Anti-immigration groups go green

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The photo is from an ad that features a picture of a bulldozer plowing through a pristine forest over the headline, 'One of America's Best Selling Vehicles.'

By Ben Adler, Politico

Readers of the Nation and other left-leaning magazines may have noticed a new addition to the usual advertisements — full-page advocacy ads by an ad hoc coalition of anti-immigration organizations.

The ads place the blame for traffic and sprawl, frequent villains for urban-oriented members of the left, on population growth, another such villain. The kicker? That population growth is blamed on immigration.

One ad features a picture of a bulldozer plowing through a pristine forest over the headline, "One of America's Best Selling Vehicles." Below the picture, the ad says, "You can find big earthmoving equipment throughout America, turning our most picturesque land into suburban sprawl, while adding to some of the worst traffic problems in the world. But traffic is just one of the problems facing America as a result of population growth wildly out of control."

It goes on to blame overpopulation for overcrowded schools and emergency rooms, deteriorating public infrastructure and high property taxes, and then points to a Pew study projecting 82 percent of population growth through 2050 will result from immigration. It ends with the tagline "300 million people today, 600 million tomorrow. Think about it." The 600 million figure is a projection from census data of the U.S. population in the year 2100.

The ads are part of an ongoing coordinated campaign that kicked off in early June to bring the message of immigration reduction to an elite and left-leaning audience, according to leaders of the groups, which include the Federation for Immigration Reform and Numbers USA. The ad hoc coalition paying for the ads is called America's Leadership Team for Long Range Population-Immigration-Resource Planning.

The ads, which have also appeared in The New York Times, The New Republic, The American Prospect, USA Today, Foreign Policy and Harper's, have already generated some controversy on the left. The Nation published an editorial note in its June 16 issue explaining that they did not agree with the ad's content but have a policy of not rejecting ads on ideological grounds. "The ads are insidious," Katrina vanden Heuvel, the Nation's publisher and editor, told Politico. "You have to read them carefully."

Although members of the coalition say that the environmental impact of immigration has long been a concern for them, some acknowledge that the campaign is largely intended to revive the anti-immigration wave that seemed to crest with Republican Tom Tancredo's failed presidential primary bid.

"The main reason for doing it now is, I think, abject disappointment in the presidential campaign," said Roy Beck, president of Numbers USA. "After George Bush, we really didn't think we'd be stuck with that kind of president again. But Obama and McCain are promising to be George Bush's third term on immigration. So let's make sure the public knows the key issues at stake."

Beck and other immigration reduction advocates contend that their movement, which has mostly picked up support from the right, should appeal to liberals.

"We're very concerned about the effects of rapid population growth on the environment," said John Vincent, president of American Immigration Control Foundation. "We thought left-leaning people might consider this point of view." (The AIC Foundation's website does not include any environmental or sprawl issues on its list of effects on immigration on their website's homepage, which Vincent says is an oversight. A search for "environment" brought up only two hits, one to a booklet entitled "Selling our Birthright.")

"We know from polling that Americans who are left of center are concerned about these things but haven't pulled them together on this level," said Beck. "We are taking it to where it's most needed. Conservative political leaders are making sure conservative voters understand the issue and why it's important for conservative reasons. There is not so much of that going on left of center."

Dan Stein, president of FAIR, takes a different tack, saying that the ad buy is not about the publications' ideology but about their prestige. "Are we reaching thought leaders, influentials," he asked rhetorically. "We didn't identify The Nation because of its place on the spectrum but because its readers are thoughtful and we think a lot will agree with us."

But critics contend that this is an insincere attempt to confuse liberals about their true purpose and to get attention.

"They are presenting themselves in a left-wing publication like The Nation as defenders of the environment. These people are the bitter enemies of immigrants," said Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project, which tracks hate groups — and which classifies three of the five members of the coalition, including FAIR, as hate groups — at the Southern Poverty Law Center. "The nativist movement has done rather well on the far right. This is an attempt to bring in a whole new constituency: the environmental left. There's very little evidence that immigrants are contributing to [environmental degradation.]"

