Back when all the immigrant protests were happening, I thought about posting something on the debate within the environmentalist community over immigration. (See this Christian Science Monitor story for a good rundown.)
But you know what? It's a stupid debate, and I think anti-immigration enviros are a tiny, tiny minority whose voice is amplified by media hungry for controversy.
You'd be hard-pressed to find a better example of short-term, misanthropic thinking than trying to cut off immigration to the U.S. for environmental reasons. It's a political loser, a moral loser, an economic loser ... it's a loser of an argument.
Just thought I'd mention that.
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 6:45 am
17 May 2006
"All we're saying is, those numbers should be reduced to achieve population stabilization."
Which is a very reasonable viewpoint. Only a few nutjobs think we should stop all immigration. The debate is over how and how many.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the debate inside the Sierra club was not so much about whether the problem along our border should be improved, but only weather or not to remain neutral on the issue. I do understand the Sierra club's decision to be neutral on the subject. They essentially decided to let others fix the problem to avoid more controversy inside the ranks, but have also given up the right to participate in the process. I am relieved that the debate is finally taking place. It might have happened sooner, with more input from envrionmentalists if they had not decided to remain neutral; speculation and water under the bridge.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:31 am
17 May 2006
Dear Biodiversivist, the Sierra Club debate was between those who wanted to severely limit or stop all immigration, and those who wanted to avoid the issue.
Folks who were against stopping all immigration lined up along the "neutralists" as the safest bet. And the anti-immigrant folks lost, again and again.
Birds do it, bees do it, why do we think we won't do it too?
If people think there is too much immigration now, wait until the temperature goes up more!! (ROFLMAO).
patrick
Permalink
JoeSchmoe Posted 1:57 am
18 May 2006
Shouldn't our concern be whether it is an environmental winner?
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:45 am
18 May 2006
Patrick, the anti-immigrationist folks who tried to take over the Sierra Club are perhaps not all of them elitist, racist, self-entitled, God-aren't-I-wonderful, A-class types who do not like seeing other types, less fortunate than they, when they drive forth from their gated communities; but the leaders and movers and drivers sure seem to be. An issue of Sierra last year has a fine portrait of one of those anti-immigrationist activists.
We on the anti-anti-immigrationist side (and yours truly had a letter printed in the NYC Sierra Club's newspaper, honorably chosen by the most honorable, non-elitist, non-racist, fair-minded editor, though himself anti-immigrationist, to represent that point of view) are most certainly not to be described as "neutralist," as though we were a flock of head-hiding ostriches.
There are two huge problems, which no sensible person ignores: population growth, especially in relatively youthful countries such as Mexico; and gross inequity in the distribution of wealth worldwide. What an organization such as the Sierra Club might do toward fixing either of these problems is not at once clear -- presumably it can do something, by way of pressuring DC, but it will take a while before a global policy addressing those concerns emerges within it. Meanwhile, it would be not only immoral but ill-educated for the Sierra Club to consider smugly that it has done its pro-environment job simply by reducing the immigrant flow into the US and thus slowing population growth within US borders.
Permalink
JoeSchmoe Posted 4:11 am
18 May 2006
When did I do that? All I did was point out that it was odd that an environmental blog criticized an idea and never considered the environmental effects of the idea. I still find it odd that on this issue some environmentalists all of a sudden become obsessed with economics and politics, and drop environmental concern entirely.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:43 am
18 May 2006
www.grist.org
Permalink
JoeSchmoe Posted 9:22 am
18 May 2006
Could you clarify your reasons for believing this? Surely we're in agreement that human population growth is a cause of many if not all environmental problems. And I assume we're in agreement that all population growth in the United States is the result of immigration. It seems to me that without immigration in the US we would have a steady population and that would stop the environmental problems associated with population growth in the US. Of course it probably will not stop population problems in other countries, but that has never stopped envronmentalists before. For example, we would not let a forest in the US be logged simply because the Amazon is also being logged; we try to stop the problem in the US AND in the Amazon. If we could stop all unsustainable logging in the US that would be a major environmental victory, despite what happens in the Amazon. Of course, we should try to stop logging in the Amazon as well. The analogy with population growth should be clear. Why are you willing to abandon our "think globally, act locally" principle on this issue? How do you respond to the charge that environmentalists are hypocrites because they pick and choose the issues where they are willing to think globally and act locally?
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:49 am
18 May 2006
Dear Joe Schmoe, in what way is your anti-immigrant stance thinking globally?
If you want to think locally in San Diego, you should include Tiajuana Mexico in your thoughts, not San Francisco.
If you want to think locally along the Great Lakes, you need to include our Canadian neighbors in your definition of local (unless you have found some way of labelling water so that it knows whether it is "Canadian Water" or "American Water".
All along the Rio Grande river, local must include the communities on both sides.
As to population as a local issue, it should be obvious, that this becomes a really nasty problem. If you want to think locally about population growth in San Francisco, do you reject immigrants from New York City? To the San Francisco locality, what is the difference between another person from Mexico City and another person from New York City?
A definition of "local" that corresponds to national boundaries is a strange definition indeed!
