Environmentalists, and as the Colorado water report could tell you, do worry about the population increase and carbon emissions, the population increase of the immigrants is included already in the equation, and immigrants become more involved in the solutions.
Of course what is happening is that you are now willfully ignoring this and other points that show how false is to claim it we have to debunk it, it a straw man point. There is no need to debunk it because immigration is not the focus for environmentalists when population is.
What Chen and I have been talking about is future immigrants. Not people that are here now. Of course it behooves us to have everyone here helping, but the discussion is the degree to which immigration—moving forward—affects the U.S. sustainability equation.
But WHY isn’t immigration on the table? (Refer back to the OP.) It is a factor in how immigration would grow most rapidly (as per Chen’s cite). Why ignore it? Virtually every one of your posts in that other thread and this and amounts to a colossal hand-waving of the issue. You want it off the table. You want it to be “silly” to even discuss. You are emotionally invested in immigration not being an issue. You are emotionally invested in “the other side” not having anything to contribute, no points to make, concerning the environment. Yet, prior to them being basically blackmailed into their current position, the Sierra Club itself thought it an important issue. Chen also cited Clinton’s council.
This is a lie. The iffy sites used (not nativist) include the descendants of the immigrants going back to the revolutionary war.
If the reason was to deal with future immigrants:
Then the cites were used with the intent to mislead.
Then the ones who are ignoring the cites that show that immigration will get worse by doing noting, are the real cowards here. The nativist organizations are either fools or clever bastards as they have no intention to do anything about the carbon footprint, they will get support or are controlled now by climate change deniers.
You are still a fool for following them.
Piffle, in reality it has been demonstrated that you are afraid to even look for evidence that the nativists groups have a bone of environmentalism on them, not even a letter to a newspaper editor complaining about their congress critter blocking carbon emission control solutions?
Stop being so emotional and look for the evidence.
I do not agree that that was Chen’s premise, or mine, or that of any of the cites. The correct premise is that immigration plays a role in the sustainability equation, as do other things, like the use of fossil fuels and our carbon footprints.
There is a relationship between a the U.S. population and the demand that population places on our resources. Immigration is a means by which that population can grow more rapidly, so it is sensible to look at it. in fact, it is the responsible thing to do.
There is also the recognition of the fact that more people puts additional stress on our resources and the environment.
But you seem eager to ignore facts for some reason.
This is a lie. The iffy sites used (not nativist) include the descendants of the immigrants going back to the revolutionary war.
Cite? Please point to even one instance where either Chen or I advocated “removing” anyone.
Please point to those specific cites and passages. I do not recall seeing them. Let’s see if they say what you think you recall them saying. and I don’t see Chen as attempting to mislead. He’s been quite forthcoming and consistent with what he’s been arguing.
Again, with the climate change :rolleyes:, which has nothing to do with the issue.
Let’s see how you do with those cites first before we conclude who the fool is.
God, you’re being dense. Either looking at population (and immigration) and how it syncs up with the country’s resources is either a valid to thing to look at or it is not. Why can’t, for instance, a geologist who understands the Colorado water basin study how many people it can sustain without first having to have written a letter to his congressman talking about carbon emissions. If he did that, too, great. But whether he did or not has nothing to do with the validity of what he is studying.
And the Colorado water basin report talks extensively about global warming driving the changes.
That was already a cite that shows what a fool you are for trying to claim global warming is not one of the more important issues that will affect local areas.
The reason why fake environmentalist nativists are the cowards is precisely for their demonstrated continuing support of climate change deniers in congress.
Of course, if you had a bit of intelligence you would had already noticed an obvious pattern and an observation that I made of Chen a long time ago, he has a propensity to misrepresent cites or to completely miss what the big overall point is, he should not be called Chen019 but Cherrypick101.
I stopped counting the times where he missed complete paragraphs of his cites that actually reported more support for the position of his opponent, all should also be aware that on many of those occasions the Chen was looking for support for scientific racism.
Yes, the population includes past and recent immigrants, those who have already emigrated. No one is talking about removing them. “Immigration”, as used by Chen, me, and the cites, refers to the people who will (future tense) be coming in.
Thank you! That is evidence that concern for global warming and concern for how immigration will effect the sustainability equation in the U.S. are not mutually exclusive. Just because someone looks at how population and immigration might impact sustainability does not mean they discount global warming. They are TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES.
Good thing I never said anything to the contrary then. .
At least it is becoming clearer as to who the fool is. Hint: it’s not the emotional one who insists on being condescending.
You should change your SDMB location to “Black Hole”, because that’s the only place density like that which you are displaying is possible.
The ignorance is to try to separate global warming from the sustainability issues.
