Thanks, max. As you know more than anyone here since we've discussed this before, one of the main reasons Im not a fan of Bush is because of his utter disregard for environmental and energy policy............................................ .....
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
A google search will turn up a slew of articles, among them:
The last confirms that the Club voted on the subject several years ago (98?) and was split: 60% wanted a policy of neutrality on the subject of immigration, 40% wanted a policy to limit it.
The last confirms that the Club voted on the subject several years ago (98?) and was split: 60% wanted a policy of neutrality on the subject of immigration, 40% wanted a policy to limit it.
Re-read the thread please. Steve666 said that "half of the Sierra Club is in agreement with FAIR". That's sheer and utter nonsense and that's why i asked him to back it up. There has never been a vote by the Sierra Club as to agreement with FAIR. FAIR's positions include many positions that did not appear in anything that the Sierra Club voted on. You can easily read their principles doc or their FAQ or even their purpose to see the limited subset of their rationale that the Sierra Club was debating. It's far different from the overall goals and reasoning that drive FAIR. We could run through some of FAIR's recent articles which encompass a far broader scope of immigration issues than that which concerns FAIR. Consider some of their headlines from the front page:
"Driver's Licenses for Illegal Aliens?"
"In Congress: The DREAM Act ... subsidized college tuition and amnesty for illegal aliens?"
"How Guestworker Programs Harm American Workers"
"IMMIGRATION COSTS SOME STATES REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS"
"BANKS WANT PIECE OF ILLEGAL WAGES, SUPPORT MATRICULA CARDS"
"GEORGIE ANN GEYER: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AT THE HEART OF CALIFORNIA'S PROBLEMS?"
"NEW 'FROGGER' STYLE GAME SIMULATES BORDER CROSSING"
"THE THREAT FROM CANADA'S LAX SECURITY"
What the Sierra Club voted on was the narrow principle of population growth. And population growth not just in terms of immigration but also with regard to birth rates. I suspect, although neither of us can prove it either way, that even among a large portion of Sierra Club membership that supports restrictions on immigrations there would be sharp disagreement with what FAIR stands for even if there may be a limited agreement on immigration issues. Agreement by some people on a specific ends does not constitute agreement in whole of a platform that clearly has a much wider series of reasons for pushing an anti-immigration platform. The Sierra Club has never voted on whether to agree with FAIR and never will.
Quote:
well, you dont know me otherwise you would know that I am indeed concerned about the environment.
I know you only insofar as your statements on this board and in email. I have a long enough memory to remember that you've made it clear where you stand.
Quote:
As I mentioned a couple posts ago I used the environment as a header to see what liberals thought about the problem.
This comes across as an insincere end around. I'd give you a more direct answer if I believed that you were legitimately concerned about the environment. Based on your prior comments in other threads, in this thread, the website that you are "promoting" and other contexts I'm rather skeptical of your motivations. But you're entitled to claim otherwise just as I will claim doubt of what you say.
Perhaps if it appeared that you were genuinely concerned about the environment rather than using it as a convenient proxy for your real gripe, immigration, then environmentalists might be interested. See your comment:
"Glad to have you join. Everyone has at least one reason for wanting immigration levels brought down to more reasonable levels. The point is, we have to organize in order to make a difference"
Right. One reason for wanting immigration decreased. That's what this is about, not the environment. Perhaps if you had said something about how everyone had their own aspect of environmental concern to justify why they might join FAIR then you could keep up the pretense that this was something people concerned with environmental issues should be intrigued by. This charade is so transparent that any schmuck can see what the real thrust of this organization's purpose is.
Besides, you've never posted on an environmental issue on this board but you've bagged on immigrants and immigrants before. So please, let's admit that this is all about furthering an anti-immigration agenda, for whatever positive or negative value it may have, rather than being a sincere look at issues of environment and population.
Furthermore, your complaint is constrained by thinking in terms of national borders. Any true environmentalist would take a broader perspective since environmental issues transcend the Rio Grande et al. Every immigrant to the US is an emigrant from somewhere else. Arguments about increased pollution in the US are offset by the decreased pollution is corresponding countries of origination. The more thoughtful environmental approach to population issues would certainly discourage overpopulation rather than focusing on migration which directly is a zero sum game. Over course one could delve into respective trends of culture and nationalism which relate to pollution but no such sophisticated analysis is on offer here.
Interesting. I hadn't heard as much. At which of your supporting sources can I read more about this?
In the main, I should let Steve speak for himself. However, after having debated him on previous occasions, I assure you that he, from my perspective, is an enviromentalist.
As he knows, I am not - I am more partial to the term conservationist. Perhaps a "true" enviromentalist would only take an internationalist perspective, but this is a "zero-sum" for whom? Pollution in one's backyard is of far more personal concern to most of us than effluent in Baluchastan.
The facts in our backyard are daunting:
U.S. population in 1950 was 150 million.
U.S. population is now greater than 280 million.
Half that increase has come from the more recent immigration and their descendents.
U.S. population grows by about 3 million a year.
1.6 million come from natural increases
1 million from legal immigration
Roughly 400,000 from illegal immigrants.
The United States takes in more immigrants than all other industrial nations combined.
If immigration and natural increase rates remain unchanged, the U.S. population will reach 340 million by 2025 and 540 million (and rising) by 2060.
Even if all illegal immigration were stopped and legal immigration limited to 200,000 a year, the U.S. population would only stabilize at 320 million in 2025.
Rural communities are being transformed into suburbia. As land becomes less available, land and housing prices suddenly escalated in the late 1970's driving up real costs for home ownership, a blistering pace that continues in all areas subject to immigration preesure (e.g. California).
"Ignoring these questions because they are uncomfortable, because they are emotional, because they cause decent people to call each other names, does not make them go away. They are questions not just for the Sierra Club, but for us all." (from a Sierra Club members article).
