Lost among all the recent debate over the fate of DACA, DREAMERS, border walls and weak-kneed compassion for immigrants and newcomers (versus good old fashioned common sense and law enforcement) is the national security threat illegal immigration represents.



It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that a failure to secure and maintain America’s borders presents a dangerous proposition to the people who live here. Likewise, there are more than a few international threats to our national security that keep our military and intelligence operations busy and on edge 24 hours a day.



But when running down the list of potential menaces to Americans’ everyday pursuit of happiness it’s safe to say most of us rank the notion of climate change pretty low -- if not completely off the board. In our collective national apathy towards climate fluctuations are we ignoring something that’s really dangerous?



Retired 4-Star Admiral and Supreme Allied Commander at NATO from 2009 to 2013 James Stavridis thinks so; he wrote at Bloomberg, “[The administration’s attitude towards the threat of climate change is not surprising] given President Donald's Trump's campaign rhetoric expressing extreme skepticism about climate change, the appointment of an Environmental Protection Agency administrator who doesn’t believe man-made global warming is real, and the Trump administration's foolish decision to pull out of the Paris climate accord. By following this path, the U.S. is not only surrendering a position of global leadership on this crucial issue, but it's laying itself open to real security risks in the decades ahead.



“What makes climate change so pernicious is that while the effects will only become catastrophic far down the road, the only opportunity to fix the problem rests in the present. In other words, waiting ‘to be sure climate change is real’ condemns us to a highly insecure future if we make the wrong bet. We are in danger of missing not only the vast forest of looming climate change, but the ability to see some of the specific trees that will cause us the most problems.”



It shouldn’t escape your attention that Stavridis was NATO commander during Obama’s first term and wouldn’t have ascended to the position while being hostile to the prevailing globalist belief in the power of science to diagnose world problems and then propose autocratic government-centered solutions. If the climate threat is truly so acute one would think the green-lobby would lean on the world’s biggest polluters (like China and India) to change their ways rather than only lobbying hard to apply the brakes to the U.S. economy.



To avoid ambiguity Stavridis lists some of the most obvious and pressing climate change issues including: Water scarcity, droughts and resource struggles leading to wars and terrorism; Arctic melting, rising geopolitical tension and competition; Economic impact that undermines our ability to spend on defense, and, Extreme weather.



In terms of “extreme weather” Stavridis refers to the devastating hurricanes that hit Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico last year. What about the previous decade-plus of below normal hurricane activity?



As would be expected Stravridis chastises Donald Trump and his administration for failing to properly defer to the climate scientists’ opinions and take seriously the looming cataclysm that no one could accurately forecast. By the tone of his article it almost sounds as though Stavridis is arguing for a complete shift in national security strategy away from the very visible terrorism dangers in favor of dumping more resources into saving polar bears from starvation. No doubt Bernie Sanders, Crooked Hillary Clinton and the entirety of the leftist Democrat party agrees.



It’s also a little strange how these same politicians and academics who downplay the discernible pressing danger from unchecked immigration across our southern border and from various war-torn regions around the world can keep a straight face when advancing climate change as a serious national security threat requiring immediate action to stave off a slow-drip disaster decades from now.



Millions of people have entered the country illegally and continue to do so despite the best efforts of the border patrol while millions more remain here long past their official permission (visas) to do so. Little or nothing can be done to track these folks individually. If there’s a “ticking time bomb” in regards to national security it resides within these populations of people who resist assimilation, some of whom harbor silent hatred against this country -- not in driving your car to work or running your air conditioner at home. That’s a fiction prolonged by politicians with an agenda.



While there is evidence that the climate is indeed changing there are also reputable scientists who refute the assertions of the majority of academics who warn the earth is heading towards calamity.



Of course the media parrots the claims of such alarmists perpetuating the hysteria that science is about to overwhelm us and if we don’t turn over the keys to the United States treasury and restrain the growth of the economy by force of law that calamitous outcomes will result. Keep in mind all of these things are merely calculations of what could happen decades down the road if carbon emissions aren’t curtailed sooner.



Many skeptics recall the scientific community in the 70’s predicting the onset of the next ice age including the famous Time Magazine headline, “How to Survive the Coming Ice Age.” And although last winter was one of the warmest on record for many regions of the country this year has thus far been significantly colder than average.



Both sides will continue to go back and forth over the issue with little resolved as long as the public remains unconvinced that a few degrees of fluctuation in average global temperatures will inevitably lead to the end of life as we know it.



If anything the movement towards fostering more energy production (and the resulting carbon emissions from it) seems to be gaining momentum. The Editors of the Washington Examiner wrote last week, “There is a limited window in which America can unlock its wealth and power through the production and export of as much oil as possible. It would be a dereliction for the federal government, out of misguided concern about environmental problems that it cannot solve, to let the Saudi royal family, the Iranian mullahs, and Russia’s kleptocracy make the most money from selling the most oil.



“Beyond the fracking regulations and the offshore drilling, Trump has, by signing the tax reform bill, opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration. For nearly 40 years, the Left needlessly obstructed this move, arguing, among other things, that it wasn’t worth opening up ANWR because it would take 10 years for its oil to reach consumers. The usefulness or otherwise of Alaskan oil will now be decided by market forces, which is to say by everyone, rather than by the whim, posturing, and ignorance of politicians in Washington.”



The Editors’ first point is a good one. Largely missing from the climate change doomsayers’ frantic warnings about the long-term evils of fossil fuels is the short-term economic consequences associated with allowing America’s rivals and enemies to pump oil while we sit back and voluntarily limit our own production. The relatively low (compared to a decade ago) world oil prices brought about by dramatic increases in American production have severely impacted the ability of rogue regimes to pay for their sinister aims strictly though selling petroleum.



Any fool can see if Russia and Iran can’t sell crude oil at a hundred and fifty bucks a barrel (as opposed to the current $65) it inhibits their political and military power. It may be true that America is wealthy enough to afford both guns and butter but the same can’t be said for countries with weaker economic foundations that are dependent on pumping their way to sustainability.



As the recent unrest in Iran demonstrates the mullahs aren’t sharing the wealth from Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with the people. Therefore any would-be increases in oil revenue would go to the same recipients as it always has – corrupt leaders and for buying more military influence across the Middle East. The same could be said for Vladimir Putin, every Democrat’s favorite bogeyman of the hour. It’s no secret Russia’s economy is heavily dependent on oil proceeds. The U.S. is now competing with Putin in more ways than just militarily.



Energy production is therefore more of a national security concern than climate change. Even if everything the politicians and professors predicted comes to fruition it wouldn’t have nearly the profound effect of beating these countries at their own game economically. Climate change isn’t going to cause people within these states to rise up and throw off the dictates of the corrupt elite class – but starvation might.



Did climate change have anything to do with the American colonists deciding to sever ties with Great Britain? Will warming temperatures inspire citizens in North Korea to resist Kim Jung-un?



The recently passed Republican tax bill ensures the stepped-up American oil production will continue, too. Drilling in Alaska is good for everyone, including our planet. Thomas Landstreet wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “Environmentalists have long believed that high oil prices drive down demand, so restricting drilling will reduce overall energy consumption. This view would be realistic in a free market. But the global oil market is not free. Asian nations have responded to rising oil prices by subsidizing consumption. Even while gasoline prices in the U.S. went from $1.35 a gallon in 2002 to more than $3.50 a gallon from 2011-13, Asian consumption surged.



“As long as the global economy demands hydrocarbons, companies will produce them, even if they must go to great lengths to do so. Scarcity leads to high prices, which makes fracking and high-risk deep-water drilling possible. Boosting the supply of oil from land and shallow-water rigs would reduce these hazards.



“Deregulating government-controlled territories like the ANWR [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge] and the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf is a step in the right direction. If a freer market can prevent another tragedy like Deepwater Horizon, environmentalists should see it as a win.”



That’s not likely to happen. Not only is drilling in ANWR (on a very small footprint, mind you) safer and cleaner it’s out of sight for all but the caribou. It’s also a little known fact that if oil flow drops below a certain level the Alaska pipeline will cease operating and by law would have to be removed. Can you imagine the immense cost and environmental damage such an action would cause?



National security dangers aren’t just in the eye of the beholder; some threats are by nature easier to spot – and deal with. Wise people on both sides of the climate change issue can’t even agree on whether it exists much less the risk warmer temperatures might represent to American interests. Leftists will just have to scare people in other ways to get what they want.