Alien nation

Anti-immigrant groups hide agenda behind environmental concerns 17

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):

Ad in New York TimesAlien Nation

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.

Kate Sheppard is Grist’s political reporter.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. caniscandida Posted 1:38 am
    09 Jun 2008

    Unfortunately,this sort of ad is likely to appeal to a lot of people.  Certainly there are very many of us here in the NY metropolitan region who can relate to the unpleasant effects of overcrowding, in one context or another.  But it would be too bad if this ad lends respectability to an unnuanced understanding of the problems associated with population growth, and to an unjust kind of solution.

    Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
  2. DarkFaculties Posted 4:12 am
    09 Jun 2008

    With apologies to PT Barnum . . .. . . you'll never go broke underestimating the prejudices of the American public. Then again, it might be worthwhile to mine this ad for best practices regarding how to talk about environmental issues to red-staters. For example, note that the word "environment" does not appear once in the ad copy. Instead the emphasis is on "population," "infrastructure," "resources," "gridlock," and "traffic," all concerns that average Americans can grasp easily. When it comes to proselytizing the unwashed, the less we invoke hippies and eco-asceticism (though I personally endorse both) in our language, the wider we'll be heard.
  3. Tasermons Partner Posted 4:31 am
    09 Jun 2008

    I doubt it'll appeal......since most conservatives don't care much 'bout the issue of environment, they'll ignore it without even reading it fully.  And anyone who truly does care and is knowledgeable 'bout the enviornment will recoginize it as a farce.
    So it won't get much traction.  The only ones who'll use it are people who are already against immigration.
  4. archigeek Posted 4:48 am
    09 Jun 2008

    Well...They are making a good point with regards to population and overcrowding, but scapegoating the immigrant won't do anything to advance the cause of GHG abatement or population control. Disinformation passing as facts to advance your interests and your political parties' short-term electoral interests won't solve the problem. Having said that, I have read a number of articles pointing to an interesting consequence of the massive influx of illegal immigrants(mostly from Mexico and Central/South America)into the North American "market" over the last several years: wage deflation. One of the most painful legacies of the poorly paid immigrant (legal or otherwise) is the fact that wage rates in the various fields most commonly populated by these individuals have plummeted or remain stagnant since the latest influx(ca. 12 million) began around the time of the Clinton/Bush adm. transition. In addition to declining wages, those so-called native born laborers who have been faced with this juggernaut of immigration have either chosen to not take these jobs or have swallowed wage cuts or stagnant rates. For example, I would bet good money that an inspection of Western meat-packing plants, construction sites in almost any contiguous 48, lawn care/maintanance, hotel/custodial,etc. would find large numbers of legal and illegal immigrants occupying a job that an individual born here once held. Really, would you be willing to be paid $8-12/hour for hanging sheetrock in 95' weather in Houston or St. Louis? No, probably not. Or working in a meat-packing plant, suffering from a repetative motion injury, and working in deplorable conditions? No, of course you wouldn't. It isn't like Americans suddenly woke up and said "I'm not going to work today" only to be replaced by an illegal worker. It's like the rest of American workplaces over the last decade or so: A lower cost competitor using illegal(and thus, generally, able to skirt prevailing workplace health, safety, and labor laws) labor or an off-shore company with zero(or unenforced) labor, health and safety laws begins to eat away at your margins. So, you begin to out-source some aspects of your production. Unfortunately, this only lasts for a while and the decision is made to close the American facility and send most or all the production overseas. It's not that Americans don't NEED these jobs. It's just that for the wages which have replaced the prevailing non-union rates, Americans are extremely reluctant to accept them, considering that dad and mom and uncle were paid more for the same work. We still NEED these jobs, it's just with the decline in working conditions and wages, the WANT of these jobs--industrial, construction, "service", etc.--has fallen off. I am not ignorant of the negative impact that NAFTA has had on Mexican farmers, Honduran banana plantation workers, etc. Nor am I unaware of the increasingly dangerous cross-desert routes, and the exploitation of the people who are taking them. But the impact of all this cheap labor coming to our country has been devastating to millions of our fellow citizens. I am not anti-immigrant. Considering my own Celtic roots, that would be an absurdly selfish thing to do. But inserting a little fairness into the process would be a start. For the right to say that illegal immigrants are "destroying" our country is, to say the least, disingenuous. But for the left to defend all immigrants, epecially illegal, is to ignore the REAL consequences of neglecting to enforce the laws(including health, labor and safety, which we as Americans desired and receivedwhich are already on the books. I mean, c'mon folks. Illegal immigrants are f***ed over left, right and center all the time. I want every immigrant treated like a human being, not exploited like chattel. But I too, would like to be, personally, treated like a human being. Shouldn't we be focusing on improving working conditions EVERYWHERE AROUND THE WORLD and refining immigration policy here, rather than get hung up on debating who is more friendly--or hostile--to immigration? The real enemy of both native and immigrant labor is corporate and political constituencies which literally and figuratively profit from the misery of us and our fellow human beings. Sorry I'm such a rant hound. But it's a complex issue. That's just how it is.    

