mm*
mmmm
mm
AT|!
FALli
Opinion
1
The Battauon
Page 9 • Friday, January 23, 2004
Bush’s plan reaches a solid compromise between open- and closed-door policies
A whole new world
t first glance it appears to be simply
another political move, but President
.George W. Bush’s new immigration
plan deserves support. With the presi
dential election looming around the
corner and the incumbent’s oppo
nents emerging on the horizon,
, Bush needs to make some
headlines and draw positive
attention from voters. Although
II some political strategies will be
/Nj used in 2004, his immigration plan is more sub
stantive than just another ploy to attract
^ more Hispanic voters to the republican side.
( Simply put. Bush does well to oppose
granting amnesty to illegal immigrants.
According to The Washington Times, he says
that the amnesty “encourages the
violation of our laws and perpet
uates illegal immigration.”
H<
iiir.
ntins
au.
the-
m
tngft
,00fr
offr
itive.
s aae
and
ir
be
s absolutely right.
However, the other
ide of the issue is
valid as well. Some
would argue that
America should
not alienate
itself from people of
>ther nations who desire
> make a living here. With
exception of pure-blooded
Hive Americans, virtually
:ry person living in the
United States has immigrant
blood running through his veins,
can we deny others the same
opportunity that we ourselves have
ive the American dream?
t the same time, Americans
mnot allow a massive migra
tion of people into this
country for obvious rea
sons. It would cause an
unstable economy and bur
den the current citizens unfairly. Heavy traffic, overcrowded
schools, air pollution and increased taxes are problems that are
associated with rapid population growth.
Bush’s plan offers an alternative to both sides of the conflict.
It calls for the delegation of more green cards — the first step
to U.S. citizenship. But the main aspect is that it also grants
three-year, temporary-worker cards to Mexicans who are cur
rently in the United States illegally and have U.S. jobs.
An additional catch is that senior administration
officials told The Associated Press that participat
ing in the new temporary-worker program does not
give the workers an advantage to applying for citi
zenship. This is good, because although they are
given a break for now, the current illegal work
ers in this country will eventually have to be
held responsible for violating laws.
Cecilia Munoz, vice president for policy at
the National Council of La Raza and critic /
of Bush’s plan, told the AP, “It appears to
W all about rewarding employers who
have been hiring undocumented
immigrants while offering almost
nothing to the workers them
selves.” Small
business own
ers benefit
immensely by hiring
undocumented workers
These workers, who often
work in teams as skilled land
scapers, carpenters, electricians
and other blue-collar professions,
are filling jobs that
aren’t as readily taken
by native-born
Americans. Many ille
gal immigrants have a
strong work ethic because
they know that residing in
a country illegally prohibits
them from relying on the govern
ment’s social programs to make a
decent living.
than they would if they stayed in their native countries, thus
providing a better life for their families. This way, both parties
would benefit. ,
These workers are currently illegal aliens and therefore have
no rights.
Saying this worker program does almost nothing for its
participants does not discredit the program’s success or fail
ure. Governmental programs are meant to serve Americans,
not illegal aliens. The workers are still able to work, which is
what drew them to the United States in the
first place.
But the program will actually benefit the
guest workers to some degree.
Granting legal status to undocumented
workers will benefit communities. For exam
ple, these workers will be more likely to
cooperate with local police and report crimes
without the fear of deportation. The workers
will also be free to make trips back to see
their families without fear of being pro
hibited from re-entering the country.
Bush’s immigration plan is as good
as it’s going to get. It helps millions of
Mexicans who wish to make a living
in the United States by giving
them a job other Americans are
not filling, but does not undermine
the citizenship process that legal
immigrants must endure every
ar . It also allows U.S.
employers to legally
hire its own job
seeking citizens.
This plan will gain a
larger Hispanic vote in for
Bush in the end. and rightly so.
Crack Arenas • THE BATTALION
At the same time, the workers are getting paid much more
David Ege is a junior
computer engineering major.
