Tom Naughton

Hmmm … interesting reactions to Arizona’s new immigration law, or anti-illegal-alien law, whichever term you prefer.  Not surprisingly, politicians from my old state of California are up in arms about it.  That’s because they prefer a different term for illegal aliens:  future loyal voters — if only they can push another amnesty bill through Congress someday. Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, has called for a moratorium on city-related travel to Arizona, and several members of the Los Angeles city council have proposed that L.A. stop doing any business with Arizona.

Mexican government officials are also up in arms, labeling the immigration law “abominable,” “a violation of human rights” and “discriminatory.” (Hard to argue with that last one; we do tend to treat criminals differently in America.)

Given all the hubub, I think the only fair course of action is to scrap the Arizona law and replace it with a new national immigration policy.  Here are the provisions it ought to contain:

• Foreigners will be admitted into the country according to their ability to contribute to our national progress.
• Foreigners will be banned from interfering in our country’s politics.
• Immigration officials must ensure that all immigrants have the necessary funds for their own sustenance and for the sustenance of their dependents.
• Foreigners may be barred from the country if  1) their presence upsets the equilibrium of the national demographics, 2) they are deemed detrimental to our economic or national interests, 3) they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, 4) they have broken any of our laws, or 5) they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.
• Immigration authorities must keep track of every single person in the country and assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants.
• A National Population Registry must be established to keep track of every single individual who comprises the population of the country and verify each individual’s identity.
• A national Catalog of Foreigners must be established to keep track of all foreign tourists and immigrants, and assign each individual with a unique tracking number.
• Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into the country will be fined.
• All foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may fined or imprisoned.
• All foreigners who fail to obey the rules of the country will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned.
• All foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be prosecuted and possibly imprisoned.
• All foreigners who are deported and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization will be imprisoned for up to 10 years.
• Foreigners who violate the terms of their visas will be imprisoned  for to up to six years.
• Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visas — such as working with out a permit – will face prosecution and possible imprisonment.
• Citizens who help illegal aliens enter the country will themselves considered criminals and face prosecution.
• Any citizen who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in this country will be subject to up to five years in prison.

Yes, yes, I know … it’s not exactly send me your huddled masses yearning to breathe free kind of stuff.  Some of those policies come off as racist, classist, or downright harsh.  So how can I possibly call them fair?

Simple:  those are Mexico’s immigration policies.  If Mexican officials think our laws are abominable and discriminatory, let’s adopt theirs instead.

With Earth Day coming up tomorrow, millions of American schoolchildren have no doubt been commanded to write an essay on global warming to prove they’ve been properly indoctrina– I mean, educated on the topic.  And, kids being kids, I’m sure many of them procrastinated and are now scrambling to find enough information to put together the required thousand words or so.

Fear not, kids.  I’m here to help with a Global Warming Q & A.  Feel free to plagiarize at will.

What does “global warming” mean?

It means the planet is slowly getting warmer.  According to some scientists, it’s happening because of something called The Greenhouse Effect.  Here’s how it works:  human beings are emitting a lot of carbon dioxide, so it’s building up in the atmosphere and trapping heat.   It’s a bit like when your car sits in the sun with the windows up.

So carbon dioxide must be at record levels.

Absolutely.  The current concentration is 385 parts per million, which, as Al Gore pointed out in An Inconvenient Truth, is the highest it’s ever been … except for when it was a lot higher.

A lot higher?!  What are you talking about?

I’m talking about the periods in earth’s history that Al Gore doesn’t talk about.  Actually, that would be most of the earth’s history, at least if we’re talking about the last 600 million years.

CO2 was higher than 385 parts per million for most of earth’s history?

Heck, yes.  We’re talking about crazy-high concentrations:  4500 parts per million in one era, 3000 parts per million in another, etc.

Wow!  It must’ve been hotter than blazes!

Nope, not always.  Sometimes it was hotter than today, and sometimes it was colder.  Sometimes the earth’s temperature plummeted even while carbon dioxide was going way up.

But how can that be?  You just said carbon dioxide produces heat.

No, I said some scientists say that.  But as for an explanation, apparently the laws of chemistry and physics changed over time.

That doesn’t seem possible.

Well, let’s try this, then:  Carbon dioxide and the earth’s temperature dated for a long time, often breaking up and going their separate ways.  But they decided to get married several thousand years ago and now travel together.

Okay, so at least in relatively recent times, when carbon dioxide goes up, it caues the temperature to go up.

Actually, the temperature goes up first, then carbon dioxide goes up.  Carbon dioxide is so powerful, its heat-producing effects can go backwards in time.

But … uh … so is higher CO2 causing warmer weather in modern times or not?

That’s what some scientists say.  However — and it’s very important you grasp this — it’s also causing record-cold temperatures like the ones we’ve had for the past few winters.  So if you sit in your car on a sunny day with the windows rolled up, the interior of the car will become very hot, but also very cold now and then.  And you’ll get more snow.

In the car?

No, on the earth.  You see, according to Al Gore, the record snowfalls we saw all over the northern hemisphere this winter were caused by global warming.

I don’t understand.

Not to worry; Al explained it to everyone in an editorial a few weeks back.  Global warming is increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, you see, so there’s more moisture in the atmosphere, which means we’re getting more rain and more snow.

But I thought global warming was going to create more deserts.

That’s correct … more rain and snow, but also more deserts.  You see, if you mix higher temperatures with more moisture, you get a desert, just like in a greenhouse.

I thought the purpose of a greenhouse is to grow more plants, like in a jungle.

No, no, no.  The earth is a special kind of greenhouse.  According to the IPCC, global warming is making the dry areas on earth drier, but also making the wet areas wetter … except in really wet areas like the Amazon rainforest, where global warming is causing the jungle to dry out.

Wait, let me get this straight:  the dry areas are getting less rain because of global warming, and the wet areas are getting more rain because of global warming, except for the wet areas that aren’t getting enough rain because of global warming?

You’re catching on.

But at least we know it’s getting warmer, right?

That’s right.  The temperature has been rising steadily, except for when it hasn’t.  But those are just decadal variations.

What’s a decadal variation?

It’s what global-warming scientists call a long period of time when there’s no rise in temperature.

Decadal … so that would mean 10 years?

Yes.  Except there was a decadal variation from 1945 to 1975, and the current decadal variation has lasted for 15 years now.  See, if the temperature rises for 21 years, that’s a long-term trend.  But if the temperature holds steady and then starts dropping over a period of 15 years, that’s a decadal variation.

But what if the temperature goes down again for, say, 20 or even 30 years?  Wouldn’t that be a long-term trend?

Of course not.  That would be two or three decadal variations strung together.  Totally different thing.

This is getting kind of confusing.

No, it’s simple.  Let me summarize:  carbon dioxide is higher now than it’s ever been except for it when it was several times higher, and that’s bad because carbon dioxide traps heat and makes the planet warmer, except for when the temperature goes down anyway. Meanwhile, the rising temperatures are making wet areas wetter and dry areas drier, except for the wet areas that are becoming drier. Is it all clear now?

No.  That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

Well, I’m afraid you might have a logical mind.  It’s mostly a good thing, but it’s not going to help your academic career.  Good luck with that paper.