Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (521136)	1/8/2004 12:40:59 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 769670

The Bush proposal Linda Chavez (archive) January 8, 2004 \| Print \| Send URL:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindachavez/lc20040108.shtml President Bush announced a sweeping new immigration reform proposal this week that could become a hot-button issue in the November election. For months, insiders have hinted that the president would propose a new guest worker program aimed at allowing more foreign workers into the country on a temporary basis. Widely favored by the American business community, a guest worker program would allow employers to fill jobs in industries that routinely experience shortages of workers willing to do the often difficult, dangerous jobs Americans shun -- at least at wages that allow employers to remain in business. But the guest worker provisions won't be the most controversial part of the administration's new proposal. Although some groups that want to limit immigration altogether -- such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) -- oppose guest worker plans, even such staunch restrictionists as Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) are on record supporting the idea of guest workers. The real battle will be over what to do with those millions of illegal aliens who are already here. Some 8-12 million illegal aliens reside in the United States now -- up three- or four-fold from a decade ago. An estimated 60 percent of these are from Mexico alone, and it is no accident that the Bush plan was announced in anticipation of the president's meeting with his Mexican counterpart, President Vicente Fox, next week. The White House announced less than a week before the Fox meeting that millions of illegal aliens from Mexico and elsewhere will be allowed, over time, to earn legal status in the U.S., so long as they have been working continuously, paid taxes and not broken other laws. The plan will impose some penalties on these workers -- most likely fines similar to those proposed in legislation sponsored by Republican Representatives Jeff Flake and Jim Kolbe and Senator John McCain, all from Arizona. These proposals may not offer perfect justice -- who can blame those who resent rewarding "line jumpers" with legal status while millions of other would-be immigrants wait patiently to enter the country legally. But "earned legalization" is probably the best solution to a largely intractable problem. There is no way that the United States can find and deport 8-12 million illegal aliens in this country, and even if we could, we would do more harm than good. The American economy depends on these workers, who, along with legal immigrants, contributed significantly to the economic boon of the 1990s. If FAIR could wave a magic wand and make these illegal aliens disappear overnight, the rest of us would suffer by having to pay more for everything from the food we put on the table to the houses in which we live. Our office buildings wouldn't get cleaned, our crops wouldn't get picked, our meat wouldn't get processed, nor our tables cleaned when we go out to eat. Sure, we could double wages to attract American-born workers to some of these jobs, but at even twice the salary it would be difficult to fill the nastiest of these tasks, like processing poultry. But why would we want American workers, who we've spent trillions of dollars educating for 13 or 14 years, on average, to perform jobs that require only the most minimal skills? Even if we got rid of all illegal aliens in the U.S., these jobs would likely go to foreign workers, like it or not. What sense does it make to insist that we get rid of the very people doing these jobs now in order to make way for other foreign workers to take them under a new guest worker plan? It makes a lot more sense to figure out how to get those illegal aliens already employed at these jobs to come in from the shadows and become part of the legal system. They should pay a penalty for having broken the law in the first place by sneaking into the country or overstaying their visas, but it is better for all of us if they earn their way toward legal status than remain in the illegal netherworld where they now hide. Linda Chavez is President of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a Townhall.com member organization. ©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

To: calgal who wrote (521136)	1/8/2004 12:43:42 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 769670

Iraq goals By Paul Greenberg Typographical or spelling errors, however embarrassing, can be corrected in the next edition. More serious than mere mistakes, and harder to pin down, are misjudgments. Everything in a newspaper column may be spelled and punctuated correctly, yet a year later, the gist of it can cry out for rethinking. For example, for some months now I've been urging Wesley Clark to take the high road in his presidential campaign, set himself apart from his rivals, raise the level of public discourse, be a candidate of consensus rather than conflict, a uniter and not a divider ... all that high-minded stuff. In short, be an Eisenhower. Only gradually has it begun to dawn on me that being an Eisenhower may not be a matter of adopting a certain campaign strategy. Or the result of any conscious choice at all. A leader either is, or he isn't. It's a matter of temperament, character, experience, judgment ... and Wesley K. Clark just may not have all that in him. I may have been asking for the impossible. Then there is Iraq, which still crackles and simmers in the news. The speed of the assault that brought down Saddam Hussein's regime stunned and impressed. It could no more have been anticipated than the slow, agonizing grind of the postwar war that has followed. That should inspire some self-examination — and probing questions. For example: Have we confused the means with the ends in Iraq? When did it become a war for democracy instead of one designed to assure our national security? And just where does one end and the other begin? This war in Iraq is only the latest, and the most important, front in the war on terror. Democracy can be a great weapon in that war, but only one of many in the service of what should be the overriding goal: the security of this country and its allies and a stable, peaceful world. When democracy becomes destructive of those ends, when it prolongs a war instead of shortening it, when we insist on imposing a Western system of government in the mysterious East, no matter how much disruption it may cause, it is time to step back and think again about just what our goal is in Iraq. Is it to impose an American-style democracy on a society without an American-style history of civil institutions? Or is it to assure Iraq will not threaten us, or its neighbors, in the future? Those goals can be complementary — or they can conflict. When they do, it's time to ask which is more important. This country had every right to defend itself and its allies against the threat Saddam Hussein posed — or would like to have posed. It is nonsense to pretend his capture has not made the United States (or the Iraqi people) any safer. He would always have been a danger in that volatile part of the world, and maybe beyond. Any nostalgia for Saddam's regime is sadly misplaced. But that doesn't mean we should insist on remaking Iraq in our own image. The price of hubris is still humiliation. If Iraq becomes a peaceful nation, perhaps even an ally, it should not matter to us if that change is based on a humane interpretation of Islamic law — one that respects the rights of women and minorities and the peace of the region — or some equally authentic, deeply rooted system in that tribal society. Like ethnic loyalty. A modicum of respect for other cultures now might save us much pain and disappointment later. Why not allow each of Iraq's cohesive ethnic groups self-government to the extent they can keep the peace? To the extent they can't, it should be made clear they will remain under occupation for as long as it takes to establish a decent order. The Kurds and Shi'ites already govern themselves to a welcome degree. The Sunnis begin to get the message: They, too, can determine their own fate in this new Iraq — but only if they cease to endanger the peace. In place of old rhetoric about democracy, let us opt for a new realism in foreign affairs. Because the overriding objective of any national security policy should be national security. Paul Greenberg is a nationally syndicated columnist.