I dunno; schemes to make the US economy even worse seem…not quite sporting to me. 
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.
What Bridget Burke said.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
- the environmental health and sustainability of the planet
- the environmental health and sustainability of the Colorado River Basin
- 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]
-
Population growth is seen as a bad thing for the environment (US 400 million+).
-
Immigration is a major driver of US population growth.
-
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]
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.
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
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.
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.
[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