The bobcat turned, looked at me, and jumped into the mesquite brush. It was the first day of a three-day visit to South Texas, and I was exploring the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge along the Rio Grande River. Seeing the bobcat was a treat for me -- but the kind of treat that could become increasingly rare if the Bush administration and Congress go ahead with plans to build between 370 and 700 miles of double-layered concrete wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The efficacy of this plan to keep out "unwanted" foreigners is dubious at best, and highly controversial. But one thing is sure: it is likely to be the last nail in the coffin of some of the most extraordinary, and extraordinarily vulnerable, wildlife of the American Southwest.
Most of the wildlife of the border region has already been battered by more than a century of hunting, fencing, ranching, and agriculture. Ocelots, for instance -- a kind of small, but equally spotted version of a leopard -- once reached their northern limit in Arkansas and Louisiana. Now the 80 to 120 individuals still surviving in the United States cling to life along a small corridor of brush and forest along the Rio Grande -- the last 5 percent of wild land in South Texas that hasn't been cleared to make way for cotton, sorghum, and shopping malls.
This species could be in an ocelot of trouble.
Photo: El Aribabi / Sky Island Alliance
Like jaguars, pronghorn antelope, and other endangered creatures of the Southwest threatened by the wall, ocelots need to reach the larger breeding populations south of the border to maintain the viability of their species. But they're unlikely to be able to climb over the wall planned under last year's Secure Fence Act. The wall's scale will equal or even dwarf some of the great human-made natural disasters of the past: perhaps the greatest similarity is to the railroads that divided the Great Plains bison into northern and southern herds that hastened their near-total destruction.
And this is no hypothetical barrier: Contractors have already built over 150 miles of it in Arizona and California. Later this year, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff plans to break ground on the Texas portion of the wall. And Senate Democrats are using $3 billion in funding for additional border wall construction to lure enough Republican votes to override President Bush's expected veto of the Homeland Security appropriations bill.
If you haven't heard about this great wildlife disaster in the making, it's not that you haven't been paying attention: despite the severity of the impact, until recently the nation's largest environmental groups have been nearly silent about it. When you ask officials from those groups to explain the lack of email alerts, television ads, media blitzes, town hall meetings, and finely orchestrated lobbying pushes that have become the hallmark of a modern national environmental campaign, they usually say on the record that they're still studying it.
But there's more to the story.
When I called one top environmental group earlier this year, the spokesperson I reached said, "We're just starting to look into the issue." When I asked her repeatedly why her usually quick-off-the-mark organization hadn't jumped faster onto this latest public-lands menace, she stonily repeated, "I can't speak to that" over and over.
I was about to hang up the phone when she lowered her voice, asked me if she could speak privately, and whispered, "I'm really glad you're doing this story" -- an indicator of the deep misgivings within many groups about the lack of activity to stop the wall, and the desire among some environmentalists for external pressure to spur them into action.
It's the Controversy, Stupid
Fighting for the planet usually involves a good deal of controversy, confrontation, and unusual alliances. But in this case, green groups have -- until now -- stayed as far away from confrontation as possible. Why? One word: immigration.
In recent years, the Sierra Club -- the nation's oldest and largest grassroots environmental group -- has been pummeled by immigration infighting. The Club started doing serious outreach to minority communities in the mid-1990s, but worried that those efforts could be complicated by the Club's longstanding position that America should "bring about the stabilization of the population first of the United States and then of the world" -- a philosophy that could be interpreted as anti-immigrant. And so the board of directors adopted a new population policy, dropping its emphasis on "population stabilization" and focusing instead on some of the more international factors driving population increase in the United States and abroad, things like trade policy and access to birth control.
The policy change sparked a rebellion among Sierra Club population activists, who argued that immigration was indeed driving environmental destruction: when people migrate from low-consumption countries to high-consumption countries, they argued, their environmental impact usually skyrockets. These anti-immigration activists competed in a series of low-profile Board of Director elections, until by 2004 they were within striking distance of a takeover. But that year, an ugly lawsuit and extensive press coverage led to a record turnout by voting members -- and the insurgency was trounced.
The wounds lingered, however, and not just for the Sierra Club. Other organizations took note of how the Club's resources had been sucked up fighting a relatively unpopular clique of anti-immigration activists. The battle had taken desperately needed energy away from the Club's main struggle: stopping the ongoing assault on clean air, clean water, open space, and endangered species. The nation's environmental movement seemed to conclude from the Sierra Club's fight that immigration was a topic to be addressed at great peril.
As a result, they decided to stay largely silent during the debate over the border wall. The legislative consequences of the environmental groups' silence were immediate: with little opposition coming from the movement, in 2005 and 2006 Congress passed legislation allowing the Bush administration to waive any environmental laws that it decided got in the way of border security and explicitly authorized construction of 700 miles of the wall.
