environment

Congressman to Supreme Court: Unblock the Wall

IRLI Press Release

WASHINGTON � Among the many lawsuits anti-borders activists have launched to try to stop the Trump administration from building a wall on our southern border using military and emergency funds, one has hit pay dirt � at least for the tiime being. A federal district court judge in the Northern District of California has enjoined the administration’s transfer of military funds for that purpose. Late last week, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), on behalf of Congressman Andy Barr of Kentucky, filed an emergency brief in the Supreme Court in support of the government’s petition to stay � that is, suspend � that injunction.

The stakes are high. If the Supreme Court does not stay the injunction, the administration will not be able to transfer the funds this fiscal year, even if it eventually prevails on appeal. In IRLI’s brief, Rep. Barr argues forcefully that the plaintiff, the Sierra Club, lacks standing to challenge military spending decisions based on its aesthetic objections to the military construction projects set to be built.

“It is beyond ridiculous that a group like the Sierra Club was able to stop a military construction project because it doesn’t like the way it looks,” said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. “That may make sense under environmental protection laws, but not under the military appropriations statutes they are suing under. It is particularly ironic that the Sierra Club is bringing this suit, because illegal aliens cause far more environmental destruction � including massive amounts of trash in our national parks � than any border wall couldd. We hope the Supreme Court sees basic reason, suspends this absurd injunction, and lets Trump get to work.”

The case is Trump v. Sierra Club, No. 19A60 (Supreme Court).

Share this release here.  


For additional information, contact: Brian Lonergan � 202-232-5590 � an>blonergan@irli.org

Mass Migration Harms the Environment – Earth Day Message

OFIR was founded partly because of the need to alert Oregonians and U.S. citizens to the environmental consequences of excessive immigration levels.

Following is an excellent summary reminding us of the destructive effects on our environment caused by mass migration.  The statement was issued by the Immigration Reform law Institute, on the occasion of Earth Day, 2019Earth Day is observed annually on April 22, throughout the world.

-------------------------

“On Earth Day, we should all recognize our responsibility to be good stewards of our environment,” said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI. “Those who advocate against borders and reasonable immigration controls are acting irresponsibly and causing great damage to our planet. An effective plan to protect our environment must recognize the role that mass migration plays in boosting CO2 emissions and pollution to dangerous levels.”  

637 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually

Immigration-generated population growth is fueling an increase in energy demand and the waste product that accompanies it. Immigrants to the United States alone produce about four times more CO2 in the United States as they would have in their countries of origin. U.S. immigrants produce an estimated 637 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually — equal to Great Britain and Sweden combined. Strangely, governments that stress the urgency of addressing climate change are also some of the biggest opponents of border enforcement and immigration limits.

Mass migration grows America’s carbon footprint

One of the most popular talking points of climate change advocates is that the United States has less than five percent of the world’s population, yet consumes about a quarter of the world’s fossil fuel resources. If that is true, then why do some of the same people support immigration policies that significantly increase American fuel consumption as well as its carbon footprint? The two positions are wildly inconsistent.

Global climate hypocrisy 

While issuing apocalyptic warnings about climate change, the United Nations simultaneously encourages countries to accept even more migrants. After the Trump administration pulled the United States out of the UN’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria followed suit. Austria and Slovakia have also indicated they will act similarly. Their objection is that the pact may encourage more illegal alien arrivals and is not in the interests of the host country. 

Border trash is piling up

The environmental damage from mass migration extends beyond just increased CO2 output. The land around our southern border is riddled with trash, and it is directly proportional to the numbers of those who make the perilous journey to enter our country illegally. 

According to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, when Arizona was experiencing over 120,000 border apprehensions, over 65,000 pounds of border trash was being collected annually. That’s more than 32 tons of garbage—plastic water bottles, abandoned vehicles, human waste, medical products and much more—on the ground. In the following years, as apprehensions fell as low as 70,000, border trash collections dropped as well – reaching a low of just 19,000 pounds in fiscal year 2015 before jumping back up in 2016. This is only one of our four southern border states, and not even the largest.

