# Chen019: A bigger fool that follows other fools **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 18, 2011, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909 "2011-06-18T04:40:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/281 "2011-06-27T15:48:05Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Ban illegal immigration. > U.S. economy collapses even more without dirt cheap labor. > Consumption and industrial output plummets, improving the environment. > Profit! I dunno; schemes to make the US economy even _worse_ seem…not quite sporting to me. 🙂 ---
**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, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/282 "2011-06-27T16:24:22Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > :smack: I think you’re getting dumber as the thread progresses 🙂 Only weapons grade ignorance would tell you that it is good for your side when you bring an expert that you claim is “the bomb” only for him to bomb on you. > [@Chen019](#): > > Again, the reluctance to address the issue of immigration is the very reason I started the thread on GD. It’s not because of any rational environmental position, but appears to stem from social and political concerns. We’ve been over this time and again. What **Bridget Burke** said. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/283 "2011-06-27T16:56:05Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Hypothetically, the organization so best suited would not be an organization concerned with U.S. immigration or population at all; nor with the global population primarily; but with studying the environmental impact of **shifts** in population, through immigration and other demographic factors such as birthrate changes, **from one part of the globe to another;** and then identifying any real environmental problems that emerge from such shifts, and proposing solutions – the kind of solutions that can only enacted at the **international** level. (Because national border controls can only divert the pressure into another channel, as it were, and the net environmental impact in such case might be even **worse** than that of the single country in question doing nothing.) > > Because **that** and nothing else is the problem properly under discussion here. You know, for someone with the user name BrainGlutton, one would think you’d be better at this. I guess I’ll just direct you back to Post 228, particularly this part: [QUOTE=The Rules of Logic] So, please stop using factors from #2 to attempt to discount #3 [/QUOTE] It’s quite amazing that this has to be pointed out. It’s as if you’re arguing that milk doesn’t taste good because it doesn’t mix well with scotch. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/284 "2011-06-27T16:59:27Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Only weapons grade ignorance would tell you that it is good for your side when you bring an expert that you claim is “the bomb” only for him to bomb on you. Whoops. I replied as if it came from another poster. You need to go back and look at why he used that cite. That and stop conflating the issues and arguments concerning a global outlook and a national one. ---
**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, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/285 "2011-06-27T17:25:13Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Whoops. I replied as if it came from another poster. You need to go back and look at why he used that cite. That and stop conflating the issues and arguments concerning a global outlook and a national one. Brown’s main point is that **we can not ignore other factors** , we have to deal with the priorities that we have now. For him population is affected by the environmental degradation and AGW is the most important thing in this degradation issue. National and local issues will be affected and the reality is that the organizations Chen is getting his ideas from are not doing what it is needed, they are more a hindrance than a help. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2011, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/286 "2011-06-28T00:17:51Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Brown’s main point is that **we can not ignore other factors** , we have to deal with the priorities that we have now. For him population is affected by the environmental degradation and AGW is the most important thing in this degradation issue. > > National and local issues will be affected and the reality is that the organizations Chen is getting his ideas from are not doing what it is needed, they are more a hindrance than a help. We can’t ignore other factors - well I’m glad we are in agreement. 🙂 So, now we can sensibly address those and acknowledge that immigration is a major driver of US population growth. Therefore a zero net immigration policy would be one logical way of addressing the population growth issue in the US. Easy 🙂 ---
**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 28, 2011, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/287 "2011-06-28T03:04:43Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > We can’t ignore other factors - well I’m glad we are in agreement. 🙂 > > So, now we can sensibly address those and acknowledge that immigration is a major driver of US population growth. Therefore a zero net immigration policy would be one logical way of addressing the population growth issue in the US. > > Easy 🙂 Said the mouse when telling all to put the bell on the cat. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2011, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/288 "2011-06-28T05:01:52Z")
The cat being people like yourself who will scream NATIVIST! and send those concerned about US population growth scurrying. 😛 ---
