Chen019: A bigger fool that follows other fools

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

Such persistent avoidance of defending a point that is so foundational to so much of what you’ve been arguing in two threads now will likely, and fairly, be seen as you not being able to defend that particular point. And because so much of what you’ve written hinges on that specific point, and you really can’t defend it, I can see why you’re trying as hard as you are to hand wave it away. Unfortunately for you, now that the error has been pointed out, your argument has been undermined whether you attempt to defend it or not.

Given that you cannot defend your point, you’re probably doing the wise thing in hoping it will just be ignored and go away.

Sorry. In case you discover some backbone and would like to either defend your statement or concede that you have been wrong, let me make it easy for you. Here is what we’re talking about:

How was I wrong?

I have explained already that the best cite from Chen is not worrying about immigrants but with the population at large.

Even the best example about a local angle presented is referring to global warming, water and the entire population of the local area.

And so we are left with what you **claim **you guys are talking about:

Group 2: there is the number of people who will—future tense—emigrate here. This latter group is what people are referring to in this discussion when referring to “immigrants” are those people who would be added through immigration.

The reality is that after all that huge musical tap dancing production of yours, you guys can not come with numbers to show why **future **immigration should be the focus of environmentalist groups.

And that is because the carbon footprint is now the most important thing, one of the most peculiar things of the issue is that it is an accumulating one, it is the carbon emissions of all the people from the past and the present that are affecting us today and will affect us in the future. Environmentally speaking, it will affect even your pet focus.

Of course, then that leave us with another reality, the fact that everyone can see that you are scared of realizing that you are as a chump for the climate change deniers, that you are a chump for defending the efforts of racists, and that you are a chump for ignoring that in the FUTURE the actual efforts of the nativists in blocking carbon emission controls will bring more immigrants in.

[GIGObuster]

@Shodan

Does adding people to a population increase that population’s environmental impact?

The game here is to get one concession from a different discussion to then ignore dealing with the roast points over here.

To answer properly one has to report (once again!) that the impact of the immigrants is less than what the nativists claim, and this is even less if we take the point that “in reality” we are discussing about the **future **immigrants.

In the end, the efforts are clear, it is an attempt to scapegoat immigrants in favor of ignoring the carbon footprint hogs. Point being that the business of environmentalists is to then focus on the thole population and **what **are they doing.

It is the business of politicians and specific government agencies, to limit or control the future part of the population that will come in.

Population Bombs

Surely there is one respect in which the growing human population constitutes the primary threat? The amount of food the world eats bears a direct relationship to the number of mouths. After years of glut, the storerooms are suddenly empty and grain prices are rocketing. How will another three billion be fed?

Even here, however, population growth is not the most immediate issue: another sector is expanding much faster. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation expects that global meat production will double by 2050 (growing, in other words, at two and a half times the rate of human numbers)(18). The supply of meat has already tripled since 1980: farm animals now take up 70% of all agricultural land (19) and eat one third of the world’s grain(20). In the rich nations we consume three times as much meat and four times as much milk per capita as the people of the poor world(21). While human population growth is one of the factors that could contribute to a global food deficit, it is not the most urgent.

None of this means that we should forget about it. Even if there were no environmental pressures caused by population growth, we should still support the measures required to tackle it: universal sex education, universal access to contraceptives, better schooling and opportunities for poor women. Stabilising or even reducing the human population would ameliorate almost all environmental impacts. But to suggest, as many of my correspondents do, that population growth is largely responsible for the ecological crisis is to blame the poor for the excesses of the rich.

Now that that has been taken care of, I would not be surprised that everyone else can still see that the fake environmentalists here are scared of realizing that they are chumps for the climate change deniers, that they are chumps for defending the efforts of racists, and that they are chumps for ignoring that in the FUTURE the actual efforts of the nativists in blocking carbon emission controls will bring more immigrants in.