Israeli wall protects
with a proven method
Democrats Kerry, Dean
are missing the mark
I
n response to an increase
in suicide bombings and
terrorist activity over the
past months, the Israeli gov
ernment has opted to build a
wall around the West Bank,
separating it from the rest of
Israel. This security barrier is
intended to protect Israeli
citizens from attack by
Hamas and other Palestinian
terrorist groups.
Recently, the United Nations, the organization
that created Israel in 1948, has denied the nation's
right to defend itself. On Dec. 9, The Washington
Post reported that the United Nations called upon
the International Court of Justice in The Hague to
make a ruling on the legality of the wall.
Security barriers such as the one in Israel
should clearly be allowed by international law.
They are necessary for operational security during
war time.
According to BBC News, the United Nations
formally condemned the wall in October. In
November, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Anon
issued a report stating that the wall is illegal and
demanded its removal. These attempts by the
United Nations regarding the security barrier
were clearly ignored by Israel, as it views the
wall as necessary for security. However, a ruling
that approves such walls from The Hague, the
world’s authority on international law, will have
a greater impact.
To the United Nations, the issue is a matter of
legality. However, the United Nations denies Israel
the right to defend itself against terrorist acts. The
British government created “peace lines” between
Protestant and Catholic communities in Northern
Ireland to stem violence between the groups.
Currently, U.S. forces in Iraq employ similar secu
rity checkpoints to protect U.S. military personnel.
Thus, a ruling condemning the use of security bar
riers will, according to The International Herald
Tribune, “impair the ability of democratic nations
to deal with difficult security challenges.”
The legal precedent of security walls dates back
to the Geneva Convention, which requires that
civilians in occupied areas be treated humanely. If
anything, this will make life easier for Palestinians
in the occupied territory. Previously, the Israeli
Defense Force had a large presence in the West
Bank both guarding roadblocks and enforcing a
strict curfew. The security fence eliminates the
need for this military presence and effectively
makes life easier for the Palestinians. In fact, much
of the hostility between Palestinian citizens and
the Israeli military has ceased simply because the
soldiers are no longer in close proximity to
Palestinian neighborhoods.
Recently, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
announced that the government would consider
changing the path of the fence for “humanitarian
reasons." The Israeli government has even offered
compensation to Palestinian farmers who were
separated from their fields due to the building of
the security wall.
The Palestinians’ main concern is the issue of
land. The Palestinian Authority fears the wall is an
attempt to establish borders and seize land. The
Israeli government claims the wall is purely for
defense and is in no way meant to be a territorial
border. Even calling the defensive barrier a “wall”
is a stretch. Only a small portion of the wall is
concrete, and this exists solely in areas deemed as
“hot spots,” or places where violence from the
Palestinians was common. The rest of the barrier
is made up of fence line, ditches and patrol roads
— something, the Israelis claim, that is easy to
destroy. Even if the wall can be deemed a border,
it gives Palestinians control of more than 90 per
cent of the West Bank. The Israeli government has
realized that it will have to give up land to the
Palestinians in exchange for peace, and the
Palestinians have to make compromises as well.
Despite opposition, the wall has been extremely
effective at accomplishing its goal. Critics argue
that the wall will spur increased Palestinian attacks
and harm the peace process. However, many
believe the wall will benefit the peace process.
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger argues
that the fence will make Palestinians more accom
modating and make Israelis more willing to take
risks to achieve peace.
The wall has also been proven effective at its
immediate goal of saving lives. The Israeli govern
ment reports a decrease in suicide bombings since
the construction of the wall. More importantly,
since Israeli soldiers guard the checkpoints leading
to and from the West Bank, the wall almost entire
ly eliminates Palestinian terrorist groups such as
Hamas from targeting Israeli civilians. If terrorists
can’t get to Israeli markets and schools, they can’t
attack them. While terrorist activity against sol
diers is no less deplorable, at least soldiers are
trained to defend themselves and fight back.
In a place as desperate as the Middle East,
solutions require desperate measures. While the
Palestinians have a valid claim to having a state
of their own, no progress can be made until the
violence stops. The security barrier is a justified
action and a step toward peace. The Israeli gov
ernment has the right to protect its citizens
against terrorist attacks. A ruling by the World
Court condemning such action would be a trav
esty to justice.