Stein calls the hate group designation "hideous name-calling," and says that the SPLC has a "bunker mentality."

Stein and Beck both say their groups have emphasized the environment for decades, perhaps most notably through a longstanding and thus far unsuccessful effort attempt to win seats on the board of directors of the Sierra Club. While that could be called an attempt at a hostile takeover of the left-leaning environmental group, the ad campaign aiming to engage the left is a softer approach.

Many liberals remain skeptical, arguing that development policies, not immigration, determine growth patterns.

"Sprawl is due to economic development without land use controls, not necessarily immigration," said Dave Hamilton, director of the energy program at the Sierra Club. "We need effective development policies. That will be the most effective way to combat sprawl."

"The irony is that immigrants are contributing the least to traffic congestion because they are more likely to carpool or take mass transit," said Potok, citing a UCLA study.

The immigration reduction activists have two responses: that to protect natural lands they must advocate both population reduction and smart growth and that many Americans want to live in drivable suburbs and should not have to live in denser communities because of population growth due to immigration.

"To deal with destruction of habitat and farmland, you've got to stop the growth of per capita land consumption [due to sprawling development patterns] and population growth," said Beck.

"A lot of people like to live in the suburbs," said Diana Hull, president of Californians for Population Stabilization. "Dense cities are part of the answer but not the whole answer."

There are some environmentalists who think the time is ripe for promoting immigration reduction as an environmental goal, among them Paul Watson, the founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and a former member of the Sierra Club board of directors. He says that he quit the group in 2004 in part over its non-stance on immigration, while current members of the group say that he was part of FAIR's attempted takeover of the Sierra Club board.

"I think it makes sense to buy the ad," said Watson. "People in the liberal camp are becoming more aware that ecological concerns are beginning to take priority over social justice issues. People are trying to advocate unlimited immigration, which is ecologically unsound."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12073_Page2.html

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

illegal immigration is a problem. funny how ol' Ben left that word out of the story.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

illegal immigration is a problem. funny how ol' Ben left that word out of the story.

Those anti-immigration groups are advocating less immigration, not just talking about illegal immigration. They've toned down the rhetoric in recent years and focused on illegal immigration, but you can bet your enchilada they want curb all immigration.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

illegal immigration is a problem. funny how ol' Ben left that word out of the story.

Those anti-immigration groups are advocating less immigration, not just talking about illegal immigration. They've toned down the rhetoric in recent years and focused on illegal immigration, but you can bet your enchilada they want curb all immigration.

I see. But immigration is a privilege.

[Fandango 1,439]

illegal immigration is a problem. funny how ol' Ben left that word out of the story.

Those anti-immigration groups are advocating less immigration, not just talking about illegal immigration. They've toned down the rhetoric in recent years and focused on illegal immigration, but you can bet your enchilada they want curb all immigration.

I see. But immigration is a privilege.

it is?

But damnit, the gov't leaves us no fkin choice!

/whine

[peejay 327]

How many times do I have to post this chart to show that immigration into the USA is way too high and in excess of historical norms. A huge chunk of it is from illegal immigration, but legal immigration is too high also. Immigration has become just another one of the many excesses that America has bought into in which the chickens have finally come to roost.

To say that such a huge increase of the US population in a generation by 100+ million people driven by mass legal & illegal immigration does not have an impact on the environment is total denial in the face of reality. This is not sustainable without dire consequences. We are set to add another 100+ million in the next 40 years if this trend continues.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

...birth rates in the U.S. have been declining, which is expected to continue to affect immigration

It was a long-expected demographic shift: Beginning in the third quarter of 2001, Latinos moved ahead of all other ethnic groups in number of child births in California.

But although many of these newborns are the children of immigrants, this demographic change does not reflect a rise in immigration levels or higher Latino birth rates so much as a decline in birth rates among other groups.

