Progressive Environmentalists' Hypocritical Support for Illegal Immigration
In the continuing illegal immigration crisis, most of us find that we still like children. However, we are also concerned about being a nation that enforces its laws,the huge influx of immigrants coming into an already fragile economy, border crime and terrorism, as well as the huge costs involved in additional social services. However, there are others that have their own concerns about illegal immigration and have for years; the radical environmentalists and zero population growth advocates.
It may surprise you to learn that some of the most vocal voices for a strong immigration and border security policy are not "conservative" groups at all, but are groups whose main concern is the environment and population control. Their focus has little to do with the above mentioned concerns of the average American. Among those groups are Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Roy Beck's NumbersUSA and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). Reading a history of these groups, we discover that their outward rallying of everyday Americans exists to forward their own cause, shutting down population growth. With Planned Parenthood connections, several of the aforementioned groups were founded or funded by John Tanton:
Sierra’s National Population Committee was chaired from 1971 to 1975 by John Tanton, who at the time was a liberal activist. He later became convinced that immigration was, in fact, the primary cause of overpopulation. In 1980, Sierra Club officers testified before the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Reform that it is “obvious that the numbers of immigrants the United States accepts affects our population size.”
There have been some big names in this movement who have defected, however. In the last few years, large organizations such as the Sierra Club and Bill McKibben's 360.org movements did a sudden "about face" on the issue, after years of working so hard for population control measures. Why?
The 360.org Board members put it this way (emphasis mine):
Immigrants to this country bring a fresh and global perspective to our environmental challenges, as well as much needed political power.
Could it be possible that something more has helped change their perspective as well? Seems like their change of attitude came just about the same time they were seeking support in fighting the Keystone Pipeline. Progressives for Immigration Reform (PFIR) was not pleased with this development and had this to say about it:
Like Bill McKibben’s about-face on immigration last month, this recent shift looks to have been driven by short-term politics. Word has it that in exchange for La Raza’s support for 350.org’s and the Sierra Club’s big D.C. rally against the Keystone XL pipeline, McKibben and Michael Brune, the Sierra Club’s executive director, promised to support CIR. We at PFIR oppose Keystone XL. But with hundreds of millions more Americans in coming decades, we can expect dozens more such bad projects to be built.
Bill McKibben wrote a piece for the LA Times, further clarifying his well-thought-out turnaround on immigration:
And that's precisely where white America has fallen short. Election after election, native-born and long-standing citizens pull the lever for climate deniers, for people who want to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, for the politicians who take huge quantities of cash from the Koch brothers and other oil barons. By contrast, a 2012 report by the Sierra Club and the National Council of La Raza found that Latinos were eager for environmental progress. Seventy-seven percent of Latino voters think climate change is already happening, compared with just 52% of the general population; 92% of Latinos think we have "a moral responsibility to take care of God's creation here on Earth."
That is an interesting take. One wonders what some of the immigrants currently being housed in McAllen, Texas would say? Have they been giving some thought to how, as new citizens, they could better support environmental causes than the disappointing white population? Considering articles about the trashing of the desert by illegals, Bill might have a lot of re-educating to do.
The Bureau of Land Management has been the major player in picking up garbage on the border since 2003. That year, the agency began its Southern Arizona Project, designed to fix the widespread environmental damage done by illegal aliens and drug smugglers.
The agency doles out taxpayer cash—more than $5 million since 2003—to private and government groups to do this work, and trash collection is part of it. BLM spurs the pickup of about 230,000 pounds a year.
What about the Sierra Club? What else might cause such a radical turnaround for them? The very progressive Colorlines site has some thoughts on it:
Sierra has more than two million members, many of them white and elderly. In order for their numbers to grow, recruitment will have to reflect what America looks like today and in the future, which is younger and more racially diverse. For Sierra to do that, though, they have to reconcile their history, which didn’t always endorse open pathways to U.S. citizenship, or even its own membership.
Latino organizations such as Mi Familia Vota Education Fund have applauded Sierra’s new stance, noting the “the wide array of issues that could be addressed through the passage of reform, such as climate solutions, fixing our nation’s healthcare system, educating our future workforce, and fixing our nation’s economy.”
Americans with real and justifiable concerns about illegal immigration must stay the course, as special interests from all sides are coming at us hard. From those who see a financial benefit for their business to those who hope to halt population growth to those who simply see a grand new block of Democrat voters, there are plenty of wolves out there in this fight.