That damaging silence is now eroding as the impact of the wall becomes clear: two leading Sierra Club volunteers in South Texas, for instance, told me that while national Club officials had initially prohibited them from issuing statements to the media opposing the wall, they eventually relented and now permit local activists along the border to talk to the media. Sierra Club spokesperson Oliver Bernstein also told me that the Club now officially opposes "any plans for any systems of fences or walls that would unnecessarily endanger wildlife or protected areas." And on Oct. 11, the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife were granted a temporary restraining order to stop construction of the wall on the San Pedro National Conservation Area in Arizona.
However, neither the Sierra Club nor other groups have gone so far as to launch the kind of national campaign necessary to convince members of Congress outside of the border region to oppose the wall -- leaving members of Congress free to push the project without scrutiny.
"We just really don't want to do anything on the wall," confirmed a senior Sierra Club volunteer who has helped formulate the Club's population and immigration policy, "because the immigration debate is just a hornet's nest."
All's Well That Ends Wall
Given what the immigration debate did to the Sierra Club, the caution is in some ways understandable, but a survey of immigration politics -- in Washington and along the border -- suggests that it's also excessive. The fact is that few immigration opponents actually care deeply about building a wall -- they just don't think it will work.
Even when I spoke to Al Garza, executive director of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (the vigilante organization patrolling the border for illegal immigrants that has constructed several miles of fencing on private land), he told me that while his organization does prioritize border security and officially favors building a wall, their top priority is enforcing current laws against employers hiring undocumented workers and ending all government benefits for undocumented workers. "We don't need to be talking about legislation [to build a wall]," he said. "If we address the hiring of illegal immigrants and don't provide them public services, they will automatically go back home."
That was the same sentiment shared by all five of the anti-immigration Sierra Club board members or former candidates I spoke to. "The most important thing is to enforce employer sanctions," said former Democratic Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm, who ran for the Sierra Club board on the anti-immigration ticket in 2004. "That's 10 or 15 times more effective than fencing. If we put species extinction and other impacts on the scale, [the wall is] just not going to be effective enough to make it worth all the negative impacts."
Of the remaining four candidates I spoke with, two expressed some support for walls in certain places, and two said they were opposed: "A wall is useful in high traffic areas where there's lots of garbage, but it's not going to be the panacea that enforcing our employer laws is," said Frank Morris, a former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus who said he's concerned that liberal immigration policies will lower wages for low-income and low-skilled workers.
Analysts on all sides seem to agree that the wall will do little to nothing to stop the flood of immigrants. "A 10-foot fence won't do much to stop someone with an 11-foot ladder," said Jim Manley, spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). The public doesn't think walls work either: a recent New York Times poll found that, by a 68 to 15 margin, Americans preferred the idea of increasing border patrol staffing to building fences.
However, a 2006 NBC poll found that a significant majority of people said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who favored building a fence along the border. And that may explain some of the momentum. Precisely because of the wall's ineffectiveness in stanching the flow of people across the border, it's the perfect solution for the many members of Congress who want to show their constituents they're doing something about illegal immigration -- without actually cutting off the supply of cheap labor demanded by Big Ag and the service industry.
In addition, immigrant advocate groups like the Catholic Church and the National Immigration Forum, who have in the past opposed construction of a wall, this summer supported immigration reform legislation that included it (and several other non-environmental provisions they had previously found objectionable) because they considered the overall legislation beneficial to immigrants.
Raúl Grijalva
Photo: house.gov
Nevertheless, local efforts along the border -- complemented by modest activity and assistance from a handful of national organizations like Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity -- have produced some results. Earlier this year, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) introduced a bill that would ensure that some of the worst elements of the border wall never happen: it would remove the exemption that border security activity gets from environmental laws; give the Secretary of Homeland Security the discretion to not build a wall if he decides it's not warranted in an area; and make it easier for the Border Patrol to install a "virtual fence" -- a system of electronic monitors that some experts think could help the Border Patrol stop illegal immigrants without having to build a wall. The bill only has a handful of cosponsors right now, but it received some high-profile support in late September in Edinburg, Texas, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told local press that the border wall was a "terrible idea."
"These are communities that have a border going through them, they are not communities that should have a fence going up and splitting them," she said.
Grijalva's bill, a nod from Pelosi, and a growing on-the-ground movement, including local Sierra Club activism, have also broken down some of the national environmental groups' reluctance to take on the issue. Soon after a June interview with National Audubon Society spokesperson Tony Iallonardo -- who told me his group was still looking into the issue before adding, clearly conflicted, that the border region is "a spectacular area and it's really kind of frightening to imagine what in a worst-case scenario the wall would do to bird watching" -- the group decided to officially endorse the Grijalva bill. "We got a lot of concern from constituents in our border states about the issue," said Audubon conservation policy director Mike Daulton.