[heatmiserfl]

@magellan01

You’ll have to point that out, then. While it is probably true that recent immigrants do not use as many environmental resources as the typical American, they do tend to use more when they get here. I can’t fathom an argument that supports that they use no more than they did before they emigrated.
…
You’re conflating a bunch of different things. Mainly the global issue and the national one. Globally, it matters little (your points 1 and 2) if someone emigrates to the U.S. There is a net rise in their footprint, but it is fairly small. As far as the U.S. itself, every immigrant raises the collective U.S. carbon footprint by X. Now X may be smaller than that of the American, but it is still an increase. The collective footprint grows for every new person that is added to the population, whether through birth or immigration. Now, it is true that if recent immigrants do use less resources, that they would reduce the average carbon footprint for Americans, but the total collective (from which that average would be derived) would increase. This is simple math.

…

So, you object to simple facts like the one I just stated and seek to show they are foolish by ad hominems like calling someone a racist.

And just out of curiosity, if you found an actual racist and he told you you should wear your seatbelt when you drive, would you then stop wearing your seatbelt?

GIGOBuster post #54 suggests that immigrants use less energy. It’s not surprising.

When you speak of carbon footprints, this issue is obviously the greenhouse effect and global climate change. Local is meaningless as has been stated repeatedly by others.

Even then, if immigrants do use less energy and resources, they probably don’t contribute much to local pollution. Again, as stated repeatedly in this thread, reducing immigration will not reduce pollution if clean air and water regulations are not enforced for the population that is already here.
Pointing out that Chen019 is a racist is only to explain why he would have such a stupid idea so your analogy shows that you don’t understand the issue.

[Kobal2]

@Shodan

Does adding people to a population increase that population’s environmental impact?

Does eating a hamburger decrease the amount of food available ?

[magellan01]

@heatmiserfl

GIGOBuster post #54 suggests that immigrants use less energy. It’s not surprising.

I didn’t see that in that post, but I’ve been assuming that recent immigrants use less energy and other resources than the average American. I stated this in my post to you. And you bring it up here, why?

@heatmiserfl

When you speak of carbon footprints, this issue is obviously the greenhouse effect and global climate change.

Mainly, yes. It is a specific way to assess one’s impact on the environment. It is a subset of the ecological footprint.

@heatmiserfl

Local is meaningless as has been stated repeatedly by others.

That’s a bit of an over statement, as imigrants coming into the U.S. do increase their carbon footprints. But I generally agree, as I’ve stated both in this thread and the other one, that when looking at the GLOBAL environment, immigration and borders are fairly meaningless. And, your point is…?

@heatmiserfl

Even then, if immigrants do use less energy and resources, they probably don’t contribute much to local pollution.

Here’s where you go off the rails. Just because it may not matter to the planet, where people generate their carbon footprints (which is not the same as pollution, by the way), that doesn’t mean that it is a moot point to a particular region or country. I agree that one immigrant does not add much to the collective carbon footprint of the U.S., and no one said it did. But they do add something. and when you multiply that times the number of immigrants, the number becomes more and more meaningful. That’s why we need to look at it.

@heatmiserfl

Again, as stated repeatedly in this thread, reducing immigration will not reduce pollution if clean air and water regulations are not enforced for the population that is already here.

Ah, another refutation of a point nobody made. Excellent straw you have there. Look, EVERYONE in both threads agrees on your point above. Still, the fact remains, adding people means a increasing the nation’s footprint. This really isn’t that difficult. It’s like 4th grade math: X+1 > X. It’s true. Really. Ask your teacher.

@heatmiserfl

Pointing out that Chen019 is a racist is only to explain why he would have such a stupid idea so your analogy shows that you don’t understand the issue.

:rolleyes: Oh, brother. You may want to look up ad hominem fallacy. Better yet, please take a basic course in logic, because you seem to have difficulty following specific points and because of that it is painful trying to squeeze sense out of anything you write.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

How was I wrong?

Shodan said:

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Who gives a flying fuck about your scope? AFAICT you don’t want to talk about immigration. That’s dumb, because immigration is a major source of population growth in the US, and population growth increases overall consumption and environmental impact.

[/QUOTE]

You said:

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
The disingenuous part comes by denying that population on the whole also includes the immigrants.
[/QUOTE]

I pointed out that you seem to be making the mistake of thinking that the discussion about immigrants and immigration refers to those who are already here. In fact you made the same mistake in the other thread: (bolding yours)

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
What is really a bigger Charade is that there are already examples of Chen019 dismissing and not dealing with the points just because he does not like the cites, so there is already evidence that he is demanding others to do has he is not, to be just happy to pretend that this discussion has not taken place elsewhere, forgetting that his nativists lost, to pretend that magically environmentalists that do worry about population magically are not also dealing with the population of the immigrants.
[/QUOTE]

As you can see, your point is based on “immigrants” being part of the population. Recent immigrants would be included in that, as (to your point) they are part of the population.