Re-read the thread please. Steve666 said that "half of the Sierra Club is in agreement with FAIR". That's sheer and utter nonsense and that's why i asked him to back it up. There has never been a vote by the Sierra Club as to agreement with FAIR. FAIR's positions include many positions that did not appear in anything that the Sierra Club voted on. You can easily read their principles doc or their FAQ or even their purpose to see the limited subset of their rationale that the Sierra Club was debating. It's far different from the overall goals and reasoning that drive FAIR. We could run through some of FAIR's recent articles which encompass a far broader scope of immigration issues than that which concerns FAIR. Consider some of their headlines from the front page:
"Driver's Licenses for Illegal Aliens?"
"In Congress: The DREAM Act ... subsidized college tuition and amnesty for illegal aliens?"
"How Guestworker Programs Harm American Workers"
"IMMIGRATION COSTS SOME STATES REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS"
"BANKS WANT PIECE OF ILLEGAL WAGES, SUPPORT MATRICULA CARDS"
"GEORGIE ANN GEYER: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AT THE HEART OF CALIFORNIA'S PROBLEMS?"
"NEW 'FROGGER' STYLE GAME SIMULATES BORDER CROSSING"
"THE THREAT FROM CANADA'S LAX SECURITY"
What the Sierra Club voted on was the narrow principle of population growth. And population growth not just in terms of immigration but also with regard to birth rates. I suspect, although neither of us can prove it either way, that even among a large portion of Sierra Club membership that supports restrictions on immigrations there would be sharp disagreement with what FAIR stands for even if there may be a limited agreement on immigration issues. Agreement by some people on a specific ends does not constitute agreement in whole of a platform that clearly has a much wider series of reasons for pushing an anti-immigration platform. The Sierra Club has never voted on whether to agree with FAIR and never will.
I know you only insofar as your statements on this board and in email. I have a long enough memory to remember that you've made it clear where you stand.
This comes across as an insincere end around. I'd give you a more direct answer if I believed that you were legitimately concerned about the environment. Based on your prior comments in other threads, in this thread, the website that you are "promoting" and other contexts I'm rather skeptical of your motivations. But you're entitled to claim otherwise just as I will claim doubt of what you say.
This is what Steve said:
Post 1 ?As it turns out, about half of the Sierra Club is in agreement with FAIR and wants something done about it (ed note: population growth). The rest are afraid of being called racists and refuse to let the club take a position. ?
Post 2 ?As for the Sierra Club, I have followed that group for a little while and recieve info from them. There has been much internal debate over mass immigration and there is a deep schzism within the ranks and leadership over the issue................. ?
This is what Reuters said (98):
Sierra Club Rejects Anti-Immigration Proposal
By Therese Poletti
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The Sierra Club, one of the largest and most influential environmental groups in the United States, said Saturday its membership had rejected a hotly debated proposal on its annual ballot to lobby the government to curtail immigration.
A majority of members who participated in a mail-in ballot voted not to adopt a policy to limit immigration into the United States. They voted instead to maintain the group's current neutrality on immigration, and added that immigrants should not be scapegoats for overpopulation and environmental damage in the country.
Sierra Club leaders said that the proposal was the most extensively debated issue in the 106-year history of the environmental group, which is headquartered in San Francisco.
The highest percentage of its members in a decade voted... A majority of 60.1 percent voted not to adopt a policy to limit immigration into the United States...
The measure, called Alternative A, was placed on the club's 1998 ballot last summer by a splinter group of Sierra Club members called Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization.
"It's a terrible loss because it means another year," said Alan Kuper, one of the splinter group's organizers and a member of the Ohio Sierra Club. "When you have great population growth, it's a great burden on the natural resource base."
Kuper cited U.S. Census Bureau statistic saying the U.S. population has doubled in less than 70 years and that 80 percent of the growth had been due to immigrants and their descendants.
Kuper said his group plans to place another similar proposal on the ballot next year."
To be fair, reread all of Steve. He said half the Sierra Club is in agreement with FAIR on the issue of population growth (not on all FAIR positions or details thereof.)
One can split hairs, but it seems to me that his points are substantially correct, i.e., the Sierra Club is divided (roughly) on the issue of immigration and population. Apparently 60% voted against the splinter groups Alternative A, which seems to deal very directly with the issue of immigration.
Either the Sierra Club has changed over the few years, or their is still a very substantial number that see immigration as a problem requiring action by the Club.
And reread my posts...I think that your response may have something to do with the sensitivity of this topic.
Like max said it is obvious i meant that around half agree with FAIR that immigration levels are too high. It appears that even supposed environmentalists like the Sierra Club have a hard time dealing with the issue. It makes the group look like a bunch of hypocrits and that is why there is a splinter group trying to get them to come to their senses.
As for my 'motivations' they are to keep this country from destroying itself. Time is running out..........................
Quote:
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
Re-read the thread please. Steve666 said that "half of the Sierra Club is in agreement with FAIR". That's sheer and utter nonsense and that's why i asked him to back it up. There has never been a vote by the Sierra Club as to agreement with FAIR. FAIR's positions include many positions that did not appear in anything that the Sierra Club voted on. You can easily read their principles doc or their FAQ or even their purpose to see the limited subset of their rationale that the Sierra Club was debating. It's far different from the overall goals and reasoning that drive FAIR. We could run through some of FAIR's recent articles which encompass a far broader scope of immigration issues than that which concerns FAIR. Consider some of their headlines from the front page:
"Driver's Licenses for Illegal Aliens?"
"In Congress: The DREAM Act ... subsidized college tuition and amnesty for illegal aliens?"
"How Guestworker Programs Harm American Workers"
"IMMIGRATION COSTS SOME STATES REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS"
"BANKS WANT PIECE OF ILLEGAL WAGES, SUPPORT MATRICULA CARDS"
"GEORGIE ANN GEYER: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AT THE HEART OF CALIFORNIA'S PROBLEMS?"
