Via Feministing, it appears a group of anti-immigration organizations are trying to cloak their agenda in environmental concerns. They took out this half-page ad in The New York Times last week (click for larger version):
![Alien Nation](\"http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk34/feministing/popcontrolad.jpg\"){kind=link}
Here's the text:
Americans spend a lot of time in their cars. Not because they want to. But because of massive traffic congestion. And almost daily gridlock. For many people, commutes to work and school and daycare can take up to three hours a day. According to traffic management experts, it's only going to get worse if our population continues its present growth rate. In many American cities, it's the same stress with our schools, our emergency rooms, our public infrastructure, even our water resources. A majority of Americans agree that runaway population growth threatens their quality of life. But with U.S. Census projections indicating our population will explode from 300 million to 400 million in thirty years and 600 million by 2100, quality of life for future generations will be gone unless we take action today. The Pew Hispanic Research Center projects 82% of the country's massive future population increase will be a result of immigration between 2005 and 2050. And for every four new U.S. residents whether from births or immigration, approximately three more cars are added to our roads, increasing gridlock, energy use and greenhouse emissions. Together we can do something about it. We're the nation's leading experts on population and immigration trends and growth. Visit our websites to learn more and find out how you can help. Because wasting hours in your car is one pastime you can do without.
The solution to our energy and traffic problems isn't improved mass transit, better city planning, or changed behavior. It's keeping out those pesky immigrants. So who's behind this ad? American Immigration Control Foundation, Californians for Population Stabilization, Federation of American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, and Social Contract Press.
Comments
View as Flat
caniscandida Posted 1:38 am
09 Jun 2008
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
DarkFaculties Posted 4:12 am
09 Jun 2008
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:31 am
09 Jun 2008
So it won't get much traction. The only ones who'll use it are people who are already against immigration.
Permalink
archigeek Posted 4:48 am
09 Jun 2008
The mellotron is your friend.
Permalink
davidzet Posted 7:59 am
09 Jun 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 7:36 pm
09 Jun 2008
Permalink
cbloom Posted 4:02 pm
10 Jun 2008
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:04 pm
10 Jun 2008
In new suburban and exurban residential developments, the forest-chopping, field-burying, fresh-water-clogging, wildlife-expelling, environment-polluting sprawl that environmentalists deplore, the new residents are for the most part not Latino immigrants.
In overcrowded subways and buses and sidewalks and foodstores, etc., here in NYC, it is most certainly not Latino immigrants who are responsible for the typical lack of space, and the constant need to wait one's turn.
In the great national parks, when we might expect to encounter wide-open spaces, but instead find ourselves waiting in long lines of traffic on the roads and thick crowds of spectators at viewing points, it is not Latino immigrants who are to blame.
It is where and how people are concentrated, where and how they are attracted/compelled to live, and work, and shop, and go, which results in overcrowding.
The birth rate of Latino immigrants may indeed be higher than the birth rate of native-born US citizens; but that is a red herring. It is certainly not responsible for the examples of overcrowding that the deceitful ad in the NY Times refers to.
Latino immigrants are being scapegoated for a problem that they are not responsible for. And that is evil.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 9:23 pm
10 Jun 2008
First, let's talk about immigration. Why do people immigrate to the US? Grist members will be surprised to find out that not everyone else in the world believes that America is a disaster area or a repressive sh!thole. No, some people believe it is a land of opportunity.
Immigrants come here to find work. Most are honest, hard working people doing jobs at wages which native born Americans would not. This is particularly true in the certain types of agriculture which does not lend itself to machine farming (which you people hate anyway). Whether or not America wishes to close its borders to immigration, short of some very draconian measures this is probably not possible. We can limit immigration, but we can't stop it without shooting people. I doubt anyone here advocates that kind of action.
As for overpopulation - the US isn't even close to being overpopulated. There are massive, well watered areas in the US (like upstate Maine) that have hardly any people living there. The question is, does it make sense to allow the countries population to expand, and what measures are we willing to implement to do something about it? Given our relatively low birth rates, immigrants are key contributors to the economy as our population ages.
The truth is there are no easy solutions to problems like these. America is a land of immigrants. Ever since the US was founded immigrants have been coming here seeking a better life. Do we want to end that tradition, and at what expense are we willing to do so?
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
hapa Posted 10:31 am
11 Jun 2008
it is a fine, fine setup. kinda one-sided but it has the extra benefit of being a clean, renewable source of scapegoats.
one day we will even own their national oil company! and even more of them will come work in our factories and our shops and our restaurants, without legal protection, and it will be even more beneficial to our economy.
we could make ourselves a nice mint julep, sit out on the swing, watch them work out in the fields as we play cards. a fine life.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:30 pm
11 Jun 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/opinion/03tue1.html?_r= ....
Note the unflattering reference to Barack Obama, "gliding above the ugliness," not yet bringing himself to make a respectable, anti-restrictionist statement.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:05 am
12 Jun 2008
We close the border (using Draconian measures, which is the only way to do it) with an iron fist.
Those jobs which Americans won't do at global competitive wages just don't get done. So fruit doesn't get picked, etc. The immigrants, who don't get in or get killed trying, don't get to earn any hard cash because the economy sucks where they are. So they earn nothing, while our fruit rots. Thus the cost of fruit goes up, the trade deficit goes up because we have to import more food products (which, of course, leads to higher CO2 emissions from the transport bringing in the additional food items) and all parties are poorer as a result.
So you see the problem as essentially one of inequality. Which it is. I'll let you in on a little secret. The world isn't an equal place. Never was, never will be. Not in nature, not in human relations. Some are born smarter, some are born tougher, some are born more ruthless, some are born stronger - all the while some are born dumber, some are born weaker, some are gentle in nature, some......... well, you get the picture. Life ain't fair. Live with it.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
hapa Posted 3:48 am
13 Jun 2008
there are car parts factories in the midwest staffed illegally, with workers trucked north on contract.
look in any restaurant in the southwest, look in meat packing, look in warehouses, look in construction, child care, facilities cleaning, textiles. maybe low-skill labor industries. mexico and south have become the raw source for an onshore offshoring program. jobs that are supposedly impossible to export, bringing the cheap foreign labor to them, by applying trade-deal pressure on those people's home economies.
this is what you get from industry-oriented deals like NAFTA, strict commodity-price planning focus, and years of leaving the minimum wage to rot: a black market labor system. it doesn't get us or them where we want to go.
meanwhile, a massive chunk of america's farms are either drowning or parched this year, partly because the agricultural industry refuses to (or can't) change.
Permalink
hapa Posted 3:50 am
13 Jun 2008
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 5:03 am
13 Jun 2008
This is also true of a lot of work back home. Raise the price of labor, and some jobs don't happen - because when the cost / benefit analysis is done, it isn't working for the firm in question.
Again, this is not a simple problem set. In a perfect world, Latin America would be as wealthy and stable as the US, and Latinos would not come north, because they would have work back home. But it's not a perfect world and this is not because of bad politicians or evil businessmen (not that they don't contribute mind you).
You talk about free trade being designed for business like that's a bad thing. No business, no work, no work......... see where that leads? Businesses are in business to make money. You hear people here say "they're only concerned with the bottom line." No kidding? That's what they are suppose to be concerned about.
Again, this is not a simple problem, as much as the simpletons here would like to make it out to be.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
hapa Posted 7:18 am
13 Jun 2008
i appreciate your point of view and your economic savvy.
Permalink
hapa Posted 7:34 am
13 Jun 2008
Permalink