Birchfield

Flames burning into the palm trees on the coast of Santa Barbara during California’s Thomas Fire in December 2017 (Greg Birchfield, CalFire).

Due to the wildfires burning in California for the past week, many are asking: Was there something the state government could have done to prevent these disasters?

One possible solution was rejected by the state’s governor a couple years ago. Senate Bill 1463, introduced by California State Senator John Moorlach of Costa Mesa, was vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown in September 2016.

California has had 7,579 fires during 2018, the most destructive number on record for the state (Savanna Birchfield, MultiMediaMouth).

This bill would authorize the Public Utilities Commission to establish rules for public utilities- like Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and Edison- to reduce fire hazard in brush and wooded areas near power lines. This means they would have to “maintain a clearance in all directions between all vegetation and all conductors that are carrying electric current”, according to the bill’s text at the California Legislative Information website.

With the knowledge that the Thomas Fire, which burned through Ventura County and Santa Barbara County, being started by Edison power lines and PG&E currently being blamed for the Camp Fire that destroyed the town of Paradise in Northern California, many people are blaming this veto for the 80 deaths and almost one thousand people unaccounted for.

President Trump again tweeted about his unhappiness with the forest management on November 11 (@realDonaldTrump, Twitter).

In Brown’s veto letter, he says the bill is redundant with the Commission already “doing just that through the existing proceeding on fire-threat maps and fire-safety regulations”.

To further the discontent of the public, Brown recently passed Senate Bill 901, which reverses previous laws that “prohibit an electrical corporation or gas corporation… from recovering from ratepayers expenses”.

Critics, including President Donald Trump, condemn the “gross mismanagement of the forests” in California, which the president stated in a tweet November 10.

With many so unhappy about the governor’s decisions in relation to fire prevention, Californians are waiting to see what his next move will be before his term ends in January.

       Brazil elected its new president Sunday, a member of the Social Liberal Party, named Jair Bolsonaro.

       So who is this new leader and how could his changes affect the United States?

       First, let’s figure out what exactly the Social Liberal Party (PSL) of Brazil is.

       This party was first founded October 30, 1994 with the belief that a free society is the main requirement for development in Brazil and the elimination of poverty.

       It stands for limited federal government, more representation from local government, and greater involvement from the community.

       Some specific issues that the party believes in include stronger protection of their borders, allowing citizens to own firearms, and raising awareness of the evils of socialism and communism.

       Bolsonaro himself did not join the PSL until January 2018, with his previous party affiliation being the Social Christian Party.

       With his arrival to the PSL, the party adopted more conservative ideologies, with their original stances being more libertarian.

       Bolsonaro is known for his desire of stronger traditional family values in Brazil, and for being opposed to same-sex marriage, abortion, and drug decriminalization.

       As a 17-year veteran of the Brazilian Army, Bolsonaro also supports improving the salaries of military members and giving more budget funds to the military.

       Brazil, like the US, is a democratic Republic, with both countries having the largest economies in the Western Hemisphere. 

       With Bolsonaro and President Donald Trump both being well-known as outspoken conservatives, this could mean an even better relationship between the two countries.

       The White House has stated that Trump is eager to work side-by-side with the new Brazilian leader, and Bolsonaro has stated that much like the US President wants to make America great, he wants to make Brazil great.

       Recently, the president announced that he is sending 800 active-duty National Guard troops to the southern border of the United States in preparation for the over 7,000-person caravan heading north from Central America.

       With the controversy surrounding this event, there is an important question to ask: Is President Trump justified in sending this extra manpower to the U.S. border?

       The answer is yes.

       Since our country first began, we have always been prideful of the fact that we are a nation built upon immigration.

       The process of becoming a U.S. citizen currently being extremely difficult, combined with the fact that there is a large amount of animosity towards those running our federal government, has caused those seeking a new life here to do so illegally.

       With that in mind, we have to remind ourselves that no matter how helpless or desperate those trying to cross our border look, they are essentially invading our country by doing it in an unlawful way.

       As someone that comes from a family that legally gained their citizenship here less than a century ago, I find it almost insulting that those who put the work in to come here the right way are shunned in favor of those doing it in the worst way possible.

       The caravan heading towards our border right now has sparked a lot of arguments between the opposing sides of politics, with many that are left-leaning claiming that the enactment of sending troops to meet these “asylum-seeking migrants” is a sign of possible violence to come.

       While this could be a fair argument, we have to remember that there are protocols the National Guard must follow before resorting to any kind of violent action.

       For example, the National Guard cannot act as law enforcement- they cannot arrest, search, or seize- unless given authorization, which must come from the Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, himself.

       If you question the morality of Mattis due to distain for the president, I will remind you that the White House has publicly stated it finds him to be extremely moderate in comparison to President Trump when it comes to these kinds of issues.

       The only reason troops are being sent to the border is to provide extra security for Border Patrol Agents who are being stretched thin.

       Many have forgotten that as a country we need to be mindful of the safety of our own people before we concern ourselves with anything else.

       By no means should we not allow people into our country who need our help, but we must first follow the proper steps of figuring out who exactly we are letting into the United States.

       One concern is that the Mexican cartels control the border from the south.

       The people that do illegally cross, do so by paying the cartels for their passage here.

       While most of the time this does not mean these people are necessarily members of the cartel, there is always the risk of letting the wrong kind of people into the country if we do not first identify who they are.

       The way to solve this issue is to strengthen our borders and improve our immigration process.

       Some would say sending troops to assist the Border Patrol is a path in the right direction for strengthening the border and encouraging other, legal, avenues for migrating here.