Environmental Disaster

Well, the accident on the oil rig off the coast of New Orleans is sure to setup a new round of battles between left and right on the subject of offshore drilling. Both sides will agree that this accident is tragic, first in loss of life, and second to the environment. That is about where the similarities will end though,

There is no doubt the left will use this as a prime example of why we should not expand drilling, and for that matter shut down existing drilling because of the perceived threat to the environment. But is this the best move for our country?

• Will it reduce our dependence on fossil fuels?
  
• Will it drive the price of gasoline high enough to encourage development of alternative energy sources?
  
• Will it "save the planet"?
  

Currently there are over 3,500 drilling platforms operating offshore in the United States. A large number of these platforms are in the Gulf of Mexico. The last major spill involving a drilling platform offshore was in 1969, off the coast of Santa Barbara. That spill left a scar on American energy policy that stills prevails today. compared to this accident, that was a minor spill! Now 40 plus years later another accident occurs which most likely have a crippling, longer lasting impact on policy, than the environmental impact itself.

As a result of this accident over 220,000 gallons of crude are spilling out every day. Over 3500 other platforms are pumping out similar amounts daily, and have been for years with no detrimental environmental impact. These oil platforms survived Katrina without spilling a single drop of crude oil into the gulf. They survive hurricanes, year after year, without an accident. Does a single accident in 40 years mean we should curtail, limit, or eliminate offshore drilling? I think not. We need to have an effective policy, remain diligent to mitigate the possibly of an accident, and react efficiently and effectively when an accident does occur.

Immigration Law

Ok, I admit I am somewhat of a simpleton… that is my perspective on many things are very simple. I am baffled by all the uproar about the new Arizona immigration law. Based on the uproar, you would think the state of Arizona is trying to upstage Federal Immigration law and set independent immigration policy. I have read the entire law and I do not see it. The first paragraph states:

The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.

Clearly stated is the intent to apply Federal Immigration laws, not Arizona Immigration law.


The next argument I hear about the new law is that is implores racial profiling and is racist in nature against persons of Hispanic decent. The second paragraph of the new law states:

"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town, or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the Federal Government."

The new law clearly states "that the person is an alien" not the person is Hispanic. This law applies equally to Hispanic, Asian, Middle Eastern, European, etc. Is it a fact that the majority of Arizona's illegal immigration involves persons of Hispanic decent? The obvious answer is Yes; but the law applies equally to all persons where a reasonable suspicion exists.


Current Federal Law regarding the rights and responsibilities of all legal immigrants requires them to "Carry proof of your permanent resident status at all Times, and change your address online or provide it in writing to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) within 10 days of each time you move."
Based on this requirement, Arizona authorities are not asking immigrants to do anything new or different. If I was a legal immigrant to any country, I would not find it unreasonable for that host country to require me to carry proof of legal status at all times. Several prominent leaders have equated this new law to Nazi Germany requiring Jews to carry identification papers at all times. There is one big difference here. Those Jews were German citizens, not immigrants. The correlation is misguided and faulty!


If the Federal Government, under Republicans or Democrats, would enforce existing immigration laws and protect the borders and the citizenry as required in the Constitution, Arizona would not have been compelled to spend precious time and resources on this bill! Following Arizona's lead 5 other states are considering passing similar legislation in their own states.