**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 28, 2011, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/289 "2011-06-28T17:44:47Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > The cat being people like yourself who will scream NATIVIST! and send those concerned about US population growth scurrying. 😛 Nope, say anything about magellan, but he is smart enough by not using cites from places like V-dare anymore. You are still not smart enough from starting OPs that poison the discussion from the get go. It was indeed like if you yourself had put a “kick me, I’m an idiot nativist” in your back. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/290 "2011-06-29T01:02:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, say anything about magellan, but he is smart enough by not using cites from places like V-dare anymore. You are still not smart enough from starting OPs that poison the discussion from the get go. It was indeed like if you yourself had put a “kick me, I’m an idiot nativist” in your back. You seem to think in very black and white terms. Favor immigration restriction, for any reason, and you become an idiot nativist. Even poor old [Professor Ben Zuckerman](http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/09/magazine/tm-45400)! And that really is the problem, that totalitarian thugs like yourself want to shut down any disscussion. That’s fine, but you’re a thug and a pathetic name calling moron. ---
**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 29, 2011, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/291 "2011-06-29T05:08:58Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > You seem to think in very black and white terms. Favor immigration restriction, for any reason, and you become an idiot nativist. Even poor old [Professor Ben Zuckerman](http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/09/magazine/tm-45400)! > > And that really is the problem, that totalitarian thugs like yourself want to shut down any disscussion. That’s fine, but you’re a thug and a pathetic name calling moron. Meh, like if other well respected dopers will think you are shooting straight. As mentioned, that you are oozing prejudice is clear from your past postings, what it is also clear is that you also relied so many times on points from climate change deniers or organizations that also deny AGW that it also puts a lie on your pretended environmentalism. That was also a \*\*certification \*\*of who is the moron here. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/292 "2011-06-30T11:43:18Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Meh, like if other well respected dopers will think you are shooting straight. > > As mentioned, that you are oozing prejudice is clear from your past postings, what it is also clear is that you also relied so many times on points from climate change deniers or organizations that also deny AGW that it also puts a lie on your pretended environmentalism. That was also a \*\*certification \*\*of who is the moron here. This would have more weight if you demonstrated some capacity for rational thought. So far you’ve displayed an impressive ability to post confused and off point arguments that don’t really address what myself or **magellan01** have said. It’s been embarrassing seeing you repeat the same bizarre arguments and failing to comprehend the difference between immigrants currently in the US and those projected to come in the future. As I said above, I’m not sure whether that has been deliberate obfuscation or simply a hardware issue. If it was simply obfuscation, then you should think of a smarter way of doing it. ---
**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 30, 2011, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/293 "2011-06-30T16:05:56Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > This would have more weight if you demonstrated some capacity for rational thought. So far you’ve displayed an impressive ability to post confused and off point arguments that don’t really address what myself or **magellan01** have said. Most environmentalist already said their piece on this and have been deftly ignore by you guys, this angle is really just another certification of your moronic debating methods. > [@Chen019](#): > > It’s been embarrassing seeing you repeat the same bizarre arguments and failing to comprehend the difference between immigrants currently in the US and those projected to come in the future. As I said above, I’m not sure whether that has been deliberate obfuscation or simply a hardware issue. If it was simply obfuscation, then you should think of a smarter way of doing it. As demonstrated, the local argument depends also on ignoring on purpose that domestic immigration is the biggest issue on the Colorado report. So the obfuscation and misinterpretation of \*\*good \*\*sources did come from you when using that example and many others, not to mention that the focus of the Colorado report was, as many environmentalists concentrate nowadays, in the global warming issue and how it will affect the resources and the whole population. Foreign future immigration is even less of a part of that. And so it goes for the focus the environmentalists then have on immigration, the best thing to do is to remain neutral on the issue. As for the issue of the thread, it is even more moronic to avoid that the subject is also a roast of you naivete and dumb avoidance of the fact that most organizations and individuals that have it against immigrants also have it against AGW. The end result of supporting them is precisely that the situation will get worse. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/294 "2011-07-01T11:40:22Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As demonstrated, the local argument depends also on ignoring on purpose that domestic immigration is the biggest issue on the Colorado report. > > So the obfuscation and misinterpretation of \*\*good \*\*sources did come from you when using that example and many others, not to mention that the focus of the Colorado report was, as many environmentalists concentrate nowadays, in the global warming issue and how it will affect the resources and the whole population. Foreign future immigration is even less of a part of that. And so it goes for the focus the environmentalists then have on immigration, the best thing to do is to remain neutral on the issue. > > As for the issue of the thread, it is even more moronic to avoid that the subject is also a roast of you naivete and dumb avoidance of the fact that most organizations and individuals that have it against immigrants also have it against AGW. The end result of supporting them is precisely that the situation will get worse. No, that doesn’t follow. I’m not saying you or anyone else should support them. I was questioning the inexplicable silence of environmentalists on immigration which is significantly propelling US population growth (US population stablization being recommended by Clinton Sustainability Taskforce, Lester Brown, basic examples of waters sustainability etc). It seemed to me that their avoidance of the issue stemmed, in part, from a fear of being politically incorrect. That’s fine for an individual like yourself, but it seems cowardly and misguided for environmental organizations to subordinate environmental concerns to politics. ---
**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:** [July 1, 2011, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/295 "2011-07-01T15:27:59Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > No, that doesn’t follow. I’m not saying you or anyone else should support them. I was questioning the inexplicable silence of environmentalists on immigration which is significantly propelling US population growth (US population stablization being recommended by Clinton Sustainability Taskforce, Lester Brown, basic examples of waters sustainability etc). And they don’t follow you, you are really an ignorant of what Lester Brown and the Clinton Task force did, you really do think there was no other final report from the task force that Cafaro and others just “forgot” to mention? > [@Chen019](#): > > It seemed to me that their avoidance of the issue stemmed, in part, from a fear of being politically incorrect. That’s fine for an individual like yourself, but it seems cowardly and misguided for environmental organizations to subordinate environmental concerns to politics. And your numskull debating tactic shows again, as it was pointed before Lester Brown helps you less that he is helping me, in his references and praises he recommended groups like Climate Progress and Grist, (Thank you Mr. Brown for pointing those to me and giving even more ammo against numskulls like Chen) with environmentalists that once again point at the reasons why immigration is not the focus of environmentalists. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/296 "2011-07-01T17:45:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As demonstrated, the local argument depends also on ignoring on purpose that domestic immigration is the biggest issue on the Colorado report. 😕 What?! You are STILL conflating the different issues?!?!?! Unbelievable. Let’s try this again. But first I will add that your infatuation with domestic immigration is an issue for Number 2 below—and only Number 2. PLease keep in mind that as far as domestic immigration and Number 2, _no one disagrees with you_. It just has nothing to do with #s 1 and 3. 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. And while we’re at it, _again_ I will ask you: keeping in mind my 1,2,3 above, rather than be snide or insulting or attempt to hand wave away the point, can you point out the logical flaw(s) in this offered by Chen? And, no, you haven’t answered this yet. Try being direct and not shooting off on tangents. Here you go: [QUOTE=Chen019] 1. Population growth is seen as a bad thing for the environment (US 400 million+). 2. Immigration is a major driver of US population growth. 3. Therefore reducing immigration is one effective way to reduce US population growth. Thank you, Smartest Person on the Planet Who Feels The Need to Repeatedly Insult Those Smarter Then Him. I can only imagine the demands placed on your time from the other 6 billion less intelligent humans seeking your wisdom. [/QUOTE] ---
**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:** [July 2, 2011, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/297 "2011-07-02T01:17:16Z")
I already said to Chen that he himself admitted that it is not an effective way to reduce US population growth, he thinks it is for political reasons, and they are plenty, I say it is for practical reasons. Feel free to show others once again how dumb you look for insisting that there has been no reply to that. Of course that game does avoid dealing with the pedantic scientific reasons why the focus of the environmentalists can not be just immigrants, but what it is clear here is that that you are dumb enough to tell others that his logical game has not been replied before. ---