Even the national Sierra Club has begun to fight the wall more aggressively, signing on to a letter endorsing Grijalva's bill, featuring a brief article about it in its newsletter, and joining the lawsuit against the wall in the San Pedro Recreation Area. These activities may have produced some results: even as Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff fast-tracks wall construction across the border region, early this month he said he was considering limiting the Texas wall to "as little as 40 or 50 miles."
The big question now is whether Sierra, Audubon, and others will back their new position with the kind of resources necessary to take on the White House, members of both parties currently using the wall as a way to flex their anti-immigration muscle, and immigrant "advocates" who've shown that they're willing to accept the wall as the political price for broader immigration reform.
It would be a long, tough battle -- but no tougher than the battles the environmental movement has fought to keep the Southwest worth preserving in the first place.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Tweet for the bees
Comments
View as Flat
amc89 Posted 5:33 am
16 Oct 2007
Permalink
paz Posted 10:43 am
16 Oct 2007
I've worked with 'undocumented' workers for many years. The INS knows that the US economy relies upon them and that's why they're so lenient on employers. You wouldn't believe how lenient.
What an ugly message: a wall. Reminds me of that other great symbol of oppression, the Berlin Wall.
A wall would not be impervious unless it were monitored. If the area were monitored, why have a wall?
The damage to American wildlife would be swift and, given enough time, perhaps irreversible.
All supposedly in the name of protecting the borders of a country that the rest of the world is coming to despise.
Permalink
cbloom Posted 1:40 pm
16 Oct 2007
Permalink
LandMan Posted 10:18 pm
16 Oct 2007
The U.S is projected to receive 25% more immigrants each year than the next top five countries combined (Canada, Germany, the UK, Italy, Spain, and Australia, page 14). From an economic perpsective I think immigration is vital and I worry about how the housing market and food prices will stabilize without them, but I feel like I've been hit in the stomach when I think about what another 100 million people will do to urban sprawl, energy and natural resource consumption, our carbon reduction efforts, and our remaining natural landscape and biodiversity.
It seems too high a price to pay.
I'd agree that it would be better to not use a fence, perhaps a compromise position would be to push for video monitored wildlife crossings every few miles like the ones that have been successful in allowing wildlife to safely cross under highways.
Permalink
bugsthefarmdog Posted 1:19 am
17 Oct 2007
First, illegal aliens make your labor less valuable. It's simple supply and demand. If there are more illegal workers, legal wages will be supressed. An illegal will work much cheaper than you will. And that goes for the well educated, yet illegal, Irish computer engineer who overstayed his student visa as it does for the low skilled Central American illegal alien who jumped the fence.
Second, apples and oranges. The Berlin wall was used to keep people locked inside an oppresive communist country. The US border fence keeps people out of our country, not in. Do you lock the doors of your home? As an environmentalist, do you condone the trampling of our sensitive habitats? What do you think will happen if we have unrestrained border and millions of immigrants? Yep, pressure to develop in that sensitive habit for housing, shopping centers and roads.
Third, the fence will discourage illegal immigration as well as strategically direct the flow of illegal aliens to an area where they can be caught by the Border Patrol. No fence works 100% of the time, but without a fence and a plan, you have an unrestrained invasion of illegal aliens.
Finally, let's not be naive. Any fence can be designed to allow the flow of wildlife. It's done all the time.
The real bottom line here is that Mexico has to undergo a revolution of ideas that allows their citizens the rights, freedoms and human dignity that we have in the United States. For the US to be Mexico's social safety value doesn't treat the systemic problem down there, it only allows the exploitation to continue. While you may have some sort of illogical guilt for the plight of the illegal alien, to condone continued illegal immigration only continues the exploitation of the individual. It's modern slavery. Is that what you want?
The good people are leaving Mexico, and the country is quickly becoming an narco and petro oligarchy. I say stay home illegal alien and make your country a better place to live...or apply to move here legally.
My two cents, your mileage may vary.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:42 am
17 Oct 2007
and those ever-scheming politicians:
"However, a 2006 NBC poll found that a significant majority of people said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who favored building a fence along the border."
Permalink
amc89 Posted 5:01 am
17 Oct 2007
Also, the children of immigrants will probably have fewer children when they grow up than their parents did, as well as the rest of their family back home.
And the teen pregnancy rate is still pretty high in this country. I'd rather see resources combatting this than on a wall.
But I do agree with the above comments on the importance of providing aid to Mexico to help it overcome the economic problems prompting immigration.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 8:05 am
17 Oct 2007
First, I'm totally opposed to ANY fences in natural areas because they are harmful to wildlife and because they are aesthetically obnoxious (the anarchist in me balks at all fences). So while I'm opposed to this fence, how do the ecological harms that it will cause compare to those of the thousands of miles of fences erected by ranchers across the western U.S. to protect their cattle profits?
