Are environmentalists cowards on immigration?

[gatorslap]

@magellan01

I have no idea what your asking or why. I fear you are conflating two different issues, the environment on a global scale—what matters to planet earth, and the degree that Americans should care about stresses on their own environment. But I could be wrong. As I said, I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at.

There is no such thing as “their [Americans’] own environment”. “America” is an arbitrary distinction. Environmentalism doesn’t care where international boundaries are drawn, or how many sovereign nations comprise a particular area. America is also far too large to argue that it consists of one environmental zone of concern (to coin a phrase). A person living a comparatively simple and impoverished life moves from Point A to Point B, improves their standard of living, changes their lifestyle, and in the process increases their carbon footprint. It doesn’t matter whether or not it was immigration. If Mexico became legally part of the US tomorrow, nothing would change with regards to the issue cited in the OP other than the fact that they wouldn’t be labeled “immigrants” anymore.

I thought my hypothetical was pretty simple – pretend that, instead of the USA, we’re talking about a subnational region. Would you then expect environmentalists to take a position on inter-regional migration? Likely not, hence, one shouldn’t expect them to take a position on immigration either.

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

Very silly retort, to begin with, I already pointed out at the reason why time and recent evidence show that concentrating on population and emission controls are the keys to deal with this issue. (Immigrants are part of the population)

When groups that only pretend to be environmentalists refuse to deal with one of the most important parts of the solution, it is clear that they are part of the problem.

The ideology involved here is not coming from me.

Yes it is. You have stated that restricting immigration (apparently even to replacement level) would go against the principles that made the US. That’s an ideological position.

You ignore the US population stabilization goal because that would involve restricting immigration. Which would go against the founding principles. It might make people call you a nativist!

[BrainGlutton]

@GIGObuster

What Whack-a-Mole and **gatorslap **said, and then, one should consider who is making the claims.

IMAGINE 2050Anti-Immigrant Groups Blame Immigrants for BP Oil Spill - IMAGINE 2050

John Tanton? Ah, yes.

The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that Tanton has long been linked to racist ideas-- “fretting about the “educability” of Latinos, warning of whites being out-bred by others, and publishing a number of white nationalist authors”-- and is also closely affiliated with a number of white supremacist organizations such as the Pioneer Fund. [3]

In fact, one actually can speak meaningfully of a John Tanton Network.

JThe John Tanton Network describes the anti-immigrant “empire of organizations” created by, or connected to, population-control advocate/ nativist John Tanton.

The Center for New Community reports that “what appears to the public as a myriad of voices advocating for severe immigration enforcement is nothing more than a series of front groups, “coalitions,” and spin-offs seeking to overwhelm reasonable debate on immigration.” [1]

The Center for New Community has created a map of the network.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has compiled a list of organizations within the John Tanton Network, many of which the SPLC classifies as “hate groups” [2].

Organizations within the John Tanton Network

(organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center are marked with an asterisk (*))[3].

(*) American Immigration Control Foundation AICF, 1983, funded

(*) American Patrol/Voice of Citizens Together 1992, funded

California Coalition for Immigration Reform CCIR, 1994, funded

Californians for Population Stabilization 1996, funded (founded separately in 1986)

Center for Immigration Studies CIS, 1985, founded and funded

Federation for American Immigration Reform FAIR, 1979, founded and funded

NumbersUSA 1996, founded and funded

Population-Environment Balance 1973, joined board in 1980

Pro English 1994, founded and funded

ProjectUSA 1999, funded

Progressives For Immigration Reform affiliated; Board of Directors closely connected to Tanton

(*) The Social Contract Press 1990, founded and funded

U.S. English 1983, founded and funded

U.S. Inc. 1982, founded and funded

Top that, David Horowitz!

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

Yes it is. You have stated that restricting immigration (apparently even to replacement level) would go against the principles that made the US. That’s an ideological position.

That was a comment on the odd levels that the “not really from Yale” blogger was going to get his numbers.

@Chen019

You ignore the US population stabilization goal because that would involve restricting immigration.

Nope, you just imagine things to assign to your opponents, that is really silly.

As mentioned, population control is important, but it is not the only item that has to be done to solve the global warming issue.

@Chen019

Which would go against the founding principles. It might make people call you a nativist!

OOOOOOK. :dubious:

What a way to miss the point. Since I was commenting to make notice that the “not really from Yale” post was using very peculiar ways to declare even descendants from hundreds of years as still not being in the native column, it looked to me as it was not really a good source to use by you, when it is clear that the beef your nativist sources have is with recent immigrants.