In fact, birth rates in the United States have been declining or all groups over the past 10 years, and rates are also declining in almost all Western countries as well as in Japan. Consequently most immigration experts agree that acceptance of widespread legal immigration will eventually become an economic necessity for those countries.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m349...48/ai_100243443

Edited July 27, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[peejay 327]

...birth rates in the U.S. have been declining, which is expected to continue to affect immigration

It was a long-expected demographic shift: Beginning in the third quarter of 2001, Latinos moved ahead of all other ethnic groups in number of child births in California.

But although many of these newborns are the children of immigrants, this demographic change does not reflect a rise in immigration levels or higher Latino birth rates so much as a decline in birth rates among other groups.

In fact, birth rates in the United States have been declining or all groups over the past 10 years, and rates are also declining in almost all Western countries as well as in Japan. Consequently most immigration experts agree that acceptance of widespread legal immigration will eventually become an economic necessity for those countries.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m349...48/ai_100243443

So friggin' what? As if the American people can't choose the destiny of our own country or its population. Does the US revolve around producing enough offspring to supply the cheap strip shopping malls with enough consumers to buy the required amount of cheap imports for sale there to suit the powers that be? Is that what a country should be about? Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

That's about as stupid and self serving as the Democrats that keep wanting to make US citizens (aka: Democratic voters) out of illegal aliens.

If over-population was such a boon, the third world should be rolling in prosperity by now...shouldn't it? Who are these "immigration experts"? The Wall Street Journal editorial staff and the US Chamber of Commerce? Or some other self serving prophet of wisdom?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

...birth rates in the U.S. have been declining, which is expected to continue to affect immigration

It was a long-expected demographic shift: Beginning in the third quarter of 2001, Latinos moved ahead of all other ethnic groups in number of child births in California.

But although many of these newborns are the children of immigrants, this demographic change does not reflect a rise in immigration levels or higher Latino birth rates so much as a decline in birth rates among other groups.

In fact, birth rates in the United States have been declining or all groups over the past 10 years, and rates are also declining in almost all Western countries as well as in Japan. Consequently most immigration experts agree that acceptance of widespread legal immigration will eventually become an economic necessity for those countries.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m349...48/ai_100243443

So friggin' what? As if the American people can't choose the destiny of our own country or its population. Does the US revolve around producing enough offspring to supply the cheap strip shopping malls with enough consumers to buy the required amount of cheap imports for sale there to suit the powers that be? Is that what a country should be about? Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

That's about as stupid and self serving as the Democrats that keep wanting to make US citizens (aka: Democratic voters) out of illegal aliens.

If over-population was such a boon, the third world should be rolling in prosperity by now...shouldn't it? Who are these "immigration experts"? The Wall Street Journal editorial staff and the US Chamber of Commerce? Or some other self serving prophet of wisdom?

Goooo peejay!!!

[Fandango 1,439]

I *seriously heart* peejay

[one...two...tree 2,762]

...birth rates in the U.S. have been declining, which is expected to continue to affect immigration

It was a long-expected demographic shift: Beginning in the third quarter of 2001, Latinos moved ahead of all other ethnic groups in number of child births in California.

But although many of these newborns are the children of immigrants, this demographic change does not reflect a rise in immigration levels or higher Latino birth rates so much as a decline in birth rates among other groups.

In fact, birth rates in the United States have been declining or all groups over the past 10 years, and rates are also declining in almost all Western countries as well as in Japan. Consequently most immigration experts agree that acceptance of widespread legal immigration will eventually become an economic necessity for those countries.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m349...48/ai_100243443

So friggin' what? As if the American people can't choose the destiny of our own country or its population. Does the US revolve around producing enough offspring to supply the cheap strip shopping malls with enough consumers to buy the required amount of cheap imports for sale there to suit the powers that be? Is that what a country should be about? Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

That's about as stupid and self serving as the Democrats that keep wanting to make US citizens (aka: Democratic voters) out of illegal aliens.

If over-population was such a boon, the third world should be rolling in prosperity by now...shouldn't it? Who are these "immigration experts"? The Wall Street Journal editorial staff and the US Chamber of Commerce? Or some other self serving prophet of wisdom?