But that is not what I, Chen, or the cites are referring to. For the purpose of this discussion and all discussions concerning population and sustainability, once immigrants are here, they are included in the population. NO ONE has been arguing that any immigrants be removed, just that we should assess the impact that future years of immigrants would effect the sustainability equation.

As I’ve been saying, there are two different groups:

Group 1: “the population as a whole”, which does include those who have already emigrated to the U.S..

Group 2: there is the number of people who will—future tense—emigrate here. This latter group is what people are referring to in this discussion when referring to “immigrants” are those people who would be added through immigration.

Do you see the error you made?

[GIGObuster]

What I see is that you are ignoring that I already took care of that.

When saying that we should assess the impact that future years of immigrants would effect the sustainability equation, it is something that belongs to specific government agencies, what levels they should take to deal with the issue is something for them and the elected officials to decide. The best example from the Colorado water department actually showed that even the official organizations looking at the environment consider the population as a whole.

The future immigrants, as has been shown many times already, are even more outside of the business of independent environmentalists groups.

In the end the fake environmentalists are making the specific future immigration worse, and when it is clear that their efforts are geared to divide environmentalists, and to actually help pollute more, it is then pertinent to look at what are the motivations.

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

The 1960s brought another unfortunate convergence, this time between the environmental movement and population control. By the end of that decade, reducing the population growth of poor countries had become an essential element of U.S. foreign policy. The main motive was not environmental; rather, population growth was seen as retarding economic growth and fomenting political instability, making countries more susceptible to Communist influence. But increasingly, the popular media couched these Cold War calculations in environmental terms to build popular support for American population-control efforts overseas. Images such as the “population bomb” became a lens through which the public and policymakers alike came to view the relationship of poor people to the environment. The overconsumption of the rich and corporate plundering of the planet’s resources were let off the hook as poor women’s fertility became synonymous with the felling of forests, polluting of rivers and desertification of farmland.

In many ways, this focus on population control threw the American environmental movement off track. By shifting the blame elsewhere, to the proverbial dark-skinned Other, it prevented many Americans from taking a deeper look at their own role, and the role of the U.S. government and corporations, in causing environmental degradation at home and abroad. It distorted family planning policy as the provision of birth control became a coercive tool in the war on population growth, rather than a means to improve women’s health and choices. It alienated people of color and immigrants from the environmental movement and left the door wide open to the greening of hate.

Fortunately, in recent years things have changed for the better. In 1994, a worldwide movement of women’s rights activists culminated in the reform of international population policy at the U.N. population conference in Cairo. Access to good-quality, voluntary family planning became part of a broader strategy to raise the status of women. The environmental justice movement challenged mainstream American environmentalists to acknowledge the disproportionate impact of pollution on communities of color, and the growing voice of immigrants in that movement raised the profile of their environmental stewardship and leadership.

But there is still a long ways to go. The idea of a “population bomb” has suddenly come back in vogue with a vengeance, tied to fears of global warming. The rhetoric of some population and environment groups is edging dangerously toward the same arguments used by proponents of the greening of hate. A recent mass mailing by Zero Population Growth, for example, blames population growth for traffic congestion, overcrowded schools, childhood asthma, poverty, famine, rain forest depletion and global warming. For environmentalists, the real challenge ahead is to remain vigilant about who is saying what and why, and to continue building a broad-based, democratic environmental movement where immigrants are welcomed as part of the solution.

Everyone else can still see that the fake environmentalists here are scared of realizing that they are chumps for the climate change deniers, that they are chumps for defending the efforts of racists, and that they are chumps for ignoring that in the FUTURE the actual efforts of the nativists in blocking carbon emission controls will bring more ecological degradation and future immigrants in.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

What I see is that you are ignoring that I already took care of that.

Because you didn’t.

@GIGObuster

When saying that we should assess the impact that future years of immigrants would effect the sustainability equation, it is something that belongs to specific government agencies, what levels they should take to deal with the issue is something for them and the elected officials to decide. The best example from the Colorado water department actually showed that even the official organizations looking at the environment consider the population as a whole.