[Kobal2]

@magellan01

There are two different issues: global population and the U.S. population. We’ve been talking about the latter, which we have much more control over. Let me ask you this: how many people do you think the U.S. ecosystem can support without great stress? Surely there is a point, right? Where do you think that point is?

Well, as I said, the population density of the US is extremely low among first world nations.
Going by this list, and arbitrarily declaring that Belgium is in the “nice country, innit ?” range since it is more of less self-sufficient in food, then the US could well afford to have a population >3 billion without even feeling overcrowded (from 80 inhabitants per square mile, to Belgium’s 990). You can slash that in half if you want a McMansion/nature margin in the vicinity of scenic Switzerland - but since the current population of the US is ~300 million, it could still safely quintuple, I think.

It’s not even projected to double any time soon.

[Chen019]

@Kobal2

Well, as I said, the population density of the US is extremely low among first world nations.
Going by this list, and arbitrarily declaring that Belgium is in the “nice country, innit ?” range since it is more of less self-sufficient in food, then the US could well afford to have a population >3 billion without even feeling overcrowded (from 80 inhabitants per square mile, to Belgium’s 990). You can slash that in half if you want a McMansion/nature margin in the vicinity of scenic Switzerland - but since the current population of the US is ~300 million, it could still safely quintuple, I think.

It’s not even projected to double any time soon.

No, it’s **only **projected to reach 438 million in 2050

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.

http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=85

[QUOTE=GIGO Buster]
As mentioned, population control is important, but it is not the only item that has to be done to solve the global warming issue.
[/quote]

No one said it was. This has been pointed out to you by several commentators.

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

No one said it was. This has been pointed out to you by several commentators.

OOOOOK, does that mean that you **finally **found an article showing that your heroes are also letting know to their congress critters that they should not obstruct measures to control CO2 emissions?

[not holding my breath for that one]

Really dude, the other reason why I talk about irrelevancy coming from your side is precisely because if your OP orgs were sincere they would also be able to easily show the fruits of their labor regarding the other part of the solution.

[Chen019]

@GIGObuster

OOOOOK, does that mean that you **finally **found an article showing that your heroes are also letting know to their congress critters that they should not obstruct measures to control CO2 emissions?

[not holding my breath for that one]

Really dude, the other reason why I talk about irrelevancy coming from your side is precisely because if your OP orgs were sincere they would also be able to easily show the fruits of their labor regarding the other part of the solution.

This thread is about the position of environmentalists on immigration. So far it seems the reasons for not taking a stronger stand on this are:

> Ideological (nation of immigrants)

> Compassionate (poor people deserve to come to the US even if it’s bad for the environment)

> Immigrants have relatively low carbon footprint (assumes they or offspring won’t improve their SES)

> Money (in the case of Sierra Club leaders in the 1990’s)

> Anti-racism (some immigrants aren’t white so restricting immigration would be racist).

[GIGObuster]

@Chen019

This thread is about the position of environmentalists on immigration. So far it seems the reasons for not taking a stronger stand on this are:

> Ideological (nation of immigrants)

> Compassionate (poor people deserve to come to the US even if it’s bad for the environment)

> Immigrants have relatively low carbon footprint (assumes they or offspring won’t improve their SES)

> Money (in the case of Sierra Club leaders in the 1990’s)

> Anti-racism (some immigrants aren’t white so restricting immigration would be racist).

Your nativist sources are not environmentalists.

http://www.splcenter.org/greenwash-nativists-environmentalism-and-the-hypocrisy-of-hate/the-greening-of-hate-an-essay

Third, protecting the environment does not mean you have to keep people poor. Contrary to anti-immigrant rhetoric, it’s possible to raise incomes and improve the environment at the same time. In the U.S., “green jobs” and “green recovery” programs represent a win-win strategy to provide decent employment and incomes, improve energy conservation, support green technological innovation, and fight global warming. All over the world, in rich and poor countries alike, people are using the climate crisis as an opportunity to link ecological goals with new kinds of economic and technological development that raise living standards without razing the environment.

But the anti-immigrant movement has only one solution for global warming: stop immigration. Activists claim that when immigrants move to the U.S., they consume a lot more energy than they would at home and so they and their offspring are responsible for growing American carbon emissions. “The United States will not be able to achieve any meaningful reductions in CO2 emissions without serious economic and social consequences for American citizens unless immigration is sharply curtailed,” claims a recent report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

In other words, let’s build border fences instead of taking steps to conserve energy, switch to renewables and implement a sensible climate policy in step with European nations like Germany and Denmark that are ahead of the curve. Such an approach would bring serious economic and social benefits to American citizens; instead of lagging behind, the U.S. could become a leader in green technology, giving a much-needed boost to the economy.

