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 : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (39905)	1/10/2004 10:15:16 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 59480

Taking flight It won't be the first step, and it may not be the largest. But the Bush administration's announced decision to send Americans back to the moon and then to Mars marks a welcome step. Mr. Bush is expected to announce the details of the plan in a speech next week. The first step is likely to be development of technologies and equipment needed for the establishment of a permanent base on the moon, such as heavy-lifting rockets and new landing vehicles. Lessons learned from the lunar outpost would be applied to a manned Mars mission, which would take flight around 2020. As a consequence of that new exploratory focus, the shuttle fleet would be retired and America's role in the International Space Station would be phased out. The danger with such an extended timeline is that it might never make it off the ground. In 1989, Mr. Bush's father made a similar commitment — a return to the moon followed by a mission to Mars. However, Congress refused to allocate funds for the estimated $400 billion project. This effort could be even more costly and deficits are already great. For the necessary shift in space policy to take effect, Mr. Bush will have to lay out more than a specific goal. At some point, timelines and deadlines will also have to be established. In addition, budgetary concerns will require the administration to consult regularly with Congress. Many will see Mr. Bush's decision as an election-year effort to shore up domestic support. That context cannot be ignored, but other concerns are at least as salient. The reduced shuttle fleet is aging, and potential replacements have not gone beyond preliminary planning stages. The manned space program has been moribund for some time, and China has the demonstrated ability to put individuals in orbit and the declared intention of sending them to the moon. While the costs of going to the moon (and beyond) are great, the potential benefits are even greater. In addition to serving as a testing ground for Mars-bound equipment, a lunar base would also be an important scientific laboratory. At some point, mining and manufacturing facilities might even be established. Yet again breaking the bonds of low-earth orbit would fulfill an even more important purpose, reviving the drive to explore and discover — what Mr. Bush called the "desire written on the human heart." Since the frontier closed over a century ago, Americans have searched for ways to manifest those aspirations, ingrained as they are in the national character. After many falterings and a few disasters, America again has the opportunity to lead the way into space. Mr. Bush is launching the nation on a critical endeavor. Legislators should listen and be prepared to follow his lead.

To: calgal who wrote (39905)	1/10/2004 10:15:30 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

In immigration's trenches By Linda Chavez 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 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, Colorado Republican, 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. Between 8 million and 12 million illegal aliens reside in the United States now — up three- or fourfold from a decade ago. An estimated 60 percent of these are from Mexico alone, and it is no accident 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 in legislation proposed by Republican Reps. Jeff Flake and Jim Kolbe and Sen. John McCain, all of 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 the United States can find and deport 8 million to 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 — on whom 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 we get rid of the very people doing these jobs now 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 a nationally syndicated columnist.