"NEW 'FROGGER' STYLE GAME SIMULATES BORDER CROSSING"
"THE THREAT FROM CANADA'S LAX SECURITY"
What the Sierra Club voted on was the narrow principle of population growth. And population growth not just in terms of immigration but also with regard to birth rates. I suspect, although neither of us can prove it either way, that even among a large portion of Sierra Club membership that supports restrictions on immigrations there would be sharp disagreement with what FAIR stands for even if there may be a limited agreement on immigration issues. Agreement by some people on a specific ends does not constitute agreement in whole of a platform that clearly has a much wider series of reasons for pushing an anti-immigration platform. The Sierra Club has never voted on whether to agree with FAIR and never will.
I know you only insofar as your statements on this board and in email. I have a long enough memory to remember that you've made it clear where you stand.
This comes across as an insincere end around. I'd give you a more direct answer if I believed that you were legitimately concerned about the environment. Based on your prior comments in other threads, in this thread, the website that you are "promoting" and other contexts I'm rather skeptical of your motivations. But you're entitled to claim otherwise just as I will claim doubt of what you say.
Look, for all you wannabe Malthusian's, here's a bit of food for thought:
Let's, for calculation purposes, assume that all households are families of 4, and that they all live on 1 acre. Now, granted, some families are larger, but most live on significantly smaller amounts of land. Now, using the most recent Census estimates for world population, it becomes apparent the entire world's population of 6.3 billion people could fit in 70% of the U.S. Now, this would leave the ENTIRE rest of the world for nature preserves, farms, factories, etc.
Now, I know that this is a wholly unrealistic simulation, and that it ignores practical aspects like transportation as well as more elusive aspects like culture, it kind of makes you realize that this concept of a Population Bomb that Malthus proposed in the 18th Century and that Paul Ehrlich prophesied in 1968 is not all that likely of a phenomenon.
Which means, I guess we're back to the preserving culture argument, which I think is fundamentally bunk on two levels. First, it assumes that cultural heritage is a static phenomenon, when culture is in fact a highly dynamic entity. Secondly, there's this vast xenophobic assumption that a small minority migratory group will irreparably destroy the majority culture, which is generically unlikely due to sheer size factors, and is more specifically illegitimate with regard to the U.S. because American culture is actually defined by its assimilation of minority cultures and their practices.
Preserving culture I'm not concerned about, its preserving our quality of life that concerns me...........................
Quote:
Originally posted by agent302
Look, for all you wannabe Malthusian's, here's a bit of food for thought:
Let's, for calculation purposes, assume that all households are families of 4, and that they all live on 1 acre. Now, granted, some families are larger, but most live on significantly smaller amounts of land. Now, using the most recent Census estimates for world population, it becomes apparent the entire world's population of 6.3 billion people could fit in 70% of the U.S. Now, this would leave the ENTIRE rest of the world for nature preserves, farms, factories, etc.
Now, I know that this is a wholly unrealistic simulation, and that it ignores practical aspects like transportation as well as more elusive aspects like culture, it kind of makes you realize that this concept of a Population Bomb that Malthus proposed in the 18th Century and that Paul Ehrlich prophesied in 1968 is not all that likely of a phenomenon.
Which means, I guess we're back to the preserving culture argument, which I think is fundamentally bunk on two levels. First, it assumes that cultural heritage is a static phenomenon, when culture is in fact a highly dynamic entity. Secondly, there's this vast xenophobic assumption that a small minority migratory group will irreparably destroy the majority culture, which is generically unlikely due to sheer size factors, and is more specifically illegitimate with regard to the U.S. because American culture is actually defined by its assimilation of minority cultures and their practices.
Just what we need... taxpayers to fund the clean-up of toxic waste sites?
You expect halburton et al to clean up their own mess?
All the things that the demos said would happen during the run up to the last "election" about what would happen with a republican president was a vast understatement....
So, then, how do immigrants downgrade the quality of life? You fail to ever really state that.
I think theres a number of ways in which this could happen
1) There are not enough natural resources available to maintain the quality of life we all enjoy. How about simple necessities, such as food and water? Are you ready to pay most of your income on the essentials like they do in China? There isn't enough metal in the world to build an automobile for everybody in it, so are you prepared to ride a bike or walk everywhere you go? Are you prepared to downsize your living space and live with New York style conjestion? How about smog from factories to produce the power necessary to support that many people?
2) Immigrants transplant the same, messed up beliefs that destroyed their own country.
3) What happens when the majority of the population is Indian? Remember that they WAAAAAAAAAY outnumber us in world population. You ready to have an Indian president that decides we should go back to a class-based society? Your family gets to be the sewer workers, and my family can be the brick layers? Or maybe they will decide that the white man should just be eliminated altogether. After all, we are the cause of the worlds evils...
3) Immigrants are people that recognize a problem with their own system but are too selfish and lazy to fix it. The way I see it, the 3 million immigrants in Florida are 3 million people that should be back in their own country, working for change there, rather than abandoning their friends and families in the middle of a mess. The mess they leave behind just gets worse as our stupid policies drain off the best of their society. What do you think is going to happen to this mob of people after the best of them leaves?
I have no problem with a regulated immigration. But when you start talking about an exponentially growing immigration, its time to say WHOOOOOA.. Slow down.
Look, for all you wannabe Malthusian's, here's a bit of food for thought...
Which means, I guess we're back to the preserving culture argument, which I think is fundamentally bunk on two levels. First, it assumes that cultural heritage is a static phenomenon, when culture is in fact a highly dynamic entity. Secondly, there's this vast xenophobic assumption that a small minority migratory group will irreparably destroy the majority culture, which is generically unlikely due to sheer size factors, and is more specifically illegitimate with regard to the U.S. because American culture is actually defined by its assimilation of minority cultures and their practices.