    The mellotron is your friend.
  5. davidzet's avatar

    davidzet Posted 7:59 am
    09 Jun 2008

    Yep....I've seen the anti-immigrant stuff all over the place in CA. Pretty sad since stopping migration will fix nothing and will cause more problems...
  6. Wolverine Posted 7:36 pm
    09 Jun 2008

    Just The Facts, Ma'amLet's stop the knee-jerk liberal/left reactions and face reality.  The ONLY current reason for population growth in the U.S. -- and this has been true for about ten years -- is immigration from Latin America.  People coming to the U.S. from Latin America have more babies than native born Americans or people coming here from other places, though the latter are also a small minority of those coming here.  This is a straight forward numerical fact.  How one reacts to it determines whether one is racist, but there's nothing racist about pointing it out along with all of the bad effects that come with increased population.
  7. cbloom Posted 4:02 pm
    10 Jun 2008

    UnfortunatelyMost of the comments are incredibly naive. You can't use "better city planning" to cope with a half billion people. Look at India or any other extremely overcrowded country.  And to say that these organizations have an "unnuanced understanding of the problems of population growth", I guess that would mean they aren't welcoming all the poor people that don't use family planning? Billions live in slums throughout the planet now, and that is what we will have extending for miles from each urban core. To say that we don't want that outcome as a country is selfish? I would hope that what little open space that is left, what little water resources that we have remaining, and the species that depend on those resources would be more important to "environmentalists" than making corporate America happy with an ongoing supply of cheap labor from corrupt countries.
  8. caniscandida Posted 5:04 pm
    10 Jun 2008

    Yes, unnuanced. And worse: evil.In that photo of slow-to-stopped traffic, it is not all the Latino immigrant drivers -- if there are any -- who are creating the overcrowding.
    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.
  9. MAD MAC Posted 9:23 pm
    10 Jun 2008

    Can always count on the Grist................... to make sweeping, poorly thought out statements.
    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
  10. hapa's avatar

    hapa Posted 10:31 am
    11 Jun 2008

    they farm for hire herebecause it is illegal for them to farm for themselves there.
    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.
  11. caniscandida Posted 7:30 pm
    11 Jun 2008

    "the ugliness"Earlier this month, in the NY Times, there was this impressive editorial, denouncing restrictionism, and the "Immigration Panic":
    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.
  12. MAD MAC Posted 2:05 am
    12 Jun 2008

    HapaBut then there's the inverse:
    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
  13. hapa's avatar

    hapa Posted 3:48 am
    13 Jun 2008

    @mad macseriously, you think additional central american workers in the last ten years have been picking food?
    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.
  14. hapa's avatar

    hapa Posted 3:50 am
    13 Jun 2008

    oops!*maybe any and all low-skill industries.
  15. MAD MAC Posted 5:03 am
    13 Jun 2008

    Hapa, again, these are jobs that........ would be difficult to fill. Let's take me for example. I live in Thailand. My wife hired an illegal as a domestic. I am not rich, but she was so inexpensive, that it wasn't an issue. Now, she comes from a VERY poor background. If the hiring price had not been as low as it was, I would have hired no one and done the laundry myself. As it was, she got a job at the wage she asked for. I get more free time to argue with the yahoos here at Gristmill.
    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
  16. hapa's avatar

    hapa Posted 7:18 am
    13 Jun 2008

    @mad macso, what you're saying, is that central americans -- and migrant workers world-round -- would rather live thousands of miles away from their families, under degrading conditions, including prostitution for women and children, instead of meeting their costs at home, in a well-built and locally-productive economy, and this is good for us because they perform work that could be done other ways.
    i appreciate your point of view and your economic savvy.
  17. hapa's avatar

    hapa Posted 7:34 am
    13 Jun 2008

    ask your maid if she's ever turned tricks.i understand foreigners in thai cities generate many good economic opportunities for young women and men who have been forced away from the countryside.

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement