Of course, you are still trying to extirpate immigrants from the population, in the end you are proposing that we should be like a ranger that demands that a all deciduous trees be removed from the forest before using water on the huge fire already taking place.
I’m saying waters supplies are already strained - read the report. Demand is exceeding supply and population growth is an issue. Immigration is largely driving population growth. I’m not talking about “extirpating” existing immigrants from the population (nice emotional rhetoric). I’m talking about prospective immigration going on current trends.
I will let others be the judge of that, as explained before, when 85% of the Sierra Club and the vast majority of respected environmentalists go one way, I would think it would be a stretch to get stuck on accusing them or me of being illogical.
The opinion of experts carry more weight than the ponderings of a few posters on a message board.
I’ve already pointed out to you why your position is illogical. You seem ill equiped to respond. Appeals to authority don’t cut it when your basic argument makes no sense.
I’ve provided you with authorities on the issue of population growth in the US in terms of the environment. You haven’t rebutted this. You also haven’t rebutted that the main cause of population growth in the US is immigration.
In point of fact, you have done no such thing — firstly, because I was the one who made the moral argument, not GIGObuster, and secondly, because you have failed to address the (quasi-)ethical argument I made, except to falsely call such things “ideological”.
Incidentally, if you dislike immigrants and want to help the environment, you shouldn’t go after the Sierra Club. Go after the agriculturalists in California who hire mostly immigrants to try to grow stuff in the desert. Getting rid of that would go a long way to handling the water problems.
Of course, there are also other comparatively simple fixes you could support. For example, why on earth should lawns even be legal in, say, Phoenix?
I did not rebut them as I explained that they are not a reason to concentrate on immigration, it is really just you that is assuming that those cites are a problem for my position, on the contrary. It is clear you are still thinking that magic will help separate the immigrants when a solution is implemented. And it will affect all the population.
And once again, when you deny that the nativists are not doing anything about the other related issue of the footprint, the immigration issue is moot. Your nativist sources are just trying to convince others to make immigration worse in the end.
Heh, you’re the one talking of magical solutions. I’m referring to the comments about population growth in the US. Immigration is an obvious way of addressing that. Presumably in 1989 you would also support that as in that year the Sierra Club position was:
Would you have followed the Sierra Club then, or would you have come up with another reason to ignore this?
I think the info is good from PEW, but I could not find anything disparaging the immigrant effects on the environment, and remember that the report that debunked most of the anti immigrant points reported that the carbon footprint of the cities with the most immigrants is less than the carbon footprint of the cities with less immigrants.
Unfortunately, as demonstrated, sensible is not a property of the nativist organizations cited before.
Population growth on the environment. Immigrants largely drive population growth. Also, do you think immigrants aren’t going to increase their SES in the years ahead? Why not?
I guess you do not understand, I said already that you are assuming that those cites are a problem for my position, on the contrary. They will be useful to crack some stubborn members of the community that do not plan their families.
Once again, I do not think the politicians elected with the help of the nativists will remain forever in office. the evidence of climate change disruptions will be overwhelming and people will demand a change.
