Save the environment, join F.A.I.R.
Excessive immigration levels, both legal and illegal, are creating an environmental nightmare for the US. There are so many organized pro-mass immigration forces that we need to mobilize against them. The Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is the leading mainstream organization that is fighting to reduce immigration levels to more reasonable numbers and to stand against illegal alien amnesties. There are many reasons that it is important to reduce immigration levels, the environment is only one of them.
Go to http://www.fairus.org and join the fight..................
Go to http://www.fairus.org and join the fight..................
Comments
Originally posted by iBrowse
Uh... People that were born and raised in the U.S. don't take care of our environment as it is. I don't see how immigrants increasing our population are worse than some fat slob throwing McDonald's sandwich wraps out their car window...
Overpopulation. More people = more energy usage, more water shortages, more land use, more traffic, more vehicles, more suburban sprawl. Individual pollution needs to be dealt with also, but its much better now thatn a few decades ago...............
What more can I add ? What is obvious to tens of millions of Americans is utter babel to our "leaders" in Washington,i.e.; the country is losing its heritage to unrestrained population growth...all of it due to immegration.
I will Join (Fair that is).
Originally posted by Rick1138
Our heritage sucks - a bunch of stupid rednecks - the only thing that keeps the area I live in halfway interesting is the mass of new immigrants from America, and Western and Eastern Europe.
After reading Anders and you, I must have it wrong - it's emigration I should be concerned about. If it could be arranged, I'd gladly exchange the likes of you two for the immigrants that appreciate this country...
Unfortunitly, were're stuck with ungrateful "hate my country" types. If you don't appreciate the heritage of open spaces, national parks, affordable housing, farmland, etc., then I'm sure Hong Kong could fit in a couple of mooks.
And where that principle is concerned, I agree: this country's greatest assets are its urban ones. And those diverse urban centers -- Chicago, New York, San Francisco, etc -- what makes them so great is all the different kinds of ideas and music and food and literature (and political debate and a million other things) that you can find there.
Nothing wrong with farmlands and that part of our heritage as well; we'd be nothing without it, historically speaking. But it's not nearly enough to base a modern economy and culture upon. It's just one link in a huge chain....
I agree that if left unchecked, over-immigration could lend itself to all kinds of pollution problems. It's simply a matter of scale. Has nothing to do with ethnic background. Humans pollute. End of story. More humans = more pollution. So in some sense we must hold immigration to reasonable levels (and frankly to a reasonable level of diversification), in order to keep the resultant pollution problems from materializing. The problems we have now with the existing population number are bad enough....
Regardless, it doesn't help us if 80% of the people who immigrate are only hispanic. I want not only hispanics, but asians, indians, eastern europeans, africans... and in fairly equal proportions. The legal proportion of hispanics crossing our borders should be intentionally scaled back to take the illegals (and their offspring born here, who are by definition Americans) into account. The more even the mix, the better IMO.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
After reading Anders and you, I must have it wrong - it's emigration I should be concerned about. If it could be arranged, I'd gladly exchange the likes of you two for the immigrants that appreciate this country...
Unfortunitly, were're stuck with ungrateful "hate my country" types. If you don't appreciate the heritage of open spaces, national parks, affordable housing, farmland, etc., then I'm sure Hong Kong could fit in a couple of mooks.
Look mom. A new puppy to play with.
I love my country and appriciate it very much and would hate to be expelled from it. I actually love it so much I would be proud to let you see it someday.
Seems that heritage is a code word for you, bringing instant outrage and fears of nationalism (you know, affirmed idenity as a people)...
Sigh...your post is little more than a liberal whisper (pssst I love my country but don't mistake that for nationalism)...
Come on Anders, you heard a word you did'nt like and jumped the gun...
If not, tell me why you resent heritage.
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
For some reason I suspect that these F.A.I.R. supporters are far more likely to be interested in Pat Buchanon's dream of a 2000 mile long wall along the Mexican border than they are in what the Sierra Club is doing to provide carbon sinks.
Exactly.