First, it would be helpful to dispense with the term “population as a whole”. I think it’s been a source of the confusion. The word population means “population as a whole”. We’re talking about just two groups: 1) the population (which includes recent immigrants) and 2) immigrants, meaning those who WILL be emigrating here.

Now, it makes perfect sense that the U.S. would do what you describe above—for the U.S. What you’re missing is that this is also the types of things that environmental groups, like, and specifically, the Sierra Club have looked at in the past. Until they were bought off for non-environmental considerations. Even so, one can not look at sustainability without looking at how the population side of the equation will change. and that means birth rates and immigration. So, one must necessarily look at immigration if one is serious about projecting future sustainability.

@GIGObuster

The future immigrants, as has been shown many times already, are even more outside of the business of independent environmentalists groups.

They didn’t used to be. Any serious discussion of our environment and how much of a population it can sustain must look at how that population might increase: birth rates and immigration.

@GIGObuster

In the end the fake environmentalists are making the specific future immigration worse,

You keep saying this. But I’m not sure how, specifically, this happens. Granted you might have explained it and I missed it. Can you explain it for me?

@GIGObuster

…and when it is clear that their efforts are geared to divide environmentalists, and to actually help pollute more, it is then pertinent to look at what are the motivations.

The motivations are beside the point. Especially when people like Lester Brown think it something we need to be concerned about. Not to mention Clinton’s council, and the pre-bought off Sierra Club.

[GIGObuster]

Ignoring time, timelines and the march of progress.

Thank you for confirming once again one of the usual properties that I continue to observe in the mind of extreme conservatives.

Everyone else can still see that the fake environmentalists here are scared of realizing that they are chumps for the climate change deniers, that they are chumps for defending the efforts of racists, and that they are chumps for ignoring that in the FUTURE the actual efforts of the nativists in blocking carbon emission controls will bring more ecological degradation and future immigrants in.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

Ignoring time, timelines and the march of progress.

Thank you for confirming once again one of the usual properties that I continue to observe in the mind of extreme conservatives.

Everyone else can still see that the fake environmentalists here are scared of realizing that they are chumps for the climate change deniers, that they are chumps for defending the efforts of racists, and that they are chumps for ignoring that in the FUTURE the actual efforts of the nativists in blocking carbon emission controls will bring more ecological degradation and future immigrants in.

Chumps? I think I have to agree with that assessment. But not for any of the reasons you list. If we’re chumps it’s because we thought you were a debater smart enough to follow the issue being discussed and honorable enough to acknowledge when you’ve been shown to be wrong on a particular point. Never mind realize that calling people racists, nativists, or chumps, doesn’t bolster your position one iota.

Chumps, all right. ::shrug::

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

Chumps? I think I have to agree with that assessment. But not for any of the reasons you list. If we’re chumps it’s because we thought you were a debater smart enough to follow the issue being discussed and honorable enough to acknowledge when you’ve been shown to be wrong on a particular point. Never mind realize that calling people racists, nativists, or chumps, doesn’t bolster your position one iota.

Chumps, all right. ::shrug::

He is so cute by pretending not to know what forum is this.

Piffle.

You are really deluded, I’m not posting here to convince you, I’m posting here to show others what is going on with nativists trying to pass themselves as “environmentalists”.

The fact that they are so deluded to not notice that they are being had by the climate change deniers and polluters is just a bonus.

http://colorlines.com/archives/2008/07/antiimmigrants_racists_front_a_1.html

The ad offers up restrictionist drivel of the kind we might expect from Fox News. So what are these ads doing in some of this country’s most widely read and respected sources of left-liberal journalism and criticism? Anti-immigrant racists, it would seem, may be changing their tact, betting on the possibility that liberals may well put their environmental concerns above their social ones if they can be convinced that the two are mutually exclusive.

Countering this tactic will take a broad and energetic progressive agenda that centers those who are most marginalized, in this case immigrants. Immigrants along with other communities of color are much less the cause of environmental degradation than the recipients of its most vicious side effects. Environmentalists should concern themselves with the fact that communities of color are filled with toxics emitting factories owned by corporations. These and government’s refusal to take planetary health seriously are the real targets.