Second, while it generally matters far more how many people are on the planet than where they live, Americans consume far more than people in Latin America, and those coming here will become overconsumers just like the rest of the country. This could be seen as American hypocrisy, but there's another problem: as found by a study reported in the Christian Science Monitor, Latin American immigrants have MORE children when they come here than they would have had if they'd stayed in Latin America.
So, this is a very complicated issue for environmentalists who are also anti-racist or, as in my case, generally believe in open borders. The wall is totally unacceptable, but we should not just allow people who don't believe in birth control to come here, consume far more than they would in their native countries, and have even more children than they would have had if they'd stayed in their native countries.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 10:34 pm
17 Oct 2007
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 10:43 pm
17 Oct 2007
It's a fitting monument to Bush's reign, and to the feeble official opposition to it.
Permalink
Coyote369 Posted 4:21 am
18 Oct 2007
How is uncontrolled population growth through mass immigration good for America's landscape? Have environmentalists become so utterly coopted by the social(ist) Left that we are now expected to support anti-environmental social policies? Failing to control the influx of so-called "undocumented immigrants" (they're not immigrants, they're illegal aliens, colonists, settlers, invaders) has very real impacts on America's environment, even as far north as my state of Oregon. Our land-use laws here will rendered useless as long as we continue to encourage endless population growth, the majority of which is due to mass immigration.
The ongoing colonization of the US by Mexico represents an environmental disaster of epic proportions at the local, regional, national, and global scales. But the enviro movement has been so utterly coopted that we are not only too cowardly to oppose this demographic disaster, we actually have some of our members actively supporting it. Truly astounding. This sorry state of affairs is indicative of what's gone wrong with our movement---the cooptation and partisanization of the enviro movement are two of the main reasons we are so pathetically ineffective these days.
This is not a new state of affairs, unfortunately. The cooptation of the enviro movement by the social(ist) Left has been going on for decades now. Edward Abbey recognized it and lamented it in the 1980s. Here's what he had to say about illegal aliens and mass immigration from Latin America: "The United States has been fully settled, and more than full, for at least a century. We have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by allowing the old boat to be swamped. How many of us, truthfully, would prefer to be submerged in the Caribbean-Latin version of civilization? (Howls of 'Racism! Elitism! Xenophobia!' from the Marx brothers and the documented liberals.) Harsh words: but somebody has to say them. We cannot play 'let's pretend' much longer, not in the present world."
Here here! As Glenn's article makes quite clear, ol' Ed Abbey wouldn't be welcome in today's "new and improved" environmental movement, where the root of our environmental problems is ignored because it might upset some people, people who, as it happens, don't give a rat's patoot about the environment.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 3:07 pm
18 Oct 2007
The simple reason that the "environmental movement" in the United States doesn't oppose this wall is that there really is no "movement" as such. Just a bunch of largely disconnected white guys groups (with more than a touch of racism as evidenced by some of the comments here) who are largely technocrats and like to play lobbyist rather than organizer.
Even now, most environmental groups largely ignore the environmental justice movement (which is more grass roots). Until and unless, white Americans who care about the environment learn to deal with race, they ain't going no where.
And it can be seen in their inability to even come close on American Sponsored Global Warming. The tragedy is not of the commons, but of the close minded and the greedy.
The argument that people should not be allowed to go to America because then they might consume as much as Americans is one of the more disgraceful that I have ever heard. It basically says that ONLY Americans should have the right to an AMERICAN lifestyle. All others, need not apply.
The fact that environmental groups contain so many vipers in their midsts is problematic. It's not the fight with the vipers that makes them weaker, it's the unwillingness to clean out the nests that weakens them.
Frankly, forget the vegan/meat eater argument. You can't be an environmentalist and be part of the anti-immigration movement.
How sad to see America descending into paranoia and madness. The world needs better of its largest consumer/polluter.
patrick in beijing
Permalink
LandMan Posted 10:08 pm
18 Oct 2007
In America their is nothing wrong with our fertility rate, it is already below replacement levels yet we still face the prospect of a 30% increase in population by mid century. There are two reasons for that increase, a small part of the increase is because life expectancy is going from 79 to a projected 83 years of age; the rest of is from immigration.
On the environmental movement, the fastest growing part of that movement has been in growth management and land use issues, as is evident by the exponential increase in the number of local land trusts in the last 20 years. Preventing natural lands and regional landscapes from being obliterated by sprawl (accomodating a growing population)is a huge environmental concern for a great many people. The root cause of this growth just happens to be population growth, and that just happens to be caused primarily from immigration. We can't do anything about people living longer, but we can do something about immigration.
To label people who are concerned about this environmental threat as racist or xenophobes is just stupid.