**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:** [July 2, 2011, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/298 "2011-07-02T01:53:24Z")
Incidentally, the final Clinton council on sustainability Final Report that Cafaro and others forget to mention does say this about immigration: Towards a Sustainable America: Advancing Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment for the 21st Century, May 1999 > [@](#): > > We also need policies that try to build relationships among > diverse individuals, institutions, and jurisdictions. The recommendations > in this section address three areas of activity > concerning local capacity and partnerships: > > - Building a Multicultural Society. As we move forward > into the 21st century, America will become more > diverse, making it imperative that we rapidly dismantle > the barriers that separate Americans from each > other. According to the designations used by the U.S. > Census, America is today 72.7 percent white, 12.1 > percent black, 11.0 percent Hispanic, 3.6 percent > Asian/Pacific Islander, and 0.7 percent American > Indian. By 2050, the population in the United States > will be approximately 53 percent white, 25 percent > Hispanic, 14 percent black, 8 percent Asian/Pacific > Islander, and 1 percent American Indian.46 There is > much work to be done in building a thriving multicultural > society in America that is unified and not > fragmented. Unless multiple stakeholders foster > greater cultural tolerance and acceptance, current > trends may point to greater segregation in the future. > In the last decade, for example, major metropolitan > cities such as New York, Miami, and Los Angeles > experienced significant outmigrations of middleclass > whites as new immigrants arrived. 47 > Sustainability initiatives will be challenged to address > race and culture in ways that promote economic and > social well-being for all residents. **Partnerships cannot > take unless individuals cross the boundaries that > separate them and keep them from recognizing their > common interests.** So after all was said and done, the commission did recommend dealing with the population as a whole, and yes, including immigrants in the solution. Environmentalists already do get that ignoring minorities has been a big mistake on the past and they need to be reached when solutions to the main issue are put on line. What I have seen from Grist, a site also recommended by Brown (thanks again sir) is that you guys really are complaining too much for the official neutrality environmentalists have on this particular issue, it has been noticed that it helps the misleading attacks go further. > **[Why environmentalists should get involved in immigration reform](https://grist.org/article/2010-03-19-why-environmentalists-should-get-involved-in-immigration-reform/)** > > How many enviros can you spot in this picture?Photo: Salina CanizalesI grew up in a family that sorted recyclables, reused containers until they were no longer reusable, and walked whenever and wherever we could. We turned off our lights and... > [@](#): > > These groups suggest that limiting immigration would be a good way to slow the population growth of the U.S. – and without any prominent environmental voices countering them [because of the official neutrality], they’ve had plenty of room to make the case that immigration is a main driver of environmental degradation. > > While their argument might sound green at first, it is far from it. The argument blames individuals rather than focusing on the main causes of degradation – polluting industries, bad policies, and rampant consumption. Author Betsy Hartmann calls this “the greening of hate – blaming environmental degradation on poor populations of color.” > > There are good reasons for environmentalists to be pro–immigrant rights: > > First, people who are invested in and connected to their communities are more likely to value things that will impact them and their families over the long term: clean water, clean air, parks and open spaces. When our broken immigration system keeps families split apart for years – children without parents, spouses without partners – their lives are marked by impermanence and uncertainty. It’s hard to raise your children to be good environmental stewards when your family is always wondering if they will still be in the same place tomorrow. If we care about healthy environments, then we need to care about making sure that families stay together, investing themselves in their communities and building stable futures. > > Second, most environmental protections are funded by tax dollars, and immigrants contribute a lot of those dollars. The 14 percent of U.S. residents who are foreign-born and the additional U.S. citizens who live in mixed-status families foster environmental protection every day, by paying their taxes and contributing to economic growth that generates still more tax revenue. > > Third, the demographics of our country are changing. We have a president who is the son of an immigrant. In recent elections, the votes of new Americans have been tipping outcomes – electoral power that will only continue to grow. If the environmental movement were forward-thinking, we would be strategizing – like both the Republicans and Democrats – about how to court immigrant voters. For environmentalism to be relevant to the future voters of America, we need to proactively seek to diversify our movement and connect with new Americans who could support pro-environment candidates and sustainable policies. > > Fourth, in the coming years, immigration pressures are likely to increase as climate change disproportionately affects people living in developing countries. Environmentalists should help poorer nations adapt to the effects of climate change and work to develop compassionate immigration policies so those who must leave their homelands have a decent chance to rebuild their lives. To be effective, we must build partnerships within immigrant communities now so that we can address this future challenge. If we turn our backs on immigration reform, we are not just enabling but creating a future in which climate refugees become one more forgotten byproduct of an unjust political, social, and environmental system. > > Finally, our global challenges are big enough that we need everyone working together to solve them. Our movement should be about taking care of each other while taking care of the environment; we must act on these values and advocate for the rights of our immigrant friends and neighbors. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2011, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/299 "2011-07-02T07:19:32Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 😕 What?! You are STILL conflating the different issues?!?!?! Unbelievable. Let’s try this again. But first I will add that your infatuation with domestic immigration is an issue for Number 2 below—and only Number 2. PLease keep in mind that as far as domestic immigration and Number 2, _no one disagrees with you_. It just has nothing to do with #s 1 and 3. > > 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. > > And while we’re at it, _again_ I will ask you: keeping in mind my 1,2,3 above, rather than be snide or insulting or attempt to hand wave away the point, can you point out the logical flaw(s) in this offered by Chen? And, no, you haven’t answered this yet. Try being direct and not shooting off on tangents. Here you go: Nicely summarized again. I’ve given up on expecting a logical response from **GIGObuster**. It is entertaining though seeing the various non-arguments and diversions he or she can come up with 🙂 ---
**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:** [July 2, 2011, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909/300 "2011-07-02T15:19:35Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Nicely summarized again. I’ve given up on expecting a logical response from **GIGObuster**. It is entertaining though seeing the various non-arguments and diversions he or she can come up with 🙂 They are so cute when they ignore what forum is this. 😛 If you had not gather it from the previous answers that you deny they were given, what we have here is a preponderance of evidence to show that it is logical for the environmentalists to take a neutral position on this. And this is thanks to the real final Clinton report, the true interpretation of the Colorado water report, and the preponderance of the environmentalists recommended by Brown and what Brown himself is saying, immigration is not the focus for him, but (for population control) poverty and lack of education is. Only an idiot would look at what was found and still insist the evidence is not there to at least fall to a neutral position regarding immigration, in logical circles it is clear that the syllogism of Chen depends on the evidence brought forward. Clearly the good sources of information used by Chen are being misrepresented. And so it goes to the discredit of the Nativist sources, for they are the ones that pushed that misrepresentation to people like Chen. The key of the issue that brought us here was the neutrality position of environmentalist groups. The logic fail is show by actually insisting that there should only be only one position possible. That was not true, neutrality does recognize that there is a middle. That is based on the position of most environmentalists. What it is clear to me is that what the Sierra Club fight showed is that that middle is also shrinking, most environmentalists are favoring immigrants as part of the solution instead of looking at them as a problem. The “logic” Chen has is just set like creationism logic. It works only by constantly ignoring the evidence that is out there. And to be more precise here, it is just a fallacy of the excluded middle. > **[Environmentalists say: stop ALL of Arizona's anti-immigrant law](https://grist.org/article/environmentalists-say-stop-all-of-arizonas-anti-immigrant-law/)** > > Today, Arizona’s “show me your papers” anti-immigrant law SB1070 goes into effect. Across the country, July 29th has been declared a national day of action for Human Rights. Phoenix is ground zero for the collective outrage and protest that this bill... [QUOTE] As I am practicing civil disobedience in Phoenix today, I’m proud to be a part of the new generation of eco-activists who see the forests for the trees (and the people). We believe the fate of our planet intimately depends on how we treat our brothers and sisters, and that standing up for Immigrant Rights is a central element of our task. These new environmentalists represent a new way of thinking. We’re connecting the dots: an ecosystem is your home. Economy is the management of your home. When you globalize your economy, you globalize your ecosystem. Here’s the frank outcome: the ecological systems that support life on our planet have been pushed to the brink by an economy that trashes natural resources and destroys relationships between peoples across the planet in the process. When you convert forests into paper, mountains into coal, and oceans into oil, you force people off their land and deprive those land-based peoples of the resources they depend on to survive. A key lesson from the Environmental Justice movement is that supporting those communities in protecting their land and their livelihoods is one of the most strategic ways to fight the drivers of climate change. The root cause of environmental degradation and climate change is the root cause of forced migration. Human migration has happened throughout history. Immigration is an ever-present, beautiful fact of Arizona’s history. Migration is not the cause of the climate crisis. But displacement of humans (and the next steps of detention and deportation being put in place by SB1070) will be the result of it. Those of us who have worked around the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change know that half of the UN debates center on “adaptation.” That means finding ways to accommodate the millions of climate refugees forced to find new homes because of the droughts, floods, famines, and destabilization that comprise the climate crisis. Right now the US immigration architecture is being built out. Forward-thinking climate activists know that now is a critical time to ensure that the precedent for immigration policy in this country protects human rights because immigration is going to get a lot more common, not less. [/QUOTE [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chen019-a-bigger-fool-that-follows-other-fools/585909.md?page=16)