One does not have to be a Malthusian to acknowledge that the some products are far more inelastic than others. No doubt a market economy has, and will continue to be, remarkably successful in providing transportation, clothing, energy, and food to world populations, regardless of their location.
Nonetheless, while people in Hong Kong, Europe, and Japan all have plenty of food, there are differences in their quality of life due to population density. Until the last few decades, Americans (as well as Canadians and Australians) have been very fortunate in having wide spread home ownership opportunities, a rarity in other industrialized, and heavily populated states. Moreover, anyone familiar with the U.S. west's water wars over development can see another commodity's price escalating.
Do appreciate that the current immigration is not in a social or political vacuum, more people (especially those that are unskilled and/or uneducated) means a far greater cost to schools, welfare, transportation, and our social security - which is not offset by the negligible tax rates paid by immigrants.
Last, your assumptions regarding culture and population are woefully naive, as well as misinformed. The concern over culture is not over its "stasis", its over the preservation as something common to all - as a force for the preservation of a people's identity.
Assimilation once worked, for many reasons. Among them: immigration was controlled by quotas; schools taught an ideology of "Americanism" rather than "multiculturalism", public intellectuals and public discourse set assimilation as a virtue; to become a naturalized citizen was a five-year process, one that required English literacy and an education in civics; there was a very small social services sector; and there were limitations on alien residency.
Back then, I'd like to add, for the many millions that earned citizenship, it was a rite of passage ? a transformation of identity from the old world to the new world - to being an ?American?, at that time a noble and envied citizenship for any of the world?s disposed.
Today it is far different. The courts have decided that even illegal immigrants have nearly the same rights and benefits as a citizen (including social security, education, and welfare). The school system and public discourse ridicules the idea of America as a ?melting pot?, advocating instead that the nation should be a ?mixed salad? of hyphenated Americans, just as loyal to their old cultures and politics as they are to the country that they happen to reside in. The politically correct ideology of ethnic multiculturalism is combined with ethnic grievances and victim hood, driving people apart in the competition for special benefits.
I hope I am wrong. If I am, it won?t be because of unlimited immigration, routine unearned amnesties, welfare to illegals, job preferences, vote mongering, public schools, or liberal ?multi-cultureless? ideology. It will be because the ?idea? of America is stronger than all that.
I hope I am wrong. If I am, it won?t be because of unlimited immigration, routine unearned amnesties, welfare to illegals, job preferences, vote mongering, public schools, or liberal ?multi-cultureless? ideology. It will be because the ?idea? of America is stronger than all that.
Well put. And very sad. All growing entities, whether it be a nation or a corporation, work the same. They have a set lifespan. They start lean and mean. If they are effective, they defend themselves and grow. With success comes further growth. But the growth eventually dilutes the original cause of success. The entity becomes distinctly average, and, as success begins to dwindle, begins to self destruct.
Pity that we are so dead-set on speeding up that lifecycle.
So, then, how do immigrants downgrade the quality of life? You fail to ever really state that.
Overpopulation causes more pollution, traffic, overcrowded schools, suburban sprawl, overuse of resources , higher housing costs, higher social services costs leading to higher taxes, environmental disctruction including lack of drinking water in states such as California, Texas, Florida, Arizona (former Democratic Senator Simon is trying to raise the matter to public attention), among others......................
Maybe those states are low on drinking water because they are; except for Florida; ummm... DESERTS... sheeesh.
NYC is less polluted than LA for a few reasons... more favorable weather patterns, a good water supply... and a solid public transportation system.
Yeah blame the immigrants for pollution while you drive your SUV on crowded freeways... that'll solve the problem. Just like having the oil industry pay for a "scientific" study that disputes the science of the Clean Air Act.
Steve666ÉHow often do you charge up your electric car or get reimbursed by the power company for electricity you generated with your solar panels or windmill???
Steve666ÉHow often do you charge up your electric car or get reimbursed by the power company for electricity you generated with your solar panels or windmill???
These are all things that I would like to do now, but cost prohibits me. Can you imagine how much worse it will be when my money goes mostly to buying basic commodity items?
>Maybe those states are low on drinking water because they are; except for Florida; ummm... DESERTS... sheeesh. <
They are going to have to build new plants to take care of new arrivals and it is going to cost a fortune. Even when one of your liberal bent says its a problem you still refuse to believe it?
>Yeah blame the immigrants for pollution while you drive your SUV on crowded freeways... that'll solve the problem. Just like having the oil industry pay for a "scientific" study that disputes the science of the Clean Air Act.<
I'm not blaming immigrants, I'm blaming the politicians who have allowed our immigration policy to be non-existent, and for allowing our population to balloon out of control Are you really telling me that overpopulation is not a problem? Do you consider yourself a liberal? An environmentalist? If so, then add 'hypocrit' to that list.
And I drive a compact car.
>Steve666ÉHow often do you charge up your electric car or get reimbursed by the power company for electricity you generated with your solar panels or windmill??? <
And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? .................................................. .....
Re Jukebox Hero's original comment on my statement:
Wow. Wow. You think there's no way for minority immigrants to positively assimilate themselves into American society, much the same way as the Irish, or the Germans, etc, did however long ago? Based on your reasoning, anyone who leaves one country for another is lazy. So if I decide I want to live in Europe instead of the U.S., I'm lazy? Is (to use a current example) Arnold Schwarzengger lazy because he left Austria to go to the U.S.? Was Ben Franklin in the same boat too?
This culturally static reasoning is absurd. To assume that because a person is Indian means they must support a class-based society is ridiculous. Perhaps they emigrated because they recognized the failings of the entrenched system?