Interesting. So who in your mind is the American People? Many of us are only one or two generations removed from being immigrants ourselves. I just don't get this nativist attitude as if we are a country that's existed for very long comparative to most countries, nor made up of natives who can trace their lineage to this land beyond a few generations. That's what has made the U.S. unique to most other countries and I would argue that it has been one of our greatest assets. We are a nation of immigrants and will continue to be a nation of immigrants...nativism will never be a popular POV in this country.

[Fandango 1,439]

No, Steven.....we cannot continue to be nation of immigrants growing at the same speed we have done since the colonies....

[natty bumppo 297]

Humm ... a picture of americas best selling vehicle ... great for clearing land to build fences ... or hiding bodies

[peejay 327]

...birth rates in the U.S. have been declining, which is expected to continue to affect immigration

It was a long-expected demographic shift: Beginning in the third quarter of 2001, Latinos moved ahead of all other ethnic groups in number of child births in California.

But although many of these newborns are the children of immigrants, this demographic change does not reflect a rise in immigration levels or higher Latino birth rates so much as a decline in birth rates among other groups.

In fact, birth rates in the United States have been declining or all groups over the past 10 years, and rates are also declining in almost all Western countries as well as in Japan. Consequently most immigration experts agree that acceptance of widespread legal immigration will eventually become an economic necessity for those countries.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m349...48/ai_100243443

So friggin' what? As if the American people can't choose the destiny of our own country or its population. Does the US revolve around producing enough offspring to supply the cheap strip shopping malls with enough consumers to buy the required amount of cheap imports for sale there to suit the powers that be? Is that what a country should be about? Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

That's about as stupid and self serving as the Democrats that keep wanting to make US citizens (aka: Democratic voters) out of illegal aliens.

If over-population was such a boon, the third world should be rolling in prosperity by now...shouldn't it? Who are these "immigration experts"? The Wall Street Journal editorial staff and the US Chamber of Commerce? Or some other self serving prophet of wisdom?

Interesting. So who in your mind is the American People? Many of us are only one or two generations removed from being immigrants ourselves. I just don't get this nativist attitude as if we are a country that's existed for very long comparative to most countries, nor made up of natives who can trace their lineage to this land beyond a few generations. That's what has made the U.S. unique to most other countries and I would argue that it has been one of our greatest assets. We are a nation of immigrants and will continue to be a nation of immigrants...nativism will never be a popular POV in this country.

Seriously...some of you folks remind me of these crazies the cops run across all too often that horde hundreds of cats and/or dogs into their feces and stench ridden houses. Often these unfortunate creatures and their caretaker are living in deplorable conditions and ill health because there are not adequate resources to deal with the burden they have taken on. In their minds bedeviled with compassion and empathy they honestly believe they have to do this to "save" these unfortunate creatures and that they are heroes and saints for doing it.

In reality they are fools on a fool's errand. It is a sad case of "misery loves company".

Our founding fathers never intended US immigration policy to be a charity event, a jobs fair, or a consumer outreach market for the world. It was a policy to grow and prosper the republic. It has now morphed and been bastardized into a policy in which millions are brought into our country that are huge users of social welfare programs while subsidizing the corporate cheap labor addiction. It has become a policy which benefits the few at the expense of the many. Nativism and xenophobia my azz! This is not sustainable nor is it desirable.

America became a low immigration country from 1924 to 1965 because many Americans could see that mass immigration was not desirable and was having a huge negative effect on the republic. Immigration policy for a country is not about the immigrant, it is about the republic and it's citizenry.

You cannot save the world from itself comrade Steven. Nature always trumps the folly of man. If you want to save the world...join the Peace Corps or follow in the footsteps of Mother Theresa. US immigration policy is not the way to do it. You cannot save the world by pissing in your own bowl of Cheerios.

In the later part of the 20th century the populations of the third world have exploded. This is not sustainable nor can the USA save the world from its own folly.