When I read the webpage it basically said to me "We have a goal. Now lets find some arguments to support this stance". Intellectual dishonesty.
So the only possible place we could run into a population problem from is immigration, and hence back to all my other points. We need to keep it reasonable and well-balanced in terms of different ethnicities IMO.
As for Pat Buchanan, he's a douche bag.
Originally posted by Moogs
I think he was talking about cultural heritage, but I could be wrong.
And where that principle is concerned, I agree: this country's greatest assets are its urban ones. And those diverse urban centers -- Chicago, New York, San Francisco, etc -- what makes them so great is all the different kinds of ideas and music and food and literature (and political debate and a million other things) that you can find there.
Nothing wrong with farmlands and that part of our heritage as well; we'd be nothing without it, historically speaking. But it's not nearly enough to base a modern economy and culture upon. It's just one link in a huge chain....
I agree that if left unchecked, over-immigration could lend itself to all kinds of pollution problems. It's simply a matter of scale. Has nothing to do with ethnic background. Humans pollute. End of story. More humans = more pollution. So in some sense we must hold immigration to reasonable levels (and frankly to a reasonable level of diversification), in order to keep the resultant pollution problems from materializing. The problems we have now with the existing population number are bad enough....
Regardless, it doesn't help us if 80% of the people who immigrate are only hispanic. I want not only hispanics, but asians, indians, eastern europeans, africans... and in fairly equal proportions. The legal proportion of hispanics crossing our borders should be intentionally scaled back to take the illegals (and their offspring born here, who are by definition Americans) into account. The more even the mix, the better IMO.
As for the environmental issue, I thought perhaps the liberals on this board might take this issue and run with it, instead of shrink from it. Its a real concern and over-immigration is the main cause of present and future environmental problems, among others.
If another country had the population growth the US had in the past 10 years and currently the Sierra Club would be all over it. As it turns out, about half of the Sierra Club is in agreement with FAIR and wants something done about it. The rest are afraid of being called racists and refuse to let the club take a position. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Open your minds-the problem is real......................
Originally posted by Anders
Exactly.
When I read the webpage it basically said to me "We have a goal. Now lets find some arguments to support this stance". Intellectual dishonesty.
http://www.fairus.org
..........
Originally posted by MaxParrish
So Steve, you can see that Max0428 has joined (at least here I can use my prefered ID....
What more can I add ? What is obvious to tens of millions of Americans is utter babel to our "leaders" in Washington,i.e.; the country is losing its heritage to unrestrained population growth...all of it due to immegration.
I will Join (Fair that is).
As for the environmental issue, I thought perhaps the liberals on this board might take this issue and run with it, instead of shrink from it.
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.
As it turns out, about half of the Sierra Club is in agreement with FAIR and wants something done about it.
Interesting. I hadn't heard as much. At which of your supporting sources can I read more about this?
Originally posted by Anders
Exactly.
When I read the webpage it basically said to me "We have a goal. Now lets find some arguments to support this stance". Intellectual dishonesty.
There is intellectual dishonesty, and fear, in/on this issue. The current political climate has so sensitized liberals to accusations of racism and/or jingoism they lost sight of their own beliefs. In the late 1960?s, most progressive thinkers understood the need for ZPG and to ?think small?, etc. Over the last three decades, identity group politics has reshaped the landscape; i.e., to promote population stabilization either in the third world or the U.S. is ?genocide? against people of color and white oppression.
Ironically, the fear of associating with someone on the right, even when in agreement for different reasons, paralyzed the Sierra club to the point they banned discussion of the subject. Thus, the leading environmentalist group that opposes unlimited growth and the destruction of rural lands has to ignore the most important reason it?s occurring.
It becomes surreal, I hear concerned people carry on about all those suburban housing developments, traffic, crowded schools, etc. AS IF there were no people that are in those new houses and new cars, or new students in their schools.
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?
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.
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.................
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?
Originally posted by tonton
...and the Catholics in this orgaization will continue having a dozen kids...
Hahahahahahaha haha ha ha ha
Seriously, this seems to me that some racist people are looking for issues to pretend to care about to get people on their side.