Permalink
racc Posted 4:38 am
20 Oct 2007
Sorry, I'm not convinced.
The key is to transform the US into a country that is a world leader in sustainability where a great life is not measured by excess. It is possible to live well and consume and waste much less. Then, when people do come to live in the US they are having less of an impact on the environment than they did in the country they came from.
Richard
Permalink
bookerly Posted 5:25 am
20 Oct 2007
Dear Land Man,
Sprawl isn't caused by "more people", it is caused by how those people chose to live. One of the historic reasons for the growth of suburban America has been "white flight" as white Americans left cities rather than live in and among Americans who aren't white. Ummm, this is racism.
Sprawl is also caused by government policies that promote it (such as tax deductions for home mortgages of all sizes and none for renters). To say that sprawl is a factor of how many people there are is a bit silly.
It's like blaming spreading waistlines (looking at mine ruefully) on the availability of food (and ignoring the roles of automobiles, television, the internet and a generally sedentary lifestyle).
Look at the various comments in this thread, do some research on the net about ties between much of the anti-immigrant movement and racist groups and organizations, then see if your eyes open.
Finally, look where we're building the wall. Along the Canadian border?? I think not. Gee, why not? Look at the rhetoric of the anti-immigration movement. Is it directed at all undocumented workers, or ummm, only those of a certain skin hue, speaking one foreign language (not the many others that could be singled out!).
A movement that is largely anti-Hispanic in nature is racist. And that's what we got. It waddles and quacks and would be great with plum sauce (if I weren't a vegetarian).
patrick in beijing
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 6:44 am
20 Oct 2007
Land trusts are keeping cattle land as cattle land and dairy land as dairy land. Those don't do anything for the environment. Here in Vermont, they're just another way to prop up the failing dairy industry. Oh...and lot's of rich Americans buy estates and second home McMansions and put a cute easement on their 350 acre "farm." I know some land trusts are doing truly valuable work but creating private game reserves and permanent pretty views for the rich doesn't count as environmentalism for me. Most of the people FROM Vermont can't ever afford to own land in their own state now because real estate prices are being driven up by second home owners. A huge waste of materials, heating fuels, etc. It's not poor social-justice types sitting on the boards of these land trusts, it's wealthy patricians. They're protecting their estates and their fortunes. And this administration has expanded the tax breaks for them further. And yes, for the record, there are some Vermonters who don't think "dairy" is the holy of holies. If it goes away, our rivers will all be a lot cleaner.
I agree with Patrick that being anti-immigrant is essentially racist in nature. If you want those countries to stop exporting their populations, erase their debts, provide opportunities, stop sending CIA guys to destabilize them, and throw all of the priests/preachers into the ocean. You know Mormonism is the fastest-growing religion in many parts of Latin America? If you think Catholics breed like rabbits, wait another 20 years until the first batches of Mormons start heading North. If these religions would just update their rules for the 21st century and teach birth control, the population might stabilize. Of course, there are lots of missionary churches here in the U.S. that send "the word" south to Latin America. Baptists make sure Latin American women don't get an education, respect their husbands, and don't use birth control. Good message for a planet with over 6 billion people on it.
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 7:20 am
20 Oct 2007
I live in a lovely state (Colorado) in which the population is forecast to double -- double!! -- within the next 30 years or so. This on top of unprecedented growth over the last two decades. The situation is utter madness, and supremely depressing.
While unsustainably high rates of immigration into the U.S. is not the sole cause of my region's exponential growth in population and sprawl (possibly not even the primary one), immigration is clearly a major factor in our steady loss of open space, of increased traffic on our highways and back-country roads, and of the loss of local agriculture (because ag water is sold to thirsty growing cities.)
The United States is a country of immigrants, and we should always be open to some level of immigration by those who are willing to work and to participate as informed citizens in our democracy. (OK, what's left of it after 7 years of the Imposter-in-Chief). But any rate of immigration must be modest and sustainable. Otherwise we will always be fighting a losing battle in the protection of our environment.
Suppose we log the remarkable acheivement of getting people to reduce their ecological footprint by 10%. Those gains will be quickly negated by 10% population growth.
Sorry, but the United States can't afford to be the safety valve for every overpopulated and socially inequitable country in the world. At least, not if we care about what is left of our wild and open spaces. It's that simple.
Obviously fences like this one are a bad idea that I do not support. But the actual enforcement of immigration laws in the U.S. -- beginning with the employers who reap the greatest benefits from cheap, underpaid labor -- will go a long way toward addressing the problem.
Unfortunately, I'm not counting on Democrats or Republicans to step up to that plate. Just shout the word "Racist!" and they'll scurry like cockroaches for cover.
"Growth for the sake of growth", to quote another one of my favorite authors [Ed Abbey], "is the ideology of the cancer cell."