I
Dan Rossell is a junior
nuclear engineering major.
"n a startling turn of
events, the once-consid-
.ered long shot John
“comeback kid” Kerry
pulled off a significant upset
over his fellow contenders in
last week's Iowa caucus. Yet,
more attention was given to
what many consider to be
the processional implosion
of former Vermont Gov.
Howard Dean.
According to a Jan. 7 Iowa poll, Dean led all
candidates while Kerry sat in third place and
Sen. John Edwards, D-NC , sat in last. After the
Iowan electorate caucused in its 1,994 respec
tive precincts, it was clear that the tide had
turned. Kerry took 38 percent of the vote,
Edwards a stunning 32 percent and Dean
stooped to an underwhelming 18 percent.
Mudslinging directed at Dean from the other
candidates plausibly accounted for part of his
swan dive. But perhaps other reasons are to
blame. Could it be Dean’s hard-hitting leftist
rhetoric and disdain for President George W.
Bush that caused Iowa to shy away? Perhaps
such bold comments such as America not being
a safer country since the capture of Sadaam
Hussein didn’t sit well with Democrats from
Iowa. It was even suggested that Dean stop tear
ing down his neighbor. Bush, and address con
tentions with more civility and class.
This is not to suggest Dean doesn’t have the
right to address his concerns; he certainly does.
Rather, it simply brings attention to Dean’s
common method of dealing with criticism,
using anger. Perhaps Dean will learn a lesson
from the two senators ahead of him who seem
to have a better grip on channeling their anger.
The Democrats may be coasting down a road
that ultimately leads to a dead end. Some won
der if democratic issues and concerns are enough
to penetrate the heart of the American electorate
and force Bush out of the White House.
In a brief victory speech, Kerry presented a *
list of issues addressing Bush’s shortcomings as
president, noting that he is willing to take the
president head-on regarding national Security.
As most people probably know, Kerry proudly
served his country during Vietnam and was
extolled as an American who saved the life of a
fellow soldier. In and of itself, this is a remark
able and commendable accomplishment from a
decorated hero who deserves appreciation and
respect. But this alone is not the basis for quali
fying oneself as a military leader capable of
handling the most powerful army in the world.
Being a model of order-taking is worlds away
from being the person who gives the orders.
And today, America requires a president w ho
understands the latter.
Understanding America and its current needs
is a vital part of the presidency, and all too
often liberals forget that less than three years
ago, U.S. national security was breached and all
Americans’ lives changed forever on a gloomy
day in September. The majority of this country
seems to understand that national security takes
top priority over other liberal agendas that are
often overemphasized, as is evidenced by
Bush's 60 percent approval rating tor his third
year in office.
But what is odd and blatantly hypocritical
are the vicious attacks from democratic candi
dates dealing with issues that plague their own
party. For example, Kerry's boldest statement in
his victory speech addressed the need to rid the
White House, and Washington, of controlling
interest groups. Yet one couldn’t help but notice
the sea of Kerry signs flailing in the audience
with that all-too-familiar Planned Parenthood
logo proudly printed on the bottom.
Liberals are notorious for playing the game
of blaming all of society’s problems on the pres
ident. From the sad truth that poor people live in
this country to the fact that people are out of
work, it always comes back to the president’s
failure to take action. Leftists love to ignore this
country’s recent quarterly review indicating it to
be the most productive growth in the past 20
years of our country’s economy.
It is time to remember that the United States’
ability and privilege to hold such caucuses can
not happen unless a freedom exists that is pre
served and protected. No campaign has any
merit whatsoever unless it is grounded in that
fundamental truth. Bush understands that truth
in his heart. Some call him a liar. Others appre
ciate his leadership. All should admire his
courage.
Kerry told those watching on Monday night
that some person brought him a four-leaf clover,
and from there, everything seemed to pick up
the pace. Maybe those who support a
Democratic nominee should consider a good
luck charm for their favorite candidate. But be
mindful of the fact that it will take more than
luck to stop Bush this November.
Matt Younger is a junior
political science major.