Actually the charge of hypocrisy is mostly levelled against the people in the anti-immigration movement who pretend to be environmentalists, because their main concerns don't seem to be environmental at all.
Dear Caniscandida, I am willing to concede that some of the rank and file who voted for the anti-immigration positions do not fully meet your description. However, the leadership is nasty, and the position was nasty (I was involved in that fight), and the fight was nasty. My point about the neutralists did not suggest that everyone who supported the neutral position was one, but that it seemed the safest and best position the club could take at the time.
I never said that you were all "neutralists" (hmm, I seemed to have touched a tender spot here). Merely that we all lined up on the same side as the safest bet. The anti-antis were a mixture of neutralists, pro-immigrant folks, and people who don't give a damn, but didn't want this to be the Sierra Club's defining issue (they are concerned about other things).
Dave is correct. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in congress this year. I suspect there are a growing number of politicians who wish it would just go away.
patrick
Permalink
JoeSchmoe Posted 12:16 pm
18 May 2006
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:50 pm
18 May 2006
Dear Joe,
While immigration is a federal issue, it is not a the same as population.
One is how many people there are (and a lot more). One is where they live.
It is a pretty far reach to define "local" as the entire United States of America.
Which is the problem with the anti-immigration movement. It really really has to stretch things to try to fit it on top of the environment as an issue.
You have failed to explain why local (from an environmentalist prospective) would pay any attention to national borders (which are not natural, but political).
Environmentalists along our borders frequently work cross-border without regard for national boundaries (except as another factor to deal with).
patrick
Permalink
Michael Boydston Posted 1:26 pm
18 May 2006
There's no reason, of course, that you can't expand your catalogue on second thought to include practical loser, environmental loser, whatever. In fact, I think you should, because your original post wlacked substance. You set up a straw man: those who are opposed to all immigrants, be they legal or illegal, many or few. The flip side would be those who think there should be no restrictions on immigration whatever. Is that your view?
The most sensible analysis I have heard came from Jared Diamond. He said (I'm paraphrasing from what I remember) that immigration and related population growth in the U.S. had major environmental impacts. He also said that the flow of migrants into the U.S. will continue, regardless of measures to stop it, as long as the tremendous economic disparity between their homelands and the U.S. continues.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:48 pm
18 May 2006
Yes indeed, you're right. I misquoted myself -- a meta-error! Let me officially add "practical" to the list, ex post facto.
You set up a straw man
I shouldn't have said anyone wants to "cut off" immigration. I should have said "restrict."
But no mistake: to make any substantive environmental difference, immigration would have to be severely restricted.
... the flow of migrants into the U.S. will continue, regardless of measures to stop it, as long as the tremendous economic disparity between their homelands and the U.S. continues.
That's exactly right.
Keeping poor Mexicans out of our country simply gives us control of a little more wealth for a little longer. It doesn't do anything to change the economic conditions that drive them here.
Our money is better spent encouraging sustainable development in Mexico, so that they can make a good living in their own communities. Simply blocking them out buys a negligible environmental advantage at the price of considerable human suffering.
www.grist.org
Permalink
bookerly Posted 5:56 pm
18 May 2006
I don't know why conservatives can't think ahead and consider the consequences of their actions.
For example, the last round of border tightening. What did it accomplish? Did less people come across the border? No. What it actually accomplished was two things. First, before the border was tightened, many undocumented workers would come across, work for a while, go home, come back across, repeat the cycle. It wasn't such a hard thing to do.
Now it is much harder, so people come and prepare to stay forever.
That is the result of the conservatives demanding tighter border controls. And many people said this would happen. So, it must be what they wanted, correct?
So, what are the immediate and longer term results of the current round of immigrant bashing?
First of all, numerous media sources have reported a surge of people intending to come now, because they believe it improves their chances of being included in an "amnesty" or "citizenship earning program". So, we will have more people making the border crossing in the short term. That is what conservatives want, correct?
Longer term consequences. Has everyone noticed that the border fence will be only on ONE of our TWO borders? Folks in Mexico have noticed. They get that this is aimed at Mexicans and not at Canadians.
Gee, could this be due to racism? Anyone have any better explanations?
Result, long term souring of relationships between the US and Mexico. Result, the US will be seen as more racist by the rest of the world (do you think people don't follow this, can't figure it out?). Result, long term damage to the American image in the rest of the world.
Build a wall. Result, damage to the environment, and higher sales of tunneling equipment. Result, more people come in by ship (it's a long coast)and across the more dangerous routes. Result, more deaths and injuries. Net effect on numbers of undocumented workers? Probably nil.
Most proposals call for guest workers, and various programs which lead to second class citizenship for a long time for some workers and permanent exclusion for others. Result, a new large permanent underclass in America with no stake in our society. Result, can you spell "human rights"? If you are American, don't bother, except as a punch line in a joke.
I could go on, but enough. Consequences. I am really not sure why folks can't consider them. I fail to see how the plans likely to pass (considerably worse than the original Kennedy/McCain plan) will help this country.
And now we have the English is our national language legislation and again we haven't considered the consequences, but we're governed by fools who want only to get elected.
What might the consequences of such a policy be? Besides stilling the fears of the far right for a few moments?
patrick
Permalink