# Are environmentalists cowards on immigration? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 11, 2011, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086 "2011-06-11T06:04:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 27
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/521 "2011-06-27T00:22:53Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > In terms of the US environment, population growth is seen as a [bad thing](http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2006/update59) (Clinton Sustainability Taskforce). > > [Immigration is a significant driver of population growth in the US.](http://pewresearch.org/pubs/729/united-states-population-projections) > > Reducing immigration would help reduce population growth and consequent environmental problems. Looking at the time we have, that would make even less of a dent. Clearly the reason to make immigration an issue is to divide environmentalists and ignore the biggest carbon emitter hogs. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/522 "2011-06-27T00:33:28Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Looking at the time we have, that would make even less of a dent. Clearly the reason to make immigration an issue is to divide environmentalists and ignore the biggest carbon emitter hogs. Err, you’re overlooking the overall [sustainability issue](http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2006/update59). > [@](#): > > Sometime this month, the U.S. population is projected to reach 300 million. In times past, reaching such a demographic milestone might have been a cause for celebration. In 2006, it is not. Population growth is the ever expanding denominator that gives each person a shrinking share of the resource pie. It contributes to water shortages, cropland conversion to non-farm uses, traffic congestion, more garbage, overfishing, crowding in national parks, a growing dependence on imported oil, and other conditions that diminish the quality of our daily lives… > > The U.S. annual population growth of nearly 3 million contributes to the water shortages that are plaguing the western half of the country and many areas in the East as well. Water tables are now falling throughout most of the Great Plains and in the U.S. Southwest. Lakes are disappearing and rivers are running dry. It has been years since the Colorado River, the largest river in the U.S. Southwest, reached the Gulf of Mexico. And look at the level of [population growth in the US due to immigration.](http://pewresearch.org/pubs/729/united-states-population-projections) > [@](#): > > If current trends continue, the population of the United States will rise to 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005, and 82% of the increase will be due to immigrants arriving from 2005 to 2050 and their U.S.-born descendants, according to new projections developed by the Pew Research Center. > > Of the 117 million people added to the population during this period due to the effect of new immigration, 67 million will be the immigrants themselves and 50 million will be their U.S.-born children or grandchildren. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/523 "2011-06-27T02:15:34Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Err, you’re overlooking the overall [sustainability issue](http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2006/update59). On the contrary, you are ignoring the most important items that deal with that sustainability. > [@](#): > > In a study of local ecosystem sustainability, Mohan Wali and > his colleagues at Ohio State University noted that as temperature > rises, photosynthetic activity in plants increases until the > temperature reaches 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit). > The rate of photosynthesis then plateaus as the temperature > climbs until it hits 35 degrees Celsius (95 degrees Fahrenheit), > whereupon it begins to decline, until at 40 degrees Celsius (104 > degrees Fahrenheit), photosynthesis ceases entirely.67 > Within the last few years, crop ecologists in several countries > have been focusing on the precise relationship between temperature > and crop yields. One of the most comprehensive of these > studies was conducted at the International Rice Research Institute > (IRRI) in the Philippines. A team of eminent crop scientists > using crop yield data from experimental field plots of irrigated > rice confirmed the rule of thumb emerging among crop ecologists— > that a 1-degree Celsius rise in temperature above the > norm lowers wheat, rice, and corn yields by 10 percent. The > IRRI finding was consistent with those of other recent research > projects. > [@](#): > > When the United Nations set the MDGs, it unaccountably > omitted any population or family planning goals, even though > as a January 2007 report from a U.K. All Party Parliamentary > Group pointed out, “the MDGs are difficult or impossible to > achieve with current levels of population growth in the least > developed countries and regions.” Although it came belatedly, > the United Nations has since approved a new target that calls > for universal access to reproductive health care by 2015.11 > Countries everywhere have little choice but to strive for an > average of two children per couple. There is no feasible alternative. > Any population that increases indefinitely will eventually > outgrow its natural life support systems. Any that decreases > continually over the long term will eventually disappear. > > In an increasingly integrated world with a lengthening list of > failing states, eradicating poverty and stabilizing population > have become national security issues. Slowing population > growth helps eradicate poverty and its distressing symptoms, > and, conversely, eradicating poverty helps slow population > growth. With little time left to arrest the deterioration of the > economy’s natural support systems, the urgency of moving > simultaneously on both fronts is clear. -Lester Brown, plan B As pointed out before, eradicating poverty and education are the key to controlling the population, stopping immigration is not really the priority for that sustainability. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/524 "2011-06-27T02:23:31Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > On the contrary, you are ignoring the most important items that deal with that sustainability. I’m not ignoring those things at all. I’m saying that in terms of stabilizing the US population, immigration is a significant factor. This was the point Jonathon Porrit made that I quoted on the other thread in relation to the UK: > [@](#): > > Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, said it was entirely possible to be “very progressive” on immigration while still having a policy of “zero net immigration” and no further population growth. > **[Environment](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/)** > > Find all the latest news on the environment and climate change from the Telegraph. Including daily emissions and pollution data. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/525 "2011-06-27T02:40:26Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > I’m not ignoring those things at all. I’m saying that in terms of stabilizing the US population, immigration is a significant factor. Yes, you are ignoring the main issues, forcibly even by not dealing with the issue that the anti immigrant groups pretending to follow environmentalism in reality deny AGW. And they do so because otherwise they would have to realize how silly is the idea to concentrate on immigration when the big picture and priorities do not see it that way. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/526 "2011-06-27T02:45:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yes, you are ignoring the main issues, forcibly even by not dealing with the issue that the anti immigrant groups pretending to follow environmentalism in reality deny AGW. > > And they do so because otherwise they would have to realize how silly is the idea to concentrate on immigration when the big picture and priorities do not see it that way. Not an either/or situation. I think I’m going to have to quote **magellan01’s** explanation of this point, because you’re still missing it. > [@](#): > > You continue to conflate and confuse three issues on the table: > > 1. the environmental health and sustainability of the planet > 2. the environmental health and sustainability of the Colorado River Basin > 3. the environmental health and sustainability of the United States > For 1, immigration matters little. Not zero, but little. It’s not zero because as people move to wealthier countries, like the U.S., their carbon footprint increases. > > For 2, The Colorado River Basin was brought up originally to show how a specific area had it’s own valid environmental concerns. And that it was correct and sensible for environmentalists to look at the sustainability of that region in addition to issues concerning global warming. Immigration into the region mostly comes from elsewhere within the same country, where there are no restrictions. > > For 3, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly in a simple and logical fashion: > > A) larger populations place greater stress on the environment. > > B) for the U.S., immigration is seen to be a large contributor to our future population growth. > > C) it makes sense for environmentalists concerned about the sustainability equation in the U.S. to look at immigration. > > So, please stop using factors from #2 to attempt to discount #3. And would you please acknowledge that people can look at the Saving the Bay in their own town AND the limits of humans living in the Colorado River Basin AND the environmental health/sustainability of the U.S. AND global warming. That it is not an either-or proposition. You’ve begrudgingly acknowledged parts of this previously, but seem to slide back into your one-or-the-other ideological comfort zone. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/527 "2011-06-27T03:09:50Z")
Not playing your game of turning this into the pit, so your quote is ignored. I’m not saying it is an either/or situation, so stop with the strawmen. You really need to read on what \*\*focus \*\* and **priority** means. Deal with the point or you are granting it, the anti-immigrant organizations that pretend to be environmentalists are not. They, by their inaction or openly, deny one of the most important issues that deal with the sustainability: AGW. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/528 "2011-06-27T03:14:05Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not playing your game of turning this into the pit, so your quote is ignored. > > I’m not saying it is an either/or situation, so stop with the strawmen. > > You really need to read on what \*\*focus \*\* and **priority** means. > > Deal with the point or you are granting it, the anti-immigrant organizations that pretend to be environmentalists are not. They, by their inaction or openly, deny one of the most important issues that deal with the sustainability: AGW. Yes you are. You’re basically saying that if you focus on these other issues then it is pointless to even think about things like immigration as a policy option. That is illogical. As for these other organizations you refer to, maybe they are. It makes no difference to my argument and the point made by Porritt above. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/529 "2011-06-27T03:38:03Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Yes you are. You’re basically saying that if you focus on these other issues then it is pointless to even think about things like immigration as a policy option. That is illogical. Cite for that? Once again when you say pointless you are relying on a very peculiar dictionary to get that, the focus or priorities are clear for environmentalists like Brown, it is not my problem that you though he was helping your case more when in reality you just were ignorant of what his focus is. > [@Chen019](#): > > As for these other organizations you refer to, maybe they are. It makes no difference to my argument and the point made by Porritt above. Maybe they are? As mentioned before, you had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate otherwise, you have not produced anything from those anti immigrant “environmentalist” groups