Our government needs to act

With this kind of pollution caused by mass migration, surely our federal government is on the case. That assumption would be wrong. IRLI has argued that federal immigration-regulating agencies—in particular, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security—have ignored the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), our nation’s preeminent environmental law, for decades. Since it became law nearly a half century ago, NEPA has required any agency, before implementing actions or programs that will affect the environment, to issue an Environmental Impact Statement analyzing and publicizing those effects. The federal government’s immigration programs are probably the most environmentally consequential programs there are, yet no such analysis has ever been done.

See the news release as issued by IRLI at:  https://www.irli.org/single-post/2019/04/21/Earth-Day-Message-Mass-Migration-Harms-the-Environment

Statue of Liberty Declares: STOP IMMIGRATION!

by  Tim Murray

Maybe you haven’t heard the terrible news. The United States, like almost every nation on the planet, is in serious population overshoot. This is a vastly different world than the one Emma Lazarus lived in. Hers was an America of seemingly unlimited resources. Ours is one of Limits to Growth.

Yes, there are still vast tracts of America that are sparsely populated. But it is not about how many people a nation can contain but how many it can sustain. The United States has a limited ecological carrying capacity, and there is every indication that it has been exceeded.

That is not only a disaster for us, but a catastrophe for the world. Put it this way. The very last thing that Mother Nature needs is another American consumer. Migration from less developed countries to developed nations like ours has a “multiplier” effect. The average migrant to the United States, for example, quadruples his GHG emissions upon arrival, and this applies to the consumption of resources as well. This is not surprising. After all, most immigrants come here precisely because they want to consume more. They want to enjoy the good life, or at least a materially better life, for themselves and their children.

To prospective immigrants I would say this. Our working poor and IT workers do not need your competition. Our bulging prisons and crowded classrooms cannot accommodate you. Our fruit and vegetable crops do not need you to harvest them. Our service and hospitality sector does not need your labour, nor does the home construction industry. We have Americans to do those jobs. All they need is a decent wage, and without immigration, there is a good chance that they would get it.

The era of smokestack industries and family farms is over. The era of A. I. and robots is soon to unfold. The demand for menial labor will plummet. We will be hard put to employ our working poor, never mind the global poor that Emma Lazarus and her modern day equivalents would welcome. In other words, your services will not be required.

So here’s some advice. Turn around and go back from whence you came. If things are still too rough at home, chances are that you can find suitable sanctuary in a country located in the same region. And if you do manage to make it back, could you please convey this message to your compatriots: Take responsibility for your family size. Understand that scarcity and the conflict that issues from it are in a large part a consequence of your nation’s runaway population growth. If your nation cannot grow the pie, it can, through aggressive family planning programs, increase the size of per capita “slices” by reducing the number of diners at the table.

I think you are a victim of a misunderstanding. The Statue of Liberty was meant to tell you that liberty, democracy and the rule of law can set the citizens of your country free. It was a prescription for good government, not an invitation to come and settle here. The Lazarus poem was an add-on twenty years after the statue was erected, and not congruent with the statement that the Statue was making. Immigration and liberty are apples and oranges.

In fact, higher population density requires more regulations and laws. Population growth is inversely correlated to liberty. As Isaac Asimov said in his famous “bathroom” metaphor. If there is only one tenant and one bathroom in an apartment, the tenant has “freedom of the bathroom”. He can access the bathroom at any time. But once another tenant or tenants come to share that same apartment, the original occupant must compete to use the bathroom. Rules of use or etiquette ensue. Tenants have no unrestricted freedom to use the bathroom whenever they like. And the more tenants who move in, the more restricted the residents will be.

Perhaps a name change would clarify the message. You have heard of the Statute of Limitations. I think Lady Liberty should be rechristened as the Statue of Limitations, and her torch be replaced by a stop sign.


Published by the Council of European Canadians
Read the full article here.

How "Illegal Immigrant" Amnesty Could Destroy American Liberty

by Trevor Loudon

There is no issue that will more decisively spell the end of American liberty than that of amnesty for this country's millions of illegal aliens.

Illegal immigration and the societal changes it will bring with it are more than an economic issue, a public health issue, a law enforcement issue, or even a national security problem—it is an existential threat to thee survival of the United States as a constitutional republic.
 
It comes down to simple math.
 