Moreover, carbon emissions are not linked strongly to population growth in North America (or elsewhere). Writing in the journal Environment and Urbanization, climate expert David Sattherthwaite notes that while North America contributed about 4% of world population growth between 1950-2005, it was responsible for 20% of the growth in global carbon dioxide emissions from 1950-80 and 14% from 1980-2005. Meanwhile, the few countries in the world where population growth rates still remain high, such as those in sub-Saharan Africa, have the lowest per capita carbon emissions

When all is said and done, the anti-immigrant movement’s response to climate change is not all that different from climate deniers who claim global warming isn’t a problem and we should just go on consuming fossil fuels the good old American way. Anti-immigrant groups may pay lip service to the problem of climate change but, like the deniers, they have no interest in finding real solutions.

[magellan01]

@gatorslap

There is no such thing as “their [Americans’] own environment”. “America” is an arbitrary distinction. Environmentalism doesn’t care where international boundaries are drawn, or how many sovereign nations comprise a particular area. America is also far too large to argue that it consists of one environmental zone of concern (to coin a phrase). A person living a comparatively simple and impoverished life moves from Point A to Point B, improves their standard of living, changes their lifestyle, and in the process increases their carbon footprint. It doesn’t matter whether or not it was immigration. If Mexico became legally part of the US tomorrow, nothing would change with regards to the issue cited in the OP other than the fact that they wouldn’t be labeled “immigrants” anymore.

The distinction is not arbitrary. Borders exist and people can control what happens within those borders, not outside of them. Given the size and relative isolation of the U.S., it is in a better position than most countries to protect it’s environment more or less in isolation. The Sierra Club recognized this and talked about the U.S. environment and how to protect it, keep it sustainable. We’d be fools to not protect the land within our borders.

@gatorslap

I thought my hypothetical was pretty simple – pretend that, instead of the USA, we’re talking about a subnational region. Would you then expect environmentalists to take a position on inter-regional migration? Likely not, hence, one shouldn’t expect them to take a position on immigration either.

You seem to be under the impression that the Sierra Club would never opine on immigration and the effects it might have on a country. If so, you are incorrect:

The Sierra Club has had an active population program since 1974, and a policy on the issue of population growth since 1965. The Sierra Club, in 1989 stated that “Immigration to the U.S. should be no greater than that which will permit achievement of population stabilization in the U.S.”

Other information detailed at that page.

[magellan01]

@Kobal2

Well, as I said, the population density of the US is extremely low among first world nations.
Going by this list, and arbitrarily declaring that Belgium is in the “nice country, innit ?” range since it is more of less self-sufficient in food, then the US could well afford to have a population >3 billion without even feeling overcrowded (from 80 inhabitants per square mile, to Belgium’s 990). You can slash that in half if you want a McMansion/nature margin in the vicinity of scenic Switzerland - but since the current population of the US is ~300 million, it could still safely quintuple, I think.

It’s not even projected to double any time soon.

Your numbers are absurd. You’re also ignoring that a tiny country can have a high population density mainly because it is tiny, and areas around it will provide forested areas, wetlands, etc. Things that the planet needs in proportion. You might as well point to the density of New York City, Tokyo, or Rio.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

You seem to be under the impression that the Sierra Club would never opine on immigration and the effects it might have on a country. If so, you are incorrect:

Other information detailed at that page.

Based on the most recent votes, it is clear that turning back in time is not in the cards.

[Kobal2]

@magellan01

Your numbers are absurd. You’re also ignoring that a tiny country can have a high population density mainly because it is tiny, and areas around it will provide forested areas, wetlands, etc. Things that the planet needs in proportion. You might as well point to the density of New York City, Tokyo, or Rio.

Have you ever even seen a postcard of Switzerland ? It’s not Hong fucking Kong.

[magellan01]

@Kobal2

Have you ever even seen a postcard of Switzerland ? It’s not Hong fucking Kong.

You seem to be under the impression that Belgium is in Switzerland. If so, wrong again. And the fact that there area places like Switzerland near Belgium is what makes small places with high population density possible. THAT was my point. If the entire land mass of Europe had the population density of Belgium, that would be a hugh problem, don’t you think?

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

Based on the most recent votes, it is clear that turning back in time is not in the cards.

Immaterial to why I posted the cite.

Odd that you missed that.

[BrainGlutton]

@magellan01

You seem to be under the impression that the Sierra Club would never opine on immigration and the effects it might have on a country. If so, you are incorrect:

Other information detailed at that page.

