The initial shift from the leadership in the 90’s appears to have been due to big money. The subsequent position makes little sense in terms of US population stabilization. Accordingly, it seems more to do with political expediency.
What “political expediency” would that be?
And the “subsequent position” makes perfect sense in terms of choice of priorities.
According to the link, it was most likely the political expediency of the ones looking to turn the clock back.
It is simply negligent on the issue of population growth - that’s what it is.
Political expediency? To appease wealthy donors, to pursue ‘social justice’ goal and to appear diverse & progressive. Those are all fine goals, but as I’ve pointed out - they are non-environmental reasons.
If you want to find “wealthy donors” influencing the immigration debate in America, you won’t have to look very far – but your first hit is not likely to be the “progressive” sort of businesscritter, he’s probably somebody whose company hires illegals, and who has never cut a check to the Sierra Club in his life.
Also the previous cite from Chen019 shows even more of the background, environmentalists groups are also changing to help the people who are most affected by pollution, they are usually minorities and their descendants.
Looking at the limited diversity a good number of the environmentalists groups had, it is even more likely that some members did not like the changes at all, but for other more unsavory reasons.
I recall a cartoon I once saw in the Whole Earth Review or something, titled “A Short History of Immigration.”
PANEL 1:
Guy 1: What a beautiful spot! 
Guy 2: Hey, I was here first! :mad:
PANEL 2:
[they fight]
PANEL 3:
G2: [puff-puff] All right . . . you can stay . . .
PANEL 4:
G3: What a beautiful spot!
G1 & G2 together: Hey, we were here first! :mad:
While cute, why do you bring this up? Do you oppose nationhood? Borders? The right of a country to craft their own immigration policy?
Which is a hijack, having nothing to do with environmentalists, that we do not need to continue.
[ /Moderating ]
Not that it matters, but I do, in principle. In practice, of course, it’s not a workable stance.
Can you explain? I’m not sure what you mean.
What I oppose is loss of perspective. E.g., Pat Buchanan forgetting how his ancestors came to America and saw “No Irish Need Apply” signs whenever they looked for work.
Lyrics! 
He means that while nobody has the ethical right to say “this is my land”, in practice it’s kind of hard to reverse the statu quo. IOW, life is unfair, wear a hat.
What I oppose is people not answering questions. Since I still don’t get your position, could you simply answer the simple questions I asked you?
Enter the Amazing Kreskin. Now, how about you answer those questions for yourself. I’d like to see where you come out.
I’m an internationalist in the most broad and general long-run sense. Of course in our present system of state sovereignty, border control is properly incident to sovereignty. That means nobody has the “right” to enter a foreign country – in exactly the same way that nobody has the “right” to leave his own country, as some are not allowed to. Just to keep things in their proper perspective, magellan01. Remember, when you’re talking about border control you’re talking about the business of the state, not the nation.
Not being able to enter a country is similar to not being able to leave one? That’s ridiculous. In the same way in trying to say that locking someone out of your house is similar to locking them in.
You’ll have to parse that for me.
I philosophically oppose nationhood and the idea of borders (and consequently the “right” of countries to craft their own immigration policies). All regulated borders are exercises in force - and ultimately, violence.
Of course, this isn’t a workable stance when there are so many others who both believe in borders and are willing and eager to either detain, injure or even kill me over them.
I get my visas, get my passport stamped and go through customs like any dutiful nationalist. I just don’t think it’s how things should be.
The flipside is that you think countries have no right to exist. It’s the kind of thinking that makes people like the Dalai Lama nervous.
You, as a member of the American ethnocultural nation, the American people, have no “right” to keep foreigners out of your country, no “right” that is violated when they cross the border, legally or illegally. The U.S. government has the authority to control the border – but not because you as a citizen/voter demand it; every government, regardless of form or popularity, has the same authority to the same degree of legitimacy exactly.