A Closer Look at the Board and Staff of Progressives for Immigration Reform ...

After the departure of president William Ryerson in recent weeks, a major reshuffle has taken place over at Progressives for Immigration Reform (PFIR), just one of the spin-offs of controversial anti-immigrant group Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

As we noted yesterday, anti-immigrant “environmentalist” Phil Cafaro has taken over as president of PFIR, but who makes up the rest of PFIR’s board? A closer look reveals that the board members, like the organization itself, are far from “progressive.”

First up is Frank Morris, the current vice president of PFIR. Morris has had a close relationship with the John Tanton Network – i.e. the modern day anti-immigrant movement – for decades. Morris sits on the boards of FAIR and of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). Both were founded by white nationalist John Tanton. Morris was also a key member of another FAIR front group, Choose Black America. He is also involved in another amalgam of Tanton Network groups called Coalition for the Future American Worker.

Since its founding in 2009, PFIR has attempted to use progressive frames around conservation issues and activism to lure environmentalists into the anti-immigrant movement. This strategy has clearly not been working, especially since the organization’s status as an anti-immigrant front group has been exposed numerous times by myriad media outlets.

Plain and simple, there is nothing “progressive” about Progressives for Immigration Reform, with the organization’s leadership changes over the past few weeks only further cementing that fact.

[BrainGlutton]

Let’s all step back and take a look the whole (thread-, not world-) picture here:

Chen019 is a white American and is well known in GD as our resident “racial realist.” Race and heredity are everything to him. Most if not of all of his GD threads relate to this one way or another. While he rarely states so plainly, there is no question that he finds the current immigration pressure to the U.S. objectionable, in substantial part, because most of the immigrants and would-be immigrants, now, are nonwhite – not just the products of non-“Western” or Third-World cultures, but nonwhite genetically.

Chen is not alone. There are a lot of Americans who want border control for similar reasons. Usually they are aware that their reasons are relevant only to a minority of white Americans nowadays, so if they want to preach to nonconverts they have to find other grounds. John Tanton is one of them and, for decades now, a leader of them. (Not necessarily the most famous of them – that probably would be Pat Buchanan.)

I don’t believe even Chen would contradict one word of the above. (Sputtering is not contradiction. Every thing I have yet seen from Chen when pressed on such points amounts either to a sputtering or a “Yeah, so?!”.)

Chen019 starts this GD thread calling (American) environmentalists “cowards” for not taking a solid line for immigration control. He blames this on their being torn “between their concern for the environment and being accused of prejudice, but surely they can make their case on a colorblind basis?”

Note the unstated assumptions:

1. All or nearly all American environmentalists really feel exactly the same way Chen does – that (a) slowing the growth-rate of the American population (as distinct from the global population) is a top-level environmental priority, and (b) the necessity of U.S. immigration control as an element of U.S. population control is too obvious to be questioned.

2. They are not actually concerned, here, with not being racist, only with not being perceived as racist.

Now, I haven’t been actively involved with environmentalism for a long time, but I’m fairly certain that 1 is utterly flat wrong, including all subparts; and nothing in either thread yet suggests a contrary conclusion. As for 2, can you say “projection,” kids?

A bit further into the thread Chen, or maybe it was magellan01 (longass thread, now) adds another element of blame: “Rich donors” are gagging any immigration-control debate within the American environmentalists community. Now, I think we all know that the kind of “rich donors” most likely to use their money to block immigration reform are the kind whose businesses hire illegals, and who would as soon cut a check to the Communist Party as the Sierra Club. But Chen & Co. quite curiously make no mention of this, that I can recall, instead focusing on rich ideological dogooders of the Sorosian type – in this case one David Gelbaum, who, back in 1994-95, threatened to stop donating if the Sierra Club came out against immigration. (The club’s decision to remain neutral came in 1996.) Now, generally speaking, down that path – the idea that self-described progressives, etc., are really the dupes and puppets of moneyed-and-powered interests with similar but far more sinister agendas – lies madness most Horowitzian. (And then RaleighRally points out that Gelbaum is Jewish and Jews are pro-immigration even WRT Muslims because a “multicultural environment” makes them feel safer from possible persecution and, well, never mind all that, not Chen’s thing that I know of.)

Well, so far, so Chen.

But then GIGObuster starts this Pit thread saying to Chen, in effect, "You and magellan and even Tanton are the dupes, you useful idiot! You nativist assholes are being used and manipulated by moneyed-and-powered parties even more sinister – the ones who want to block or at least divert attention from any real discussion of global warming!" (Or however GIGO might put it; I’m having fun here but I’m sure I’m not strawmanning.)

Wow.

Just wow.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I find that thesis entirely plausible as stated. But, dude, can you see how, to a newbie observer, this whole thing might make you look just exactly like Chen’s LW opposite number?

It’s material for its own GD thread anyway, if you’ve got any real follow-the-money cites.

[GIGObuster]

@BrainGlutton

But then GIGObuster starts this Pit thread saying to Chen, in effect, "You and magellan and even Tanton are the dupes, you useful idiot! You nativist assholes are being used and manipulated by moneyed-and-powered parties even more sinister – the ones who want to block or at least divert attention from any real discussion of global warming!" (Or however GIGO might put it; I’m having fun here but I’m sure I’m not strawmanning.)

Wow.

Just wow.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I find that thesis entirely plausible as stated. But, dude, can you see how, to a newbie observer, this whole thing might make you look just exactly like Chen’s LW opposite number?

It’s material for its own GD thread anyway, if you’ve got any real follow-the-money cites.

The cites are on the public record, in the end those nativist organizations support people in public office that do not do a thing regarding carbon emissions.

http://news.change.org/stories/immigration-restrictionists-make-bad-environmentalists

I have also discussed the reasons I think it’s wrong to focus on minimizing U.S. population growth instead of implementing smart, eco-friendly energy policies.

But there are other reasons to doubt the Tanton network’s commitment to the environment. One of these is the fact that the members of Congress that NumbersUSA, a Tanton outfit, rates most highly on immigration policy voted against the recent Waxman-Markey climate change bill by a margin of more than 5 to 1.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), also known as the cap-and-trade bill or Waxman-Markey, is a landmark bill that represents the first national effort in the U.S. to seriously combat global warming. It is one of Barack Obama’s principal domestic priorities. The NRDC believes that ACES “has the major ingredients to generate millions of jobs, break our dependence on oil and reduce the pollution that causes global warming.”

When I heard about the recent vote in the House on ACES, I wondered how the Representatives who tend to support immigration restrictions voted on the bill. As it turns out, the members of the House who get NumbersUSA’s highest ratings (a “B” or higher) voted against ACES 168-31, with one member not voting.

NumbersUSA grades members of Congress based on their support for “lower immigration and lower U.S. population growth.” Perhaps it shouldn’t come as a surprise that most Democratic politicians score poorly on NumbersUSA’s report cards, or that most Republicans opposed the President’s cap-and-trade legislation. But the results (available in full here) were interesting nonetheless:

Total Representatives graded “B” or higher by NumbersUSA: 200

Democrats: 47
Republicans: 153

Votes on ACES:

Total Yes: 31
Total No: 168
Not voting: 1

Democrats voting Yes: 25
Democrats voting No: 22

Republicans voting Yes: 6
Republicans voting No: 146

Number of Representatives with “A” or “A+” ratings voting Yes: 4/108

So of the 108 Representatives who NumbersUSA believes do the best job of protecting the environment by keeping out immigrants, only four voted for landmark legislation to reduce carbon emissions.

Again, I’m not surprised, but these findings blow a hole in the claims of NumbersUSA and other Tanton affiliates that they are motivated by environmental concerns.

So the question left is the levels of the control, there was never a cite from the nativist toadies about any current action or complaints from nativists groups to protest the ineffectiveness of their favored politicians regarding the control of carbon emissions, so they either do not care about the environment or in reality they are also climate change deniers or friends of the polluters. The big polluter’s task is to also divide environmentalists and I do think that they do not care who will help them in their efforts.

[Chen019]

@heatmiserfl

Exactly, and Chen019 has still not sufficiently or at least coherently answered this question. I see only two ways in which immigration would have an impact on the global environment.