N.B.: That link is not to the website of the Sierra Club, it is to the website of Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization, which was at the center of one of SC’s recurrent controversies over immigration a few years ago. Details [

During the 1980s, some Sierra Club members, including Paul Ehrlich’s wife Anne,[35] wanted to take the Club into the contentious field of immigration to the United States. The Club’s position was that overpopulation was a significant factor in the degradation of the environment. Accordingly, the Club supported stabilizing and reducing U.S. and world population. Some members argued that, as a practical matter, U.S. population could not be stabilized, let alone reduced, at the then-current levels of immigration. They urged the Club to support immigration reduction. The Club had previously addressed the issue of “mass immigration,”[38] and in 1988, the organization’s Population Committee and Conservation Coordinating Committee stated that immigration to the U.S. should be limited, so as to achieve population stabilization.[39]

Other Sierrans thought that the immigration issue was too far from the Club’s core environmentalist mission, and were also concerned that involvement would impair the organization’s political ability to pursue its other objectives. In 1996, the Board of Directors accepted this latter view, and voted that the Sierra Club would be neutral on issues of immigration.[citation needed]

The advocates of immigration reduction sought to reverse this decision through the referendum provision of the Bylaws of the Sierra Club. They organized themselves as “SUSPS”, a name originally derived from “Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization” (although that name is no longer used since the Sierra Club objected to infringing the Club’s trademark in the term “Sierrans”). SUSPS and its allies gathered the necessary signatures to place the issue on the ballot in the Club’s election in the spring of 1998. The Board’s decision that the Club would take no position on immigration was upheld by the membership by a three-to-two margin.[citation needed]

The controversy resurfaced when a group of three immigration reduction proponents ran in the 2004 Board of Directors elections, hoping to move the Club’s position away from a neutral stance on immigration, and restore the stance previously held.[40] Groups outside of the Club became involved, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and MoveOn.[41] Of the three candidates, two (Frank Morris and David Pimentel), were on the board of the anti-immigration group Diversity Alliance for a Sustainable America[42][43] and two (Richard Lamm and Frank Morris) were on the board of directors or the board of advisors of the Federation for American Immigration Reform;[42] both had also held leadership positions within the NAACP.[44] Their candidacies were denounced by a fourth candidate, Morris Dees of the SPLC, as a “hostile takeover” attempt by “radical anti-immigrant activists.”[41][45] The immigration reduction proponents won only 3% of all votes cast in the election,[46] and the controversy subsided.

I’m not sure if this SUSPS is still active; the [url=History of SUSPS and Sierra Club population activities within the Sierra Club]“History”](]here:[/url) section of its site lists no event later than 2003.

[DMC]

@magellan01

You seem to be under the impression that the Sierra Club would never opine on immigration and the effects it might have on a country. If so, you are incorrect:

Every single link provided by yourself or Chen019 have been closely tied to Tanton, including the one you linked above. Hell, it’s really hard to find them giving a shit about the environment in any way except for some dubious “it’s the brown people who can’t keep their pants on who are hurting the environment” sort of way. Do you actually look at the sites you link from?

We all know that the nut-job racist ZPG freaks took partial control of the Sierra Club at various times. Even Tanton himself was among them for a while. Well, the Democrats used to be the party of racists and fought hard against civil rights. Times change.

[Chen019]

@DMC

Every single link provided by yourself or Chen019 have been closely tied to Tanton, including the one you linked above.

No they aren’t. Please read the thread before commenting.

http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/TF_Reports/amer-top.html

| Yale and the World

Also, saying Tanton! Nativist! repeatedly is not an argument.

[Kobal2]

@magellan01

You seem to be under the impression that Belgium is in Switzerland. If so, wrong again. And the fact that there area places like Switzerland near Belgium is what makes small places with high population density possible. THAT was my point. If the entire land mass of Europe had the population density of Belgium, that would be a hugh problem, don’t you think?

Which is why I arbitrarily used the Switzerland numbers rather than the Belgium numbers. I figured that was giving myself enough of a safety margin.

Not that there’s any problem whatsoever with the population density of Belgium - as I said, the country is self-sufficient in food and water and isn’t Hong Kong either. It doesn’t need Switzerland to make itself viable or possible, and I have no idea where you’re pulling that from (outside of your trademarked “well, I have no idea really but it’s just common sense” approach to knowledge :dubious:).

[magellan01]

@BrainGlutton

N.B.: That link is not to the website of the Sierra Club, it is to the website of Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization, which was at the center of one of SC’s recurrent controversies over immigration a few years ago. Details I’m not sure if this SUSPS is still active; the [url=http://www.susps.org/history/history.html]“History” section of its site lists no event later than 2003.

And I didn’t say it was a link to the Sierra Club. The link chronicled the Sierra Club’s stance on immigration, showing that that environmental organization did, in fact, have a position on The U.S. population and its impact on the environment.