They're back! Rabble-rousing advocates of immigration restrictions are once again ruffling feathers at the Sierra Club.
With the group's 750,000 members now voting in their annual election (polls close April 25; members go here to vote), the immigration critics are pushing a slate of four like-minded board candidates and a "yes" vote on a population ballot measure, which reads:
Shall the Sierra Club policy on immigration, adopted by the Board of Directors in 1999 and revised in 2003, be changed to recognize the need to adopt lower limits on migration to the United States?
In the "yes" corner, Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization represents the views of insurgents, the most vocal of whom is current Sierra Club board member Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Their argument in a nutshell: Americans are the world's most gluttonous consumers, and when new folks migrate to the U.S., they ramp up their gluttony to fit right in. "Our population is already too large to be sustainable within our resource base," said club member Dick Schneider, who wrote the ballot argument in favor [PDF] of immigration limits. "Unless the U.S. population is stabilized and eventually reduced, the Sierra Club will fail in its mission."
In the "no" corner, Groundswell Sierra represents virtually the whole Sierra Club leadership and establishment, including most board members and past presidents. (Even MoveOn.org has jumped on board with a March 18 email alert melodramatically entitled "Save the Sierra Club from Hostile Takeover.") Their argument in a nutshell: Getting mixed up in immigration politics will alienate potential allies such as civil-rights groups, minority communities, and labor unions, and won't do anything to solve the global population problem. "We believe population growth has to be addressed by addressing its root causes," said former Sierra Club President Robert Cox, who wrote the ballot argument against [PDF] a change in immigration policy. "Immigration control has done nothing to reduce family size or population pressures. It just scapegoats people who end up bearing the brunt of our trade policies and foreign policy."
It's all exactly what you heard last year, only this time 'round the volume is lower and the insurgents are even more likely to get thoroughly crushed. Is that as it should be? Maybe. The recurring question has become a squeaky hobbyhorse for the annoying and impolitic "yes" crew, stirring up vitriol but little substantive discussion.
And that's a shame, because it's an issue deserving of real dialogue. Mainstream environmental groups in the U.S. avoid the topic of population like the plague, and the more volatile sub-topic of immigration like the Marburg virus. But every environmental problem is exacerbated by growing population numbers. And if the U.S. is to have any limits on immigration, isn't concern for the nation's environment as valid a reason for those limits as any other? (Bill McKibben dared to raise related questions in the pages of Grist last year.)
I'm conflicted over these issues myself, and for that very reason I wish the environmental community could grow up and have an open, honest, tough, fair discussion about them. But I'm not holding my breath.
Another coal plant bites the dust
Comments
View as Flat
Norris Posted 11:43 am
12 Apr 2005
Such arrogance. Such xenophobia. Such Paganism. Such elitism. Such racism. Oops, I said it. But don't get me whining.
This is why the Sierra Club refuses to complete our Diversity Survey: http://www.aaenvironment.com/EnviroGroupReportCard.htm
Norris McDonald
Permalink
Caleb Ewing Posted 5:12 pm
12 Apr 2005
Permalink
MikeCapone Posted 4:09 am
13 Apr 2005
The way I understood it from other articles, I think that this immigration thing is more of an attempt by some external groups (mostly) on the right to hijack the Sierra Club. It's almost a coup.
--
SUVs are squared-out minivans.
Permalink
adrained Posted 8:22 am
13 Apr 2005
Permalink
adrained Posted 8:25 am
13 Apr 2005
Permalink
Norris Posted 9:05 am
13 Apr 2005
I just find it hard to believe that this is an insurgency from the right. Why is this virtually the only area where the Sierra Club gnashes its teeth. Look at so many other areas where the monolith is in lock step.
If you are right, let's hope the marines in the Sierra Club will put down this uprising.
Norris McDonald
Permalink
Norris Posted 9:19 am
13 Apr 2005
The Sierra Club's brief email did not really represent a response to our survey. It was a dismissal. We posted it because it was better than nothing.
Mike says they are being attacked from the Right. Is that the Buchanan Right or the Bush Right? I think if they close their borders they will need a scapegoat. Why not blame it on a coup from the right? I guess it is as good an excuse as any.
Norris McDonald
Permalink
kduble Posted 9:25 am
13 Apr 2005
Ken Duble
Permalink
Caleb Ewing Posted 4:29 pm
13 Apr 2005
Thanks. Imagine what the SC could accomplish in terms of culture shift if, as both protest and a practical matter, the national, states and locals were to renounce SUV's? Whoa! Sure, the SC would instantly lose about 100K members..but it could have a profound and rippling effect on the national energy debate. I think it would even create a shift sufficient to torpedo the ANWR legislation.
Of course the bean counters in SF would never consider this..too risky (and what about the innocent auto workers?)plus, SC execs deal in environmental problems, not the underlying cultural ones. David Brower where are you?
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 6:57 am
14 Apr 2005
What's missing from this story and the discussion about it is that Sierra Club held a very biased election last year, and this year's seems even worse (though because I'm not litigating this election, I don't have the detailed info I had about last year's). Before last year's election, many Sierra Club chapter and group newsletters published articles supporting the candidates favored by those already in power in the Club, and opposing all candidates who did not tow the party line. Some chapter and group newsletters also published an "URGENT ELECTION NOTICE," written by board president Larry Fahn, which attempted to create fear among the membership of a takeover by outside, non-environmental forces, and urged members to vote for the annointed candidates and against everyone else. Unbelievably, this "notice" was also placed with the ballot materials. (Sierra Club was very careful not to name anyone in these pieces so they could claim that the pieces were not "about" any candidates.)
These articles not only greatly disadvantaged the anti-immigration people, but also greatly disadvantaged everyone else who wished to challenge the status quo, including my clients. We lost the case on what I consider to be technicalities, but shame on Sierra Club for holding an election in this manner.
Re the supposed "takeover" by "non-environmetalists," this was a red herring raised by those in power in the Club and was never shown to have any merit. Changing leadership by members of a group is not a "takeover," but is a legitimate result of representative governance. In attempting to hold onto their positions, those in power in the Club tried to paint people like Captain Watson as non-environmentalists and "outsiders," which is laughable.
Re the population/immigration issue, I have given it a lot of thought, even before it became an issue in last year's election. I actually agree with those in leadership in the Club who don't want to take a position against immigration, because I've come to the conclusion, as they have, that limiting immigration would do nothing to lower world population. However, opposing immigration would likely alienate groups that could be allies on some issues, and also seems to bring all sorts of racists out of the woodwork (not to demean insects, who have as much right to live as we do and are in fact a vital part of the web of life). From my discussions with them, it seems to me that those in Sierra Club who support immigration controls are more concerned about the U.S. than the whole planet, a position with which I strongly disagree.
Here are the two legitimate (i.e., not U.S. based, racist, or xenophobic) sides to the issue: The anti-immigration people, like Captain Paul Watson (with whom I normally totally agree and for whom I have enormous respect), point out that Americans are the biggest consumers on the planet, so that allowing more people to move here would cause more consumption, which is inherently environmentally bad. (Captain Watson is Canadian, so there is no "selfish" argument to be made against him.) This is correct. However, the immigrants who would be the most greatly affected by restrictions on immigration come from Latin America, where birth rates are exceedingly high. If they moved here, they would likely lower their birth rates as they become Amerianized, just as they would increase their consumption.
So, it's a wash between consumption and population. Therefore, there's no point in making poor people from other countries suffer by restricting immigration, as it won't actually solve any environmental problems.
Permalink