For years, the generally accepted estimate of illegal aliens living in the United States has been around 11 million.
A study released by MIT's Mohammad Fazel-Zarandi, a senior lecturer in the operations research and statistics group, and his colleagues, Edward Kaplan and Jonathan Feinstein, both from Yale School of Management, in September 2018 gave cause to re-visit that figure.
According to MIT's Sloan School: The research found that the number of undocumented immigrants living in the country is about 22.1 million, nearly twice the most prominent current estimate of 11.3 million. Even using extremely conservative parameters, the study estimates a population of 16.7 million undocumented immigrants, nearly 50 percent higher than the widely accepted population figure.
 
If given citizenship and voting rights (which Hillary Clinton promised to initiate within a hundred days of taking office), 11 to 22 million eventual new voters will have a huge impact on future U.S. elections.
This fact is not lost on the left-wing activists in the United States, who seek to use the illegal alien population to secure a "permanent progressive majority" for the Democratic Party and their allies.

More Voters

Communist Party USA (CPUSA) leader Emile Schepers wrote a paper on immigration amnesty for the party's 2014 national Convention in Chicago.
 
"For decades, the CPUSA has been involved in the struggle for the rights of immigrant workers and their families. … A central focus has been gaining legal rights for the 11 million undocumented," Schepers wrote.
"We call for progressive legislation which legalizes as many people as possible as quickly as possible. … We are for ease of access too U.S. citizenship."
 
Former Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez was, for more than 20 years—the main champion of illegal alien amnestty in the House of Representatives. He is a former leader of the Marxists' Leninist Puerto Rican Socialist Party (PRSP) and an ally of both the United States largest Marxist organization—the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)—and the pro-China League of Revolutionaary Struggle (LRS).
In July 2015, Rep. Gutierrez addressed the House of Representatives on the power of the Latino vote and the political left.
 
"If millions of people naturalize, become citizens, and if we add to that the million Latino citizens who this year will turn 18, plus all our allies in the African-American community, LGBT voters and younger voters, environmental voters, women voters, Asian voters, union voters … coonstitute a majority of Americans. Together, we are the New American Coalition that will dominate politics for decades to come."
 
Gutierrez's good friend, former SEIU International Executive Vice President Eliseo Medina, is the undisputed leader of the “amnesty” movement in this country. Medina is a long-time member of the DSA, a CPUSA ally, and was an informal adviser to former President Barack Obama on immigration and amnesty issues.
At the America's Future Now! conference in Washington, D.C. on June 2, 2009, Medina addressed "progressive" attendees on the need for urgent illegal alien amnesty.
Speaking of Latino voters, Medina said: "When they [Latinos] voted in November, they voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates. Barack Obama got two out of every three voters that showed up. …
 
"If we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community needs to solidly be on the side of immigrants. That we'll solidify and expand the progressive coalition for the future. …
[If] we reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have, even the same ratio, two out of three?
"If we have 8 million new voters who care about …. and willl be voting. We will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle."
Medina exhibits no compassion for the plight of illegal aliens or sympathy for families being torn asunder. Medina does not speak of a "nation of immigrants"or the "American Dream."
 
This is all about hard numbers and raw power.  It's very clear that the left wants illegal immigrant amnesty for one reason only—votes.

One-Party State

The 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney lost his election by around 2.5 million votes. President Donald Trump actually lost the popular vote by around 3 million ballots. He won by about 200,000 votes through the Electoral College. Thank God for the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who gave America a system to temper the dangers of raw "majority rule" and political dominance by large population centers and ethnic or religious blocs.
 
Many states with high illegal alien populations, such as Arizona, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina are only marginally inside the Republican camp. Illegal alien amnesty would almost certainly send those states permanently "blue."  Virginia—once "red"”would also be lost for the Republicans. Even Republican-stronghold Texas is very vulnerable. Losing only one or two of these states would doom the Republican Party to minority party status, and eventual oblivion.
 
