What could be more anti-immigrant here than a “zero net immigration policy”?
First, “anti-immigrant” is not the same thing as “anti-immigration”. Nice try, though.
Second, you demonstrate what lies at the heart of the problem Chen has brought to light: environmentalists should be looking at the environment and the sustainability equation in a way that is immigration-agnostic. They shouldn’t be pro-immigration or anti-imigration. They should be pro-environment. Period. Part of their work looks to tomorrow, so it is proper and responsible for them to forecast who much the population might grow, both domestically and from immigration. Why you and Gigo are so desperate to have this taken off the table is exceedingly odd. But telling. It points to an agenda other than the environment. Your “internationalist” bent is preventing you from focusing on Chen’s point.
So if I follow things correctly, if there were no immigration into the US, we wouldn’t have to worry about immigrants contributing to negative environmental factors …
… just as, oh, I don’t know, let’s say if there were no guns in America, we wouldn’t have to worry about guns contributing to violence.
Is that about right?
:dubious: Yes, it is, and you fucking know it.
That is how things are now, or at least how the Sierra Club is now, and it is exactly what Chen is excoriating as “cowardice.”
Nope. Now, I’m sure that’s the case in your mind. But we’re talking about the real world here. The one in which not every discussion concerning immigration must necessarily point to RACSIT!.
And given your stance as an internationalist, why should anyone care what your views are on immigration? Answer: they shouldn’t. Which is why I don’t.
We are here because of the sources Chen019 did choose to base his accusations. The groups that are dedicated to look for discriminatory ones like the Southern Poverty law center and the Anti Defamation League have identified those groups as discriminatory or prejudiced and have documented their efforts.
You can have your views on immigration, but you can not have those views imposed on environmentalist groups from groups that base their being on hate of others, besides there also connections that those hate groups have with organizations that do deny AGW.
And you claim Chen uses biased sources? Whew.
Do you really not see your flaw in logic here? Cannot you really not fathom a hypothetical non-racist environmentalist who, looking at the sustainability of the U.S., considers how the population may rise and considers domestic birth and immigration—as those are the only means by which the population may spike?
Hand wave noted.
Of course there are people like that, but no easy pickings so far. What happens is that most of the experts on the issue see where the priorities are and consider that if one looks at the population on the whole and to control it one looks at poverty and the way most of the people consume and use resources then most realize that concentrating on immigration is really setting one to a waste of resources and dividing people unnecessarily, and also the **last **Clinton report noticed that.
Yeah, big surprise, Chen missed the last report that advised that while the population needs to be controlled, immigration was not seen as a separate issue from that, we are all in this together.
It’s not a heart-of-hearts matter; there are no anti-immigration policies which are not anti-immigrant, by definition, as well as in their practical effect. It makes no difference in that regard whether the policies are racially motivated or not.
I think you might have nailed it.
N.B.: The forces of nature being no respecters of borders, it is nationalism, not internationalism, that is potentially in conflict with an environmental agenda.
The forces of nature being no respecters of laws, it is the law abiding, not the lawless, that are potentially in conflict with an environmental agenda. 
It is indeed in the territory of locals or nations to have organizations to control the flow of people, but when the environment is concerned things like domestic migration also enter into the picture, of course that is not ever touched by many that are trying to use environmentalism as a reason why to keep other people out.
It is clear that controlling that domestic immigration is an even bigger no no than becoming more draconian with immigration. So locally there is already a big factor that in politics is and will be ignored. It is by looking at the element of the carbon footprint that environmentalists realize that there is an issue that has gotten to the forefront for environmentalists, and it is the need to reduce out carbon footprint sooner rather than later. Whatever is done with immigration, ecologically speaking there will be still twice the number ow people still polluting at a higher rate than many other nations.
So when looking to preserve the environment it is really important to realize that carbon and other global warming gases emissions need to be controlled or they will affect other issues… like immigration.
So the effects are international in nature and one has to remember also that we export our pollution.
Seeing that many organizations mentioned as being involved in the efforts to twist environmentalists to focus on immigrants are also involved in climate change denial, there is in reality yet another reason why it should be better to look for other organizations that do not have 2 axes to grind.
Now all I need is a copy machine, nails, a hammer, and a few foreheads.
But those nails better be diamond-tipped.
I’m sure that you mean by this statement that the nationalism of those countries where the worst environmental catastrophies are progressing is the single most daunting obstacle that discourages international environmental organizations from fulfilling their elitist desires.
Did that make sense in your head, before you typed it?
About as much sense as your comment.
Quite the reverse, actually.
What are you still doing in this brainfart of a thread of yours anyway, Chen? 12 pages already – how many times you need your ass kicked?