Meh, like if you are respected around here.
As I made it easier before on the other thread, point at a list from the experts in environmentalism and sustainability that include immigration as an important item.
Chances are that the only references to immigration come from nativist sites.
This is a strawman that GIGObuster also created. The point is that population growth is a material concern as acknowledged in the Clinton sustainability report and with the obvious example of water supplies in the Southwest.
Now, population growth is largely driven by immigration so reducing immigration is a potential policy option to alleviate population pressure.
What I have been insisting is on how important immigration really is when looking at it from an environmentalist and and sustainability issue. Virtually all experts do not see it as important as you think it is when they are already taking care of it when they are dealing with the population at large.
And once again, global warming is mentioned as a big factor on the water issue, and population on the whole.
“Immigration control is a foolish way to create an environmental perspective,” says Adam Werbach, who was the president of the Sierra Club in 1998. “It attacks people who are suffering, it allows people who are rich to be unaccountable, it’s out of touch with the realities of changing demographics, and it’s terrifically unpopular.”
And Pew just came up with a survey showing most people think now that a path to citizenship should be considered to deal with the immigration issue.
The Pew site has no criticism of the immigratant’s growth, it just shows what may happen, and it does not mean that places that will have water issues will not do something to discourage all people to settle in a problem area.
Not true. The importance of US population stabilization is discussed in the Clinton sustainability report. The impact of population growth is also discussed in the of water shortages in the Southwest.
US population growth is largely driven by immigration, therefore it is logical from an environmental POV to consider reducing it.
Nope, as the latest Pew survey showed, we are talking also if your point is a practical one.
“Immigration control is a foolish way to create an environmental perspective,” says Adam Werbach, who was the president of the Sierra Club in 1998. “It attacks people who are suffering, it allows people who are rich to be unaccountable, it’s out of touch with the realities of changing demographics, and it’s terrifically unpopular.”
Again, I said you had non-environmental reasons for opposing immigration restrictions like those mentioned above. I’m saying that in terms of population growth, it is a logical and sensible policy option.
I just did. They aren’t environmental concerns, which was the point I was making. From an environmental perspective increasing population growth in the US is a significant issue. So there must be strong non-environmental reasons for environmentalists to turn a blind eye to immigration - given that is the major driver of population growth.
Ok, then the other option was that you are just deluded..
Nothing wrong with that, that makes it the perfect pit.
Lets see how it is silly to ignore the points:
“Immigration control is a foolish way to create an environmental perspective,”
Global warming was referenced already both in the carbon footprint link from the nativist source and the water source that has turned into a clutch for you. In reality the Colorado cite supports more of what I and many environmentalists say, the perspective has to include not only local but global solutions.
As it was already linked, but you think for some stupid reason it can be ignored, time is running out on the big issue, and no matter how hard you try..
.. actually you do not even try and you think no one would notice, you can not show what in heck your nativist sources are doing on the carbon footprint, and that lead us to the other bit that you delusively think that it can be assigned as not being an environmental concern.
“It attacks people who are suffering, it allows people who are rich to be unaccountable”
This was mentioned before, but your brain is not able to cope, the carbon footprint of many affluent people and corporations stomps many times over the ones from the immigrants. If there was actually a sincere interest on doing something to sustain a local area from the nativists, both items would be the focus, it is painfully obvious where the priorities your nativists sources have in the attempt to make immigrants the focus.
And that is crystal clear by the people that they help elect to congress, the environment is not a priority. The priority is to protect the revenues of very powerful interests. And it is not the immigrants.
You say I think the global solutions can be ignored. Please read my post #9 above. I explicitly agreed with you on that point.
Population growth is cited as a material concern by the Clinton Sustainability Task Force report. I have given you a very tangible example in terms of water shortages.
Population growth in the US is largely driven by immigration.
Therefore it is logical from an environmental perspective to reduce immigration to the US.
That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t address the other matters you raise, but immigration restriction is a logical policy option for environmental reasons.
Of course when he’s trying to use the immigrant’s effect on the the economy, he ignores the descendants, as then the economic numbers don’t show “brown people bad”, which is what he wants to demonstrate. So, he’s a cherry-picking racist, at least when he’s not making shit up out of whole cloth, or quoting people who do that. I’m glad to see that his homophobic buddy magellan “Why the fuck don’t you fucking Mexicans get your own shit together and clean out your cesspool of corruption? But to reiterate, until you do, come legally or stay the fuck out.” 01 is there to help him out again. They both seem to love them some Tanton. If we could only get Lonesome “Snippy little faggot” Polecat to join in, we’d have the anti-Mexican/generic-bigot trifecta.