Permalink
hikerreese Posted 1:56 pm
20 Oct 2007
This article rightfully points out that most environmental groups are ignoring an asinine and damaging fence because too many of their members are worried about the number of brown people moving into their states.
By the way, Edward Abbey disliked the Sierra Club for this very reason. they were overly concerned about garnering donations. I can't imagine Abbey wanting them to trash land to build a fence that wouldn't work. On blogger said they great mechanisms to aid wildlife on fences and highways often they don't work either. Not the number of grizzlies south of the TransCanada Highway.
On another note, Abbey was a great author but he was racist.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:29 pm
20 Oct 2007
Dear GonzoDon,
The loss of open space is often due to the building of macmansions. These will not be inhabited by the people the wall will pretend to keep out. They are built by people like you (and me). The loss of open space is not due to immigrants, it is due to Americans inability to get along with each other (thus requiring more and more space between them, perhaps a genetic flaw (grin)).
The United States is not a "safety valve" which suggests that immigrants come to America and "take" rather than "give". The United States is a "magnet" because it needs workers to work in the fields and at other low paying jobs. If you really dislike undocumented workers, you should probably stop eating, unless you grow it yourself! As far as other countries being socially inequitable, surely you are not suggesting that America is any different?
Ironically, the number of undocumented workers in America now is nothing compared to the numbers or refugees that will move North as American Sponsored Global Warming really gets under way. Think a couple of hundred million (give or take a few).
I agree with the comments of John Former Marine and Hikerreese.
The wall is a feel good effort for people too glued to their computers and televisions.
It won't stop humans, but it will play hell with nature....
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
LandMan Posted 11:37 pm
20 Oct 2007
I'd agree that being "anti-immigrant" would be racist, to dicriminate against someone because they came from another country is appalling. If we had a policy to allow one immigrant in for everyone who is already here that undergoes voluntary sterilization, I'd be fine with that. Unfortunately that isn't going to happen. We are also not going to suddenly make everyone want to live in condos, ride bicycles, and eat grass in the next 30 - 40 years either.
The bottom line is that if something isn't done to stem the flood we won't be able to make the necessary headyway on conserving our natural resources and biodiversity. Millions of acres of wildlife habitat will be wiped out and millions of new drivers will polute even more (and they won't be driving fancy new hybrids, they'll be driving '78 ford vans as long as they can keep them running).
I agree that the wall is a bad idea and will only be effective at stopping things without opposable thumbs to hold a ladder.
Permalink
KevinMichael Posted 2:24 am
21 Oct 2007
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 3:47 am
21 Oct 2007
Another thing that illegal or new immigrants provide is manpower for our military meat grinder. The officer corps in the Marines is still 90% white males. Enlisted ranks are filled with lots and lots of minorities and 1st generation citizens from poor immigrant families. So, take away the cheapest, easiest source of manpower for the military and your peaches are not going to be the only thing going up .45 a pound. Without a carrier group sitting in the Persian Gulf 365 days a year and thousands of black and hispanic Marines guarding the oil fields, be prepared for your energy costs to double. Of course, a progressive tax would place the costs of maintaining a military on the wealthy, who benefit most from the military. Currently the costs of empire are borne by the working class (I pay a higher proportion of my income than traders on Wall Street making tens of millions...)
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 3:52 am
21 Oct 2007
Permalink
C4nier Posted 12:15 pm
21 Oct 2007
Kevin Michael, you are obviously a true American with a born right to live on those lands in Texas. Well what about the Native Americans who were slaughtered and removed from their lands by this "Great Nation"? One could say that many of these Mexicans are reclaiming their ancestral lands. Well, this great nation was built on the backs of immigrants (illegal and documented) and now that it's reached your generation you think this system should end? Is it because these new immigrants are a different color than you, perhaps? Sorry, but I'm the conservative here and you're the one trying to buck the system. Maybe it's time to learn Spanish and get comfortable with change. Nothing stays the same forever.
And blaming a population explosion on immigrants is not looking at the patterns of the past. People with new opportunities become educated and don't have as many children. Look at the Polish, Irish, Italian immigrants of the past. Can you distinguish them today by family size? Besides, most of the illegals I have met are young unmarried people who put off having children, or don't at all because they have to support their parents back home.
Two out of 8 of my great grandparents were illegals and they helped this "Great Nation" build ships in WWII. They didn't ask much. Three generations lived in one house, they paid their taxes, and their children learned darn good English. But they were harassed none the less by people who would identify with Kevin Michael because they got here first! Only they got it for the shape of their nose. Skin color is much easier to pick out.
Permalink
hikerreese Posted 2:18 pm
21 Oct 2007
If you want to stop immigration, go after employers. Politicians in both parties don't want to do that because they don't really want to succeed. The conservation community is divided on whether we even should try to slow down the flow of immigrants. We should continue that debate but we should not be divided on the fence. It's a stupid idea.