demanding action or reporting politicians, similarly to what the Sierra Club is doing here: > [@](#): > > Today’s a big day for those who love Big Oil and Big Coal’s money, and for those who want the Environmental Protection Agency to do its job. The authority of the EPA is under attack by polluting industries and their friends in Congress: > > Today Senator James Inhofe (R-Big Oil) and Congressman Fred Upton (R-Big Oil) “will formally introduce their bill to strip the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.” > > And what else about this bill would make it awful? > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > The bill permanently bars EPA from regulating carbon, with a temporary exemption for vehicle tailpipe emissions rules through model year 2016. After that year, EPA would no longer be involved in crafting future fuel economy standards and states could not secure waivers to draft their own > > > > ``` > > . As for Porritt it was pointed before he belongs to a government agency that is proposing a policy change. As mentioned before, the most important point remains that environmentalists groups do not have the focus on immigration but on the whole population as the issue has to include the ones causing the most pollution. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/530 "2011-06-27T03:40:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As for Porritt it was pointed before he belongs to a government agency that is proposing a policy change. As mentioned before, the most important point remains that environmentalists groups do not have the focus on immigration but on the whole population as the issue has to include the ones causing the most pollution. Who cares, his point is a valid one and it’s nice to see an environmentalist who isn’t afraid to point out the obvious 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/531 "2011-06-27T03:58:36Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Who cares, his point is a valid one and it’s nice to see an environmentalist who isn’t afraid to point out the obvious 🙂 You mean a writer, broadcaster? His background is not related to this. It is true that he is involved now in the office of the sustainability office, but that is a government office in the UK. It does not relate much to the focus an environmentalist has, and much less in the USA. What I can see here is just excuses in finding evidence that the fake environmentalists organizations in the USA are actually doing any efforts to deserve being called environmentalist. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/532 "2011-06-27T04:07:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You mean a writer, broadcaster? His background is not related to this. It is true that he is involved now in the office of the sustainability office, but that is a government office in the UK. It does not relate much to the focus an environmentalist has, and much less in the USA. What I can see here is just excuses in finding evidence that the fake environmentalists organizations in the USA are actually doing any efforts to deserve being called environmentalist. Well, we’ve already mentioned Gaylord Nelson. You know, Earth Day Founder. > [@](#): > > But in this country, it’s phony to say “I’m for the environment but not for limiting immigration…However, the subject has been driven out of public discussion because everybody is afraid of being called racist if they say they want any limits on immigration.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/533 "2011-06-27T04:35:51Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Well, we’ve already mentioned Gaylord Nelson. You know, Earth Day Founder. And as the Sierra Club showed, environmentalists are not impressed by that view. And neither other activists: > **[Negative Population Growth is Recruiting Environmentalists - IMAGINE 2050](https://newcomm.org/files/imagine2050-sub/2010/10/04/negative-population-growth-is-recruiting-environmentalists/)** > > The anti-immigrant movement is attempting inroads into the environmental movement yet again.  This time, Negative Population Growth (NPG) has taken up the torch.  NPG is campaigning for both a National Population Policy and a... > [@](#): > > NPG is out for making yet another attempt to further the manipulative demand for U.S. Population Stabilization by white nationalists and anti-immigration groups. NPG may not have a truly environmental platform, but there should be no question that a goal of NPG is to build a base of environmentalists. The ad above is targeting those concerned with the Oil Spill. And again NPG declares that it will reach out, “to hundreds of environmental groups.” To top it off, NPG uses Gaylord Nelson to legitimize the need to attack immigrants and push anti-immigrant agendas and U.S. Population Stabilization, Incidentally I mentioned current efforts regarding carbon emission controls, and pointed at examples the Sierra Club looks at protesting the current inaction regarding carbon emission controls. Missing a huge part of what it is important nowadays for environmentalists only shows how fake the environmentalism is in the organizations that attempted to control the Sierra Club. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/534 "2011-06-27T04:50:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And as the Sierra Club showed, environmentalists are not impressed by that view. > > And neither other activists: > > [http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2010/10/04/negative-population-growth-is-recruiting-environmentalists/](http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2010/10/04/negative-population-growth-is-recruiting-environmentalists/) > Incidentally I mentioned current efforts regarding carbon emission controls, and pointed at examples the Sierra Club looks at protesting the current inaction regarding carbon emission controls. Missing a huge part of what it is important nowadays for environmentalists only shows how fake the environmentalism is in the organizations that attempted to control the Sierra Club. Which is what prompted the thread - is it due to political considerations and fear of being tagged as racist? That is what Nelson seemed to think. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/535 "2011-06-27T05:06:56Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Which is what prompted the thread - is it due to political considerations and fear of being tagged as racist? That is what Nelson seemed to think. But what prompted the mentioning of the Club was to show an example of the activism that they are currently doing. [http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2011/03/beating-up-the-epa.html](http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2011/03/beating-up-the-epa.html) > [@](#): > > Today’s a big day for those who love Big Oil and Big Coal’s money, and for those who want the Environmental Protection Agency to do its job. The authority of the EPA is under attack by polluting industries and their friends in Congress: > > Today Senator James Inhofe (R-Big Oil) and Congressman Fred Upton (R-Big Oil) “will formally introduce their bill to strip the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.” > > And what else about this bill would make it awful? > > ``` > The bill permanently bars EPA from regulating carbon, with a temporary exemption for vehicle tailpipe emissions rules through model year 2016. After that year, EPA would no longer be involved in crafting future fuel economy standards and states could not secure waivers to draft their own. > > ``` Point being that there has been no evidence so far of the “environmentalist” anti-immigrant organizations in the USA doing any current similar efforts to put the innactivist (on the carbon emission control) politicians to task. Being called racist is a problem, but not the whole reason why the anti-immigrant organizations are considered to be a farce, part of it is that they \*\*pretend \*\*to care about the environment. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/536 "2011-06-27T05:14:53Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > But what prompted the mentioning of the Club was to show an example of the activism that they are currently doing. > > [http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2011/03/beating-up-the-epa.html](http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2011/03/beating-up-the-epa.html) > . Which is good. Again, I’m not saying they should just focus on one issue. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/537 "2011-06-27T05:26:20Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Which is good. Again, I’m not saying they should just focus on one issue. What is not good is avoiding the rest of the post: There has been no evidence so far of the “environmentalist” anti-immigrant organizations in the USA doing any current similar efforts to put the in-activist (on the carbon emission control) politicians to task. Being called racist is a problem, but not the whole reason why the anti-immigrant organizations are considered to be a farce, part of it is that they \*\*pretend \*\*to care about the environment. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/538 "2011-06-27T05:41:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What is not good is avoiding the rest of the post: > > There has been no evidence so far of the “environmentalist” anti-immigrant organizations in the USA doing any current similar efforts to put the in-activist (on the carbon emission control) politicians to task. > > Being called racist is a problem, but not the whole reason why the anti-immigrant organizations are considered to be a farce, part of it is that they \*\*pretend \*\*to care about the environment. For the sake of argument let’s accept that. It still doesn’t address the negligence of environmentalists in avoiding US population growth (Clinton Sustainability Taskforce) and immigration which is a significant driver of that. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/539 "2011-06-27T06:58:56Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > For the sake of argument let’s accept that. It still doesn’t address the negligence of environmentalists in avoiding US population growth (Clinton Sustainability Taskforce) and immigration which is a significant driver of that. I already linked to the Sierra Club pages on population control. So once again this accusation is puzzling. As it was pointed before the Clinton Task Force was not a bad report, but the anti-immigrant sources have misrepresented what it said. It acknowledged that there was not enough data to check the impact that the immigrants had, and it warned about denying immigrants of their rights and humanity. Population on the whole was the focus. And I have to warn you that I looked at the final report, the one you have been using was an early one. Suffice to say is that immigration was in the end referred only once on the final report and in the context of intolerance creating issues that affect the solutions that are needed regarding population control. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086/540 "2011-06-27T11:00:50Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I already linked to the Sierra Club pages on population control. So once again this accusation is puzzling. > > As it was pointed before the Clinton Task Force was not a bad report, but the anti-immigrant sources have misrepresented what it said. > > It acknowledged that there was not enough data to check the impact that the immigrants had, and it warned about denying immigrants of their rights and humanity. Population on the whole was the focus. And I have to warn you that I looked at the final report, the one you have been using was an early one. Suffice to say is that immigration was in the end referred only once on the final report and in the context of intolerance creating issues that affect the solutions that are needed regarding population control. Having a zero net immigration policy as mentioned by Porritt, and which was the previous Sierra position, is hardly anti-immigrant and isn’t denying people their rights. You might as well say that having borders in the first place is denying people their rights which is obviously nonsense. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-environmentalists-cowards-on-immigration/585086.md?page=28)