they could either join the military or go to jail.

As a result, disciplinary problems were extremely high with one in four soldiers never completing their first enlistment and receiving a less than honorable discharge. Overall readiness suffered as well.

Our military benefits from being able to select from the broadest pool of applicants possible in order to maintain high standards, which translates into a total force ready to meet the national security challenges before us.

In my view, the young people who were brought to the United States illegally as children through no fault of their own, who grew up here, who graduated from high school here, and who often know of no other country, ought to have the opportunity to serve this country if they can meet all of the qualifications.

It is not amnesty. It is an opportunity to serve the greatest nation on earth, an opportunity that only the best and the brightest will be given, and by extending that opportunity to young people like Humberto our military and country will be better off for it.

Editor’s note: A Spanish-language version of this guest commentary appeared online last week on the Univisión and Entravision sites.

U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman is an Aurora Republican and has a combined 21 years service between the Army, Army Reserve, the Marine Corps and the Marine Corps Reserve. He sits on both the House Armed Services Committee and the House Veterans Affairs Committee.