E-mail letters, April 30, 2010
1986 arrival given amnesty
has contributed to the area
Regarding Mr. Ward’s recent letter to the editor, my wife and I are among the many I immigrants who were granted amnesty in 1986. I speak English, not perfectly, but enough.
Since then, I’ve bought a house and put my children through school. I pay taxes, vote, volunteer in my community. I’ve felt very welcomed here in the Grand Valley.
I’ve worked many jobs, from picking fruit to painting houses. I currently own a small grocery/meat store in Fruita. He should stop by sometime.
I feel as though granting amnesty to undocumented immigrants opens up an opportunity for people — employers and employees alike. Isn’t that what this country is about?
This is my home. I don’t feel the need to leave. I don’t feel as if I don’t belong. If I could have come here legally — if from where I came that had been possible — trust me, I would have.
Drill baby drill?
The disaster that is happening on our coastline after the sunken oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico is only one good reason not to drill where we know there will be “accidents.” Another is in our own back yard.
I recently read about Oxy USA being fined a large amount of money for two cases of oil and gas contamination of spring waters northwest of Parachute. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission that oversee these operations didn’t notice for a decade that Oxy had been operating the Rock Springs pit without a permit.
It does no good to fine these companies. They should have to follow the rules before these leaks happen. And when they are caught breaking these rules they should be forced to pack it up and leave!
I don’t know anything about drilling for oil or gas, but I know if I put sugar in my coffee it’s there to stay! Please keep these companies from destroying our beautiful state.
Kim J. Crane
Government shouldn’t be
an obstacle to oil shale
On April 28, Steve Black, senior legal advisor to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, told an audience at the Unconventional Fuels Conference in Salt Lake City that oil shale is “not ready for prime time.”
Many bristled at the statement. Todd Dana of Red Leaf Resources, a company developing
technologies for oil shale extraction in eastern Utah, said that the federal government is currently standing in the way of oil shale development by refusing “regulatory guidance” and denying access to federal lands that contain the richest oil shale deposits.
Oil shale may not be ready for prime time — at least not yet. But, the same could be said for renewable energy. Secretary Salazar recently approved the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts. Cape Wind will produce electricity at two to three times the price of conventional electricity, have an environmental footprint of 24 square miles, impact tourism and fisheries, and receive hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies. When compared to coal or natural gas, this project is not “ready for prime time” either. Yet,
Secretary Salazar supports this project.
We are not here to criticize the Cape Wind decision. Indeed, America needs all the energy we can get. Despite the rise of hybrid and renewable technologies, the Energy Information Administration projects that demand for petroleum-based fuels in the U.S. will increase 14 percent by 2035. World demand for these fuels will increase by 30 percent, straining supplies and increasing oil prices. The estimated 2 trillion barrels of oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming can help meet these challenges.
Oil shale may or may not be “ready for prime time.” But, that doesn’t mean Salazar’s Interior Department cannot be a partner that creates a regulatory environment supporting private investment into our massive oil shale resources.
Curtis Moore, Executive Director
Environmentally Conscious Consumers for Oil Shale
Bennet isn’t fooling anyone
with his political ads
It appears that Michael Bennet, through a series of ads, is trying to get the voters to forget the positions he took, and his voting record since being appointed (not elected) to office.
Let’s not forget that Bennet voted a straight party line, without thought to the impact of the people he is supposed to represent. Bennet voted to increase the national debt with a bailout program that has done nothing but send more jobs and money overseas. Bennet has voted to increase the national debt through a bill to nationalize health care, while the majority of Colorado citizens did not support it.
Bennet has supported the current administration’s efforts to reduce America’s energy production and move the country to further dependence on foreign energy. Increasing the burden and cost for natural gas and coal production in this country is not what the people he represents want. As the people he claims to represent see their electrical rates increase, I hope they remember his part in their rate increases.
The smoke cloud Bennet is generating in an effort to convince his constituents he is anti-Washington will not work. We are not dumb. We will remember how he voted. He will see how we vote in November, and he will understand why he is not returning to Washington next year.
What is the criteria
for looking illegal?
Dear Mr. Anyone who looks illegal, whatever that means? Stand up! Is Arizona serious?
I read these comments from people about how it angers them that the government is too big, and that Congress and the White House are taking our constitutional rights. How is the Arizona law any different?
Now Texas, Oklahoma, Utah and (pending on elections) even Colorado could look at adding laws similar to Arizona’s SB 1070. I’m outraged.
So, what is the criteria for looking illegal anyway? What will happen to the children who
come home from school, finding out their parent(s) were deported. Who’s going to pay for all these deportations?
Yes the immigration system is broken. Yes the federal government should have stepped in before this happened. But this is not the way to go. Immigration issues belong to federal policy, not personal or state agendas.