Permalink
El Tigre Posted 4:01 pm
21 Oct 2007
Second to our interstate highway system, the border wall will be this continent's biggest experiment in habitat fragmentation. Whoever it was that claimed these walls can be designed to allow wildlife to pass was both right and wrong. Walls have been designed to permit the passage of small creatures such as lizards, and the bollard style fence will allow anything slimmer than 4 inches to pass...but it will be an impermeable barrier for anything larger. This includes deer, cougars, black bears, jaguars, ocelots, pronghorn, Mexican wolves and many more.
A wall is not feasible to construct across mountain ranges and rugged terrain. Therefore, wall segments will only shift illegals and the trash they leave behind into adjacent lands where walls are impracticle to build and maintain.
This multi-billion dollar boondoggle will not work as advertized. It is a bandaid on a sucking chest wound. Until our country works to address the root of the problem (job magnets, NAFTA, etc.), we will be left with the same unfortunate situation, and a worthless wall that has untold ecological consequences.
This is a sticky issue for env. organizations, because public opinion on the wall is sharply divided and national security is pitted against environmental concerns. Virtual fencing in wildland areas is the logical solution. Not only would it allow wildlife to cross, but it provides the Border Patrol the information they need to do their job and could be useful in monitoring wildlife movement as well. We can do better than a wall!
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 11:01 pm
21 Oct 2007
A symptom of the disease the US and its allies imposes on the rest of the world is large scale poverty. In the absence of other options, humans seek a geographic cure to poverty -- the populations of big cities swell, slums sprout on the outskirts. . . Look at China, India, South and Latin America, even the US. Those who dare, try to flee further -- they head for another country where better opportunities are perceived to exist.
Building a Wall not only fails to address the root causes of the flight North but also will not even effectively "treat" the symptoms. Desperate people will do desperate things to escape desperate situations -- and some will succeed no matter what barriers lie in the way.
Whether or not immigration is good for America, whether or not immigrants built this country and continue to contribute to its prosperity, whether or not we're "racist" is irrelevant. Violent reactionary responses to problems (and a wall is a kind of violence that is perhaps more destructive to humans, wildlife, and the "environment" than a few bombs and bullets)are not solutions. Building a wall does not address the problems that cause illegal immigration. Neither does punishing those who feed or employ or house or educate illegal aliens.
We do not fear an influx of illegal Canadians because we have not imposed our greed based foreign policy on them.
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 11:14 pm
21 Oct 2007
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 12:31 am
22 Oct 2007
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:59 pm
22 Oct 2007
The wall, being intended only to keep out brown skinned non-English speaking immigrants is racist. Many of the undocumented come here from Europe by airplane or walk across from Canada. No one is trying to stop them.
Immigration isn't the problem. The problem is an American lifestyle that is unsustainable. Sprawl and SUVS are killing the planet. Americans would rather blame a poor brown skinned man trying to earn a few dollars a day than to deal with the problem.
Note: Undocumented workers don't get any more "free" health care than is available to anyone who is poor. They are poor because they are (one reason) and also because they are exploited by Americans (mainly white well off Americans).
Don't like immigration? Consider only using products made in America from one-hundred percent American resources (hint, as far as I know there aren't any) (make sure you leave a will before attempting this experiment!). Why is it okay to import resources from other countries, but not people?
Some of the posters here keep repeating the absurd idea that reducing the American population will help solve environmental problems (presumably, at least based on the posts, without reducing consumption!). This is the "Masque of the Red Death" theory, whereby fortress America draws up the bridges and parties while the rest of the world goes to Hell. Hint, read the ending of the story carefully, then repeat to yourself 180,00 million times, it can't happen here.
BTW, as of his/her last post, I no longer agree with hikerreese. (smile)
The anti-immigration movement only succeeds in criminalizing a segment of the poor working class in America, and leaving them open to easy exploitation. But, wait, isn't that perhaps the real point?
Consume globally, conserve locally is not really a viable idea.
Clinging to solutions to problems that misstate the problem, have no bearing on the root causes, are based on lies, and won't work anyway, is pretty much how we got into the mess in Iraq. Of course, it is mainly the Iraqi people who have suffered, but that kind of wishful happenstance won't last forever.
Consumption, by the way, is not only an individual issue. It is an institutional issue. As long as we frame it as only an individual issue, and argue thusly, the Halliburtons and other corporations get a good laugh at our expense.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
LandMan Posted 2:12 am
23 Oct 2007
Changing that culture is going to be an extremely difficult and long process of incremental steps painstakingly wrenched out of the bitterly entrenched values of greed, narcissism, and hubris. No one is suggesting giving up that fight, but any possible gains we can make on that front will be wiped away by adding another 100 million people to the equation. It'll be one step forward, two steps back.