Comments
Originally posted by MaxParrish
A google search will turn up a slew of articles, among them:
www.cnn.com/EARTH/9711/23/immigration/
www.susps.org/info/youdo.html
csf.colorado.edu/envtecsoc/98/0125.html
The last confirms that the Club voted on the subject several years ago (98?) and was split: 60% wanted a policy of neutrality on the subject of immigration, 40% wanted a policy to limit it.
The last confirms that the Club voted on the subject several years ago (98?) and was split: 60% wanted a policy of neutrality on the subject of immigration, 40% wanted a policy to limit it.
Re-read the thread please. Steve666 said that "half of the Sierra Club is in agreement with FAIR". That's sheer and utter nonsense and that's why i asked him to back it up. There has never been a vote by the Sierra Club as to agreement with FAIR. FAIR's positions include many positions that did not appear in anything that the Sierra Club voted on. You can easily read their principles doc or their FAQ or even their purpose to see the limited subset of their rationale that the Sierra Club was debating. It's far different from the overall goals and reasoning that drive FAIR. We could run through some of FAIR's recent articles which encompass a far broader scope of immigration issues than that which concerns FAIR. Consider some of their headlines from the front page:
"Driver's Licenses for Illegal Aliens?"
"In Congress: The DREAM Act ... subsidized college tuition and amnesty for illegal aliens?"
"How Guestworker Programs Harm American Workers"
"IMMIGRATION COSTS SOME STATES REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS"
"BANKS WANT PIECE OF ILLEGAL WAGES, SUPPORT MATRICULA CARDS"
"GEORGIE ANN GEYER: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AT THE HEART OF CALIFORNIA'S PROBLEMS?"
"NEW 'FROGGER' STYLE GAME SIMULATES BORDER CROSSING"
"THE THREAT FROM CANADA'S LAX SECURITY"
What the Sierra Club voted on was the narrow principle of population growth. And population growth not just in terms of immigration but also with regard to birth rates. I suspect, although neither of us can prove it either way, that even among a large portion of Sierra Club membership that supports restrictions on immigrations there would be sharp disagreement with what FAIR stands for even if there may be a limited agreement on immigration issues. Agreement by some people on a specific ends does not constitute agreement in whole of a platform that clearly has a much wider series of reasons for pushing an anti-immigration platform. The Sierra Club has never voted on whether to agree with FAIR and never will.
well, you dont know me otherwise you would know that I am indeed concerned about the environment.
I know you only insofar as your statements on this board and in email. I have a long enough memory to remember that you've made it clear where you stand.
As I mentioned a couple posts ago I used the environment as a header to see what liberals thought about the problem.
This comes across as an insincere end around. I'd give you a more direct answer if I believed that you were legitimately concerned about the environment. Based on your prior comments in other threads, in this thread, the website that you are "promoting" and other contexts I'm rather skeptical of your motivations. But you're entitled to claim otherwise just as I will claim doubt of what you say.
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
Perhaps if it appeared that you were genuinely concerned about the environment rather than using it as a convenient proxy for your real gripe, immigration, then environmentalists might be interested. See your comment:
"Glad to have you join. Everyone has at least one reason for wanting immigration levels brought down to more reasonable levels. The point is, we have to organize in order to make a difference"
Right. One reason for wanting immigration decreased. That's what this is about, not the environment. Perhaps if you had said something about how everyone had their own aspect of environmental concern to justify why they might join FAIR then you could keep up the pretense that this was something people concerned with environmental issues should be intrigued by. This charade is so transparent that any schmuck can see what the real thrust of this organization's purpose is.
Besides, you've never posted on an environmental issue on this board but you've bagged on immigrants and immigrants before. So please, let's admit that this is all about furthering an anti-immigration agenda, for whatever positive or negative value it may have, rather than being a sincere look at issues of environment and population.
Furthermore, your complaint is constrained by thinking in terms of national borders. Any true environmentalist would take a broader perspective since environmental issues transcend the Rio Grande et al. Every immigrant to the US is an emigrant from somewhere else. Arguments about increased pollution in the US are offset by the decreased pollution is corresponding countries of origination. The more thoughtful environmental approach to population issues would certainly discourage overpopulation rather than focusing on migration which directly is a zero sum game. Over course one could delve into respective trends of culture and nationalism which relate to pollution but no such sophisticated analysis is on offer here.
Interesting. I hadn't heard as much. At which of your supporting sources can I read more about this?
In the main, I should let Steve speak for himself. However, after having debated him on previous occasions, I assure you that he, from my perspective, is an enviromentalist.
As he knows, I am not - I am more partial to the term conservationist. Perhaps a "true" enviromentalist would only take an internationalist perspective, but this is a "zero-sum" for whom? Pollution in one's backyard is of far more personal concern to most of us than effluent in Baluchastan.
The facts in our backyard are daunting:
U.S. population in 1950 was 150 million.
U.S. population is now greater than 280 million.
Half that increase has come from the more recent immigration and their descendents.
U.S. population grows by about 3 million a year.
1.6 million come from natural increases
1 million from legal immigration
Roughly 400,000 from illegal immigrants.
The United States takes in more immigrants than all other industrial nations combined.
If immigration and natural increase rates remain unchanged, the U.S. population will reach 340 million by 2025 and 540 million (and rising) by 2060.
Even if all illegal immigration were stopped and legal immigration limited to 200,000 a year, the U.S. population would only stabilize at 320 million in 2025.
Rural communities are being transformed into suburbia. As land becomes less available, land and housing prices suddenly escalated in the late 1970's driving up real costs for home ownership, a blistering pace that continues in all areas subject to immigration preesure (e.g. California).
"Ignoring these questions because they are uncomfortable, because they are emotional, because they cause decent people to call each other names, does not make them go away. They are questions not just for the Sierra Club, but for us all." (from a Sierra Club members article).
