Monday, July 12, 2010

"Root for BP and hope for the best." & Arizona gets sued

That, my dear Rioters, is a direct quote from this article in the Los Angeles Times. It talks about how BP - the most hated company in America right now - is trying yet another time to cap the leaking oil well. This time they're attempting to fit a 'snug-fitting cap' on the top, which would direct 60,000-80,000 barrels to four container vessels.

Would this be a permanent solution? No, but it would definitely help out until the promised relief well can be finished. Of course, I'm pretty curious as to where this number of 60,000-80,000 barrels to be collected came from. My guess? BP. And if that's true, then I'm not really too keen on believing it.

However, Steve Kloor, a citizen in the area of New Orleans, summed up what everybody's feeling:

Kloor said he had no choice but to root for BP and hope for the best. "Do I have confidence?" he said. "Sure, I have to — it's the only hope I have."

All we know now is that the next step is to attempt getting that cap on, and that isn't expected to happen until Wednesday. Hopefully, I'll have good news to report by then.

In other news that has yet to play out: The federal government is suing the state of Arizona. Guess why! Yes, this news is about a week old, but I was hoping something would be worth reporting before I wrote about it on the blog. There's not.

Here's the rundown. Attorney General Eric Holder is arguing on behalf of the federal government that Arizona law SB 1070 (their immigration reform bill) is 'inconsistent with our federal constitution.' Governor Jan Brewer called the suit 'outrageous.' Opponents of the suit say this is being done for moral reasons, as this kind of legislation will inevitably lead to racial profiling - which is more a civil rights issue than a legal/constitutional one. However, proponents of the lawsuit say it is unconstitutional.

In defense of the opponents, I would like to say I don't like how the government isn't specifically detailing how the law is unconstitutional. The Attorney General seems content to merely say it is. Alternatively, from a legal perspective, I can see how not laying out your case in public is a smart legal move.

In the original article, there's a quick yes or no quiz you can take on whether you think SB 1070 is constitutional or not. As of this posting it was 77% yes and 23% no. This bill does have a lot of support around America. Many Americans are quite upset that the federal government hasn't fixed the serious problem of immigration reform. And, while the AG is suing the state of AZ, he does say he understands that immigration reform needs to occur.

"I understand ... the frustration of the people of Arizona and the concerns that they have with regard to the amount of illegal immigration that occurs....But the solution that the Arizona legislature came up with is inconsistent with our federal constitution."

I think you all know that I agree with that sentiment. However, I'd like to hear from YOU! Let me know your thoughts on immigration reform in general. Did Arizona do the right thing? Do you believe the federal government needs to hurry their ass up on fixing immigration law, or should more states create vigilante laws with potentially discriminatory practices? Or is there a secret option C you think is available? Comment, tweet, or email IncitingARiotPodcast@gmail.com.

Love and Lyte,

Fire Lyte

7 comments:

  1. The only problem I have with the AZ Bill, is the part about people who "look" illegal... As far as the rest, adults (of ALL races) are legally required to carry identification at all times in public. I always have. Why is it so difficult to carry papers proving your residency status?!?!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with kilorglin - if you can't produce proof that you are in this country legally, what difference does it make whether you "look" legal or not? There are plenty of folks out there who "look" American and have the speech patterns down pat, but aren't here legally. As far as I am concerned, if providing proof of being "legal" is so simple, why is there a problem???

    ReplyDelete
  3. Guys, I've heard it isn't just your driver's license or passport they're looking for here. It's your birth certificate, Social Security card, and/or nationalization papers. You know, the forms of identification most people DON'T usually carry around.

    And yeah, if you have olive-to-mid-brown skin and dark hair, and you DON'T have those papers on you when you're in Arizona, you can say goodbye to your home in the States--permanently.

    Not to mention the number of hoops prospective immigrants have to go through just to become legalized citizens or resident aliens in the first place...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thats pretty amusing gothisnotemo. Where did you read that?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Possibly the full-text version of SB 1070?

    FL

    ReplyDelete
  6. As someone who's gotten confused for a Latina on several occasions (mostly people assuming I speak MUCH better Spanish than I actually do), I'm very much aware of the possible abuse of SB 1070--because if other states pass measures like this one, I could very easily become a victim.

    I'm not Latina. I honestly didn't think I looked it. But I've confused Mexican people before, so I'm not at all confident about my ability to convince race-profiling cops that I actually am who I say I am.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Then you should move to AZ, have a lucrative lawsuit on your hands if you are racially profiled.

    Firelyte, the bill isn't going to cause a legal resident to lose their home here if they don't have their birth certificate on them.

    In other news, looks like hoping for BP worked. The cap seems to be working. Huzzah!

    ReplyDelete