Sure we can possibly succeed in getting some cleaner vehicles on the road, more people living in energy efficient condos, and less people eating meat, but in the near term we will be adding several times more consumption of resources through population growth than we can possible hope to gain through our best efforts of conservation.
Per capita energy savings only count for anything if the number people, the "capita", is held constant; or at least growing less than the amount we can save through our best conservation efforts. One of the most unsustainable things about us is that we are facing a 30% population increase over the next few decades; that is the very definition of unsustainable.
Our fertility rate, according to the UN, is at 2.05, that's less than what it takes to replace our existing population, and is falling at an accelerating rate every year. By 2045 its' projected to be 1.85, and by then the entire world is projected to be below replacement levels. If you took immigration out of the equation our population would be at a stand-still now and by 2030 would be shrinking and shrinking at a faster and faster rate after that.
While I agree that the wall will probably do more damage than it is worth; make no mistake that increasing our population by thirty percent in just under 4 decades will have dire environmental consequences in spite of any headway we can make through conservation in that time.
Permalink
KM King Posted 5:33 am
23 Oct 2007
Permalink
LandMan Posted 9:57 am
23 Oct 2007
Permalink
Islandkat Posted 3:59 pm
23 Oct 2007
Have you been able to get the excess lead out of your overseas distribution & toxic fertilizers/plastics out of the food supply yet?
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:22 pm
23 Oct 2007
Dear Islandkat, I don't own very much, I live in one room. But I got my absentee ballot from America, and I get to vote. Figured it out yet?
Of course, blaming China for America's "issues" with Immigration is an incredible stretch, but hey, maybe all the anti-immigrant folks saw the Fantastic Four? No? A true story, right? Thanks for saving the universe!!! Oh, wait that was an alternate reality!! In this one, America wants to destroy the universe!! I forgot... sigh... (grin)
Dear Land_Man,
If changing the culture is going to be a long and painful process, then you really mean that America is going to do nothing about American Sponsored Global Warming. This means that there are going to be all sorts of interesting things happening. One of which is going to be mass migrations all over the planet. One of which will head your way. Say on the order of 180 million or so. At that point, what will you do?
The argument that adding numbers to America only makes things worse keeps getting repeated. So, let's go into it a bit more (I thought most people had moved beyond that to just screaming hatred at undocumented workers like the good people of Prince William County in VA, or whacko Fred Thompson (who thinks he is channeling Ronald Reagan, but has gotten Bozo the Clown instead)).
Here's the deal. American Sponsored Global Warming will happen everywhere. That's the Global Warming part. Merely preventing people from coming to America fails because it is based on faulty logic.
To wit, it matters less where you are than what you consume, and how you live. An undocumented worker usually consumes very little in America as they do at home. Where they are doesn't significantly change their consumption patterns. For many of them, most of the money is sent home to be spent there, so there is a consumption increase in their home countries, not in America.
So, the global amount of consumption may not vary so much, merely the location of it. Most of the workers are not building mansions in their home countries or buy SUVs. They are building homes, feeding their families and sending their kids to school. These are all fairly low consumption activities.
For those who settle down and stay in America , consumption does rise (and actually, anti-immigrant activists ENCOURAGE this behavior by making it hard to go back and forth across the border) (then they whine when their actions don't work the way they fantasize).
But most immigrants at the lower level (those who came across a wall) are several generations away from catching up with native white American consumption patterns.
And American Sponsored Global Warming is NOW!!!!
So, what will make a difference by the time they catch up, is where the US is at (cats), in terms of actions against it's own Global Warming.
Blaming the poor makes no sense. All individuals do not consume and contribute at the same rate (would any of you like to take the blame for Bill Gates contribution to GHG?). Blaming undocumented workers (which is the kind of immigration people are talking about limiting) is ridiculous. They are in the lowest percent of people causing the problem, and are frankly currently and for the mid-term future insignificant contributors to American Sponsored Global Warming.
It does seem to make the American middle class happy to have a scapegoat rather than a solution.
So, do nothing and consume on, then blame the little guy eating crumbs in the corner for all the damage.
Is that the best America can do? Is there no higher calling?
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
Lady Ansulanna Posted 12:52 am
24 Oct 2007
Permalink
Storm Dragon Posted 3:35 pm
24 Oct 2007
My recommendation is as follows: If you are a member of the Sierra Club, let them know that you support them in this issue. If your pocketbook is up to it, consider adding a little extra to your annual contribution. Where the Club is concerned, the time for sticks is past, and we need to bring out the carrots.
I agree, there has been a shocking conspiracy of silence on this issue. The proposed wall has been the "elephant in the room" for far too long, and I can only hope that the recent upsurge in attention has not come too late to prevent an ecological tragedy.
Permalink
kschlyer Posted 1:10 am
01 Dec 2008
Permalink