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
Re-read the thread please. Steve666 said that "half of the Sierra Club is in agreement with FAIR". That's sheer and utter nonsense and that's why i asked him to back it up. There has never been a vote by the Sierra Club as to agreement with FAIR. FAIR's positions include many positions that did not appear in anything that the Sierra Club voted on. You can easily read their principles doc or their FAQ or even their purpose to see the limited subset of their rationale that the Sierra Club was debating. It's far different from the overall goals and reasoning that drive FAIR. We could run through some of FAIR's recent articles which encompass a far broader scope of immigration issues than that which concerns FAIR. Consider some of their headlines from the front page:
"Driver's Licenses for Illegal Aliens?"
"In Congress: The DREAM Act ... subsidized college tuition and amnesty for illegal aliens?"
"How Guestworker Programs Harm American Workers"
"IMMIGRATION COSTS SOME STATES REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS"
"BANKS WANT PIECE OF ILLEGAL WAGES, SUPPORT MATRICULA CARDS"
"GEORGIE ANN GEYER: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AT THE HEART OF CALIFORNIA'S PROBLEMS?"
"NEW 'FROGGER' STYLE GAME SIMULATES BORDER CROSSING"
"THE THREAT FROM CANADA'S LAX SECURITY"
What the Sierra Club voted on was the narrow principle of population growth. And population growth not just in terms of immigration but also with regard to birth rates. I suspect, although neither of us can prove it either way, that even among a large portion of Sierra Club membership that supports restrictions on immigrations there would be sharp disagreement with what FAIR stands for even if there may be a limited agreement on immigration issues. Agreement by some people on a specific ends does not constitute agreement in whole of a platform that clearly has a much wider series of reasons for pushing an anti-immigration platform. The Sierra Club has never voted on whether to agree with FAIR and never will.
I know you only insofar as your statements on this board and in email. I have a long enough memory to remember that you've made it clear where you stand.
This comes across as an insincere end around. I'd give you a more direct answer if I believed that you were legitimately concerned about the environment. Based on your prior comments in other threads, in this thread, the website that you are "promoting" and other contexts I'm rather skeptical of your motivations. But you're entitled to claim otherwise just as I will claim doubt of what you say.
This is what Steve said:
Post 1 ?As it turns out, about half of the Sierra Club is in agreement with FAIR and wants something done about it (ed note: population growth). The rest are afraid of being called racists and refuse to let the club take a position. ?
Post 2 ?As for the Sierra Club, I have followed that group for a little while and recieve info from them. There has been much internal debate over mass immigration and there is a deep schzism within the ranks and leadership over the issue................. ?
This is what Reuters said (98):
Sierra Club Rejects Anti-Immigration Proposal
By Therese Poletti
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The Sierra Club, one of the largest and most influential environmental groups in the United States, said Saturday its membership had rejected a hotly debated proposal on its annual ballot to lobby the government to curtail immigration.
A majority of members who participated in a mail-in ballot voted not to adopt a policy to limit immigration into the United States. They voted instead to maintain the group's current neutrality on immigration, and added that immigrants should not be scapegoats for overpopulation and environmental damage in the country.
Sierra Club leaders said that the proposal was the most extensively debated issue in the 106-year history of the environmental group, which is headquartered in San Francisco.
The highest percentage of its members in a decade voted... A majority of 60.1 percent voted not to adopt a policy to limit immigration into the United States...
The measure, called Alternative A, was placed on the club's 1998 ballot last summer by a splinter group of Sierra Club members called Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization.
"It's a terrible loss because it means another year," said Alan Kuper, one of the splinter group's organizers and a member of the Ohio Sierra Club. "When you have great population growth, it's a great burden on the natural resource base."
Kuper cited U.S. Census Bureau statistic saying the U.S. population has doubled in less than 70 years and that 80 percent of the growth had been due to immigrants and their descendants.
Kuper said his group plans to place another similar proposal on the ballot next year."
To be fair, reread all of Steve. He said half the Sierra Club is in agreement with FAIR on the issue of population growth (not on all FAIR positions or details thereof.)
One can split hairs, but it seems to me that his points are substantially correct, i.e., the Sierra Club is divided (roughly) on the issue of immigration and population. Apparently 60% voted against the splinter groups Alternative A, which seems to deal very directly with the issue of immigration.
Either the Sierra Club has changed over the few years, or their is still a very substantial number that see immigration as a problem requiring action by the Club.
And reread my posts...I think that your response may have something to do with the sensitivity of this topic.
As for my 'motivations' they are to keep this country from destroying itself. Time is running out..........................
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
Re-read the thread please. Steve666 said that "half of the Sierra Club is in agreement with FAIR". That's sheer and utter nonsense and that's why i asked him to back it up. There has never been a vote by the Sierra Club as to agreement with FAIR. FAIR's positions include many positions that did not appear in anything that the Sierra Club voted on. You can easily read their principles doc or their FAQ or even their purpose to see the limited subset of their rationale that the Sierra Club was debating. It's far different from the overall goals and reasoning that drive FAIR. We could run through some of FAIR's recent articles which encompass a far broader scope of immigration issues than that which concerns FAIR. Consider some of their headlines from the front page:
"Driver's Licenses for Illegal Aliens?"
"In Congress: The DREAM Act ... subsidized college tuition and amnesty for illegal aliens?"
"How Guestworker Programs Harm American Workers"
"IMMIGRATION COSTS SOME STATES REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS"
"BANKS WANT PIECE OF ILLEGAL WAGES, SUPPORT MATRICULA CARDS"
"GEORGIE ANN GEYER: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AT THE HEART OF CALIFORNIA'S PROBLEMS?"