How can the Republicans hope to counter 10 to 20 million new Democrat voters, possibly as soon as the 2022 election cycle?
Today's Democratic Party is no longer the party of Harry Truman or John F. Kennedy. It is now a party of the far-left. At least 30 percent of the current Democratic senators and congressmembers have ties to the CPUSA, DSA, Freedom Road Socialist Organization, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, or other revolutionary organizations. Many congressmembers also have ties to China, Iran, Venezuela, and especially Cuba.
Illegal alien amnesty would give the Democrats permanent control of the United States. This means a "one-party state" soon to be dominated by the far left. Think California nationwide, with no hope of a turnaround.
 
No political party should ever be given permanent unchallenged power.
As British history statesman Lord Acton famously said: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." "Amnesty" would give the far left in the United States the absolute power they have so long craved.
Illegal alien amnesty is the left's road to the American "one-party state." For the sake of our children and grand-children, for the sake of the remaining free world, this cannot be allowed to happen. It must be fought with every fiber of our being by those who love liberty.
 
America, you must say no to amnesty.
 
Trevor Loudon is an author, filmmaker and public speaker from New Zealand. For more than 30 years, he has researched radical left, Marxist and terrorist movements and their covert influence on mainstream politics.

Read the original article.

Media ignore important facts on immigration

The truth about immigration’s role in our prolonged population surge is ignored by the general media, leaving most citizens unaware of the underlying reason why traffic is increasing everywhere, why housing density is a threat even in historic residential districts in Portland and elsewhere  -- to say nothing about the problems with rising costs of public education for ever-expanding enrollments, welfare services for vast numbers of homeless and poor people, environmental degradation in Oregon, the U.S. and elsewhere. 

The rush to the U.S. by millions from around the world must be stopped if our nation is to have an acceptable quality of life here. 

Overcrowding and lack of economic opportunities drive desperate people from third-world countries to the U.S.  We’ve been giving financial and technical assistance to these countries for decades now, but population policy has not been adequately addressed.  

Negative Population Growth says: “We believe that the optimum rate of [world] population growth is negative.”  For the U.S., they recommend reducing immigration to not over 200,000 a year, causing a gradual decline in population, and stabilizing  at a sustainable level of around 150 million.  Fertility among native-born in the U.S. has been below replacement level for some time.

Where are the feminists when they’re needed to encourage women in other countries to demand the right to control reproduction in their own bodies, the right to decide whether to have children and if so, how many. 

Joe Guzzardi, a long-time supporter of reduced immigration, gives the media a good scolding for their silence on these issues.  Here are excerpts from his article:

Call to journalists: Return to your professional standards

by Joe Guzzardi, in Daily Citizen-News, Dalton GA, January 9, 2019

On New Year's Eve, The Washington Post published a shockingly biased (even as measured in the current shoddy journalism era) op-ed piece. Titled "The Demographic Time Bomb that Could Hit America," the commentary reflects columnist Catherine Rampell's opinion that declining population would represent many dramatic societal challenges.

Crucial details though are omitted, perhaps purposely. Specifically, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, by 2060 the United States is projected to grow by 79 million people, from today's 326 million to 404 million. Population is not in decline as the column infers. …

Calling all Post editors! Publishing a column about declining population's perils when population is in fact soaring is an example of why the mainstream media's trustworthiness remains well below poll numbers from decades back in the public's eye. …

Many Americans are conflicted about immigration, and deserve to know both sides of the argument. After all, the population increases between today and the mid-2060s represent about a 25 percent bump. If Americans were asked how they feel about 25 percent more people in their already overcrowded neighborhoods, schools and hospitals and on highways, most would be overwhelmingly opposed.

Instead of the full, unvarnished story, readers routinely get a set of cherry-picked facts that the media, abandoning its professional responsibilities, puts forward. Time for the truth, and let the nation come to its own conclusions.

Read the full article here: https://www.dailycitizen.news/opinion/columns/joe-guzzardi-call-to-journalists-return-to-your-professional-standards/article.html

or here: https://progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/call-to-journalists-return-to-your-abandoned-professional-standards/

Prince William Breaks a Taboo: Speaks Out Against Overpopulation

ImmigrationReform.com

Posted by

On November 2, England’s Prince William spoke in London and warned about the dire consequences of overpopulation worldwide, especially as it relates to wildlife protection and species preservation. The event was sponsored by the Tusk Trust. The Tusk Trust protects African wildlife.

“We