1. Immigrants acquire American lifestyles which uses more resources
2. Immigrants have significantly more children in the US than they did in Mexico

Cites in this thread have shown that the first is probably untrue. If that is the case, it is a +1 on global environment because immigrant workers would be using less energy than American workers (assuming a good deal of energy consumption involves transportation to/from work and school). Not to mention that many workers share a home.

That leaves the second one. Even if immigrants have slightly more children in the US would that offset the energy conservation of immigrant workers? It may not, at least in the first generation. Later generations may become more American in their lifestyles, but they probably would also have less children.

I find the rightwing trying to push this idea to be pretty disgusting (as usual). Time and again, they play on liberal guilt and it works. Meanwhile, they, including Chen019, could care less about the environment. Isn’t Chen019 a climate change denier? So why would he be making this argument? Oh yeah, because he’s a racist.

1. If you had read any of the GB thread or even this thread you will see that I am not a climate change denier.

2. Are you saying that newcomers and their children are going to remain at the same level of SES in the future?

3. You haven’t addressed the points about sustainability in the US. The point about population stabilization in the US was made by the Clinton Sustainability Taskforce. It’s also reiterated by Lester Brown. Session Verification

4. Do you consider population stabilization in the US could be achieved via a one child policy as used in China?

[BrainGlutton]

@GIGObuster

The cites are on the public record, in the end those nativist organizations support people in public office that do not do a thing regarding carbon emissions.

I have no doubt. But, which is using which? Perhaps this is just a case of cooperation between different breeds of RWs who differ only in priorities.

[GIGObuster]

@BrainGlutton

I have no doubt. But, which is using which? Perhaps this is just a case of cooperation between different breeds of RWs who differ only in priorities.

I do know about the priorities of the big polluters, they also have it for the environmentalists.

I do think that there is not much of a separation between the groups when we begin to reach the high levels of government. What I think is that anyone that comes with the idea that those guys are interested in the environment in reality are missing that the big polluters come ahead.

A future with more people displaced thanks to global warming will more likely lead to more immigration, that item makes me think that many in the nativist groups do not care about future immigration either or they are mayor dupes. The only group that comes ahead are the big polluters.

[Mighty_Girl]

@Bricker

OK, but tell me you can survive without A/C and without ice-cold Presidente! Definitively not possible.

Actually I don’t drink. My husband on the other hand loves him some frías.

[Hero_From_Sector_7G]

@Chen019

They have a greater effect on the US environment

There is a severe difference between someone who only cares about the US environment and someone who cares about the world environment. One is a xenophobic fool with no understanding of basic ecology, the other is an environmentalist. I think you are confusing the two.

[magellan01]

@Hero_From_Sector_7G

There is a severe difference between someone who only cares about the US environment and someone who cares about the world environment. One is a xenophobic fool with no understanding of basic ecology, the other is an environmentalist. I think you are confusing the two.

There is a special joy in the laugh the comes when the stupid are smug. Thanks for the chuckle.

[GIGObuster]

@Hero_From_Sector_7G

There is a severe difference between someone who only cares about the US environment and someone who cares about the world environment. One is a xenophobic fool with no understanding of basic ecology, the other is an environmentalist. I think you are confusing the two.

Yep.

Even the Anti-Defamation League has noticed the difference.

http://www.adl.org/civil_rights/anti_immigrant/resource_planning.asp

Though the Leadership Team is fairly new, Tanton’s organizations have a long history of establishing coalitions similar to this one, sometimes in partnership with others, to sponsor print and media ad campaigns and take grassroots action to further an anti-immigrant ideology in mainstream circles. These coalitions give the appearance that several independent groups are behind a larger movement.

The Leadership Team’s rhetoric that immigration destroys the environment is nothing new to the anti-immigrant movement as a whole or to Tanton’s strategic vision. Tanton was one of the leaders in the move to recast the immigration issue in terms of the environment and has attracted followers with the promise that lowering immigration levels will save the environment and preserve America’s natural resources.

In the late 1990s, Tanton attempted to inject anti-immigrant leadership into the Board of the Sierra Club with the creation of “Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization,” a group created to support a transformation of the Sierra Club into an anti-immigrant group. His attempt failed in the Sierra Club board elections in 2004, and one of his most vocal activists in that effort was ousted from the Sierra Club in the aftermath of her comments that the Hmong community represent “drug-addicted polygamists.”