"NEW 'FROGGER' STYLE GAME SIMULATES BORDER CROSSING"
"THE THREAT FROM CANADA'S LAX SECURITY"
What the Sierra Club voted on was the narrow principle of population growth. And population growth not just in terms of immigration but also with regard to birth rates. I suspect, although neither of us can prove it either way, that even among a large portion of Sierra Club membership that supports restrictions on immigrations there would be sharp disagreement with what FAIR stands for even if there may be a limited agreement on immigration issues. Agreement by some people on a specific ends does not constitute agreement in whole of a platform that clearly has a much wider series of reasons for pushing an anti-immigration platform. The Sierra Club has never voted on whether to agree with FAIR and never will.
I know you only insofar as your statements on this board and in email. I have a long enough memory to remember that you've made it clear where you stand.
This comes across as an insincere end around. I'd give you a more direct answer if I believed that you were legitimately concerned about the environment. Based on your prior comments in other threads, in this thread, the website that you are "promoting" and other contexts I'm rather skeptical of your motivations. But you're entitled to claim otherwise just as I will claim doubt of what you say.
Let's, for calculation purposes, assume that all households are families of 4, and that they all live on 1 acre. Now, granted, some families are larger, but most live on significantly smaller amounts of land. Now, using the most recent Census estimates for world population, it becomes apparent the entire world's population of 6.3 billion people could fit in 70% of the U.S. Now, this would leave the ENTIRE rest of the world for nature preserves, farms, factories, etc.
Now, I know that this is a wholly unrealistic simulation, and that it ignores practical aspects like transportation as well as more elusive aspects like culture, it kind of makes you realize that this concept of a Population Bomb that Malthus proposed in the 18th Century and that Paul Ehrlich prophesied in 1968 is not all that likely of a phenomenon.
Which means, I guess we're back to the preserving culture argument, which I think is fundamentally bunk on two levels. First, it assumes that cultural heritage is a static phenomenon, when culture is in fact a highly dynamic entity. Secondly, there's this vast xenophobic assumption that a small minority migratory group will irreparably destroy the majority culture, which is generically unlikely due to sheer size factors, and is more specifically illegitimate with regard to the U.S. because American culture is actually defined by its assimilation of minority cultures and their practices.
Originally posted by agent302
Look, for all you wannabe Malthusian's, here's a bit of food for thought:
Let's, for calculation purposes, assume that all households are families of 4, and that they all live on 1 acre. Now, granted, some families are larger, but most live on significantly smaller amounts of land. Now, using the most recent Census estimates for world population, it becomes apparent the entire world's population of 6.3 billion people could fit in 70% of the U.S. Now, this would leave the ENTIRE rest of the world for nature preserves, farms, factories, etc.
Now, I know that this is a wholly unrealistic simulation, and that it ignores practical aspects like transportation as well as more elusive aspects like culture, it kind of makes you realize that this concept of a Population Bomb that Malthus proposed in the 18th Century and that Paul Ehrlich prophesied in 1968 is not all that likely of a phenomenon.
Which means, I guess we're back to the preserving culture argument, which I think is fundamentally bunk on two levels. First, it assumes that cultural heritage is a static phenomenon, when culture is in fact a highly dynamic entity. Secondly, there's this vast xenophobic assumption that a small minority migratory group will irreparably destroy the majority culture, which is generically unlikely due to sheer size factors, and is more specifically illegitimate with regard to the U.S. because American culture is actually defined by its assimilation of minority cultures and their practices.
Originally posted by steve666
Preserving culture I'm not concerned about, its preserving our quality of life that concerns me...........................
So, then, how do immigrants downgrade the quality of life? You fail to ever really state that.
Think of the environment!
http://nytimes.com/2003/10/28/opinion/28TUE5.html
Just what we need... taxpayers to fund the clean-up of toxic waste sites?
Originally posted by chu_bakka
The Bush Administration: "We don't need no stinking superfund."
http://nytimes.com/2003/10/28/opinion/28TUE5.html
Just what we need... taxpayers to fund the clean-up of toxic waste sites?
You expect halburton et al to clean up their own mess?
All the things that the demos said would happen during the run up to the last "election" about what would happen with a republican president was a vast understatement....
Originally posted by steve666
Excessive immigration levels, both legal and illegal, are creating an environmental nightmare for the US.
Well, you could always try to appropriate some Lebensraum im Osten. It worked before, it might work again.
Originally posted by agent302
So, then, how do immigrants downgrade the quality of life? You fail to ever really state that.
I think theres a number of ways in which this could happen
1) There are not enough natural resources available to maintain the quality of life we all enjoy. How about simple necessities, such as food and water? Are you ready to pay most of your income on the essentials like they do in China? There isn't enough metal in the world to build an automobile for everybody in it, so are you prepared to ride a bike or walk everywhere you go? Are you prepared to downsize your living space and live with New York style conjestion? How about smog from factories to produce the power necessary to support that many people?
2) Immigrants transplant the same, messed up beliefs that destroyed their own country.
3) What happens when the majority of the population is Indian? Remember that they WAAAAAAAAAY outnumber us in world population. You ready to have an Indian president that decides we should go back to a class-based society? Your family gets to be the sewer workers, and my family can be the brick layers? Or maybe they will decide that the white man should just be eliminated altogether. After all, we are the cause of the worlds evils...
3) Immigrants are people that recognize a problem with their own system but are too selfish and lazy to fix it. The way I see it, the 3 million immigrants in Florida are 3 million people that should be back in their own country, working for change there, rather than abandoning their friends and families in the middle of a mess. The mess they leave behind just gets worse as our stupid policies drain off the best of their society. What do you think is going to happen to this mob of people after the best of them leaves?
I have no problem with a regulated immigration. But when you start talking about an exponentially growing immigration, its time to say WHOOOOOA.. Slow down.
Originally posted by agent302
Look, for all you wannabe Malthusian's, here's a bit of food for thought...
Which means, I guess we're back to the preserving culture argument, which I think is fundamentally bunk on two levels. First, it assumes that cultural heritage is a static phenomenon, when culture is in fact a highly dynamic entity. Secondly, there's this vast xenophobic assumption that a small minority migratory group will irreparably destroy the majority culture, which is generically unlikely due to sheer size factors, and is more specifically illegitimate with regard to the U.S. because American culture is actually defined by its assimilation of minority cultures and their practices.
One does not have to be a Malthusian to acknowledge that the some products are far more inelastic than others. No doubt a market economy has, and will continue to be, remarkably successful in providing transportation, clothing, energy, and food to world populations, regardless of their location.
Nonetheless, while people in Hong Kong, Europe, and Japan all have plenty of food, there are differences in their quality of life due to population density. Until the last few decades, Americans (as well as Canadians and Australians) have been very fortunate in having wide spread home ownership opportunities, a rarity in other industrialized, and heavily populated states. Moreover, anyone familiar with the U.S. west's water wars over development can see another commodity's price escalating.
Do appreciate that the current immigration is not in a social or political vacuum, more people (especially those that are unskilled and/or uneducated) means a far greater cost to schools, welfare, transportation, and our social security - which is not offset by the negligible tax rates paid by immigrants.
Last, your assumptions regarding culture and population are woefully naive, as well as misinformed. The concern over culture is not over its "stasis", its over the preservation as something common to all - as a force for the preservation of a people's identity.
Assimilation once worked, for many reasons. Among them: immigration was controlled by quotas; schools taught an ideology of "Americanism" rather than "multiculturalism", public intellectuals and public discourse set assimilation as a virtue; to become a naturalized citizen was a five-year process, one that required English literacy and an education in civics; there was a very small social services sector; and there were limitations on alien residency.
Back then, I'd like to add, for the many millions that earned citizenship, it was a rite of passage ? a transformation of identity from the old world to the new world - to being an ?American?, at that time a noble and envied citizenship for any of the world?s disposed.
Today it is far different. The courts have decided that even illegal immigrants have nearly the same rights and benefits as a citizen (including social security, education, and welfare). The school system and public discourse ridicules the idea of America as a ?melting pot?, advocating instead that the nation should be a ?mixed salad? of hyphenated Americans, just as loyal to their old cultures and politics as they are to the country that they happen to reside in. The politically correct ideology of ethnic multiculturalism is combined with ethnic grievances and victim hood, driving people apart in the competition for special benefits.
I hope I am wrong. If I am, it won?t be because of unlimited immigration, routine unearned amnesties, welfare to illegals, job preferences, vote mongering, public schools, or liberal ?multi-cultureless? ideology. It will be because the ?idea? of America is stronger than all that.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
I hope I am wrong. If I am, it won?t be because of unlimited immigration, routine unearned amnesties, welfare to illegals, job preferences, vote mongering, public schools, or liberal ?multi-cultureless? ideology. It will be because the ?idea? of America is stronger than all that.
Well put. And very sad. All growing entities, whether it be a nation or a corporation, work the same. They have a set lifespan. They start lean and mean. If they are effective, they defend themselves and grow. With success comes further growth. But the growth eventually dilutes the original cause of success. The entity becomes distinctly average, and, as success begins to dwindle, begins to self destruct.
Pity that we are so dead-set on speeding up that lifecycle.
Originally posted by agent302
So, then, how do immigrants downgrade the quality of life? You fail to ever really state that.
Overpopulation causes more pollution, traffic, overcrowded schools, suburban sprawl, overuse of resources , higher housing costs, higher social services costs leading to higher taxes, environmental disctruction including lack of drinking water in states such as California, Texas, Florida, Arizona (former Democratic Senator Simon is trying to raise the matter to public attention), among others......................
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...ing-usat_x.htm
Maybe those states are low on drinking water because they are; except for Florida; ummm... DESERTS... sheeesh.
NYC is less polluted than LA for a few reasons... more favorable weather patterns, a good water supply... and a solid public transportation system.
Yeah blame the immigrants for pollution while you drive your SUV on crowded freeways... that'll solve the problem. Just like having the oil industry pay for a "scientific" study that disputes the science of the Clean Air Act.
Steve666ÉHow often do you charge up your electric car or get reimbursed by the power company for electricity you generated with your solar panels or windmill???
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Steve666ÉHow often do you charge up your electric car or get reimbursed by the power company for electricity you generated with your solar panels or windmill???
These are all things that I would like to do now, but cost prohibits me. Can you imagine how much worse it will be when my money goes mostly to buying basic commodity items?
They are going to have to build new plants to take care of new arrivals and it is going to cost a fortune. Even when one of your liberal bent says its a problem you still refuse to believe it?
>Yeah blame the immigrants for pollution while you drive your SUV on crowded freeways... that'll solve the problem. Just like having the oil industry pay for a "scientific" study that disputes the science of the Clean Air Act.<
I'm not blaming immigrants, I'm blaming the politicians who have allowed our immigration policy to be non-existent, and for allowing our population to balloon out of control Are you really telling me that overpopulation is not a problem? Do you consider yourself a liberal? An environmentalist? If so, then add 'hypocrit' to that list.
And I drive a compact car.
>Steve666ÉHow often do you charge up your electric car or get reimbursed by the power company for electricity you generated with your solar panels or windmill??? <
And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? .................................................. .....
Wow. Wow. You think there's no way for minority immigrants to positively assimilate themselves into American society, much the same way as the Irish, or the Germans, etc, did however long ago? Based on your reasoning, anyone who leaves one country for another is lazy. So if I decide I want to live in Europe instead of the U.S., I'm lazy? Is (to use a current example) Arnold Schwarzengger lazy because he left Austria to go to the U.S.? Was Ben Franklin in the same boat too?
This culturally static reasoning is absurd. To assume that because a person is Indian means they must support a class-based society is ridiculous. Perhaps they emigrated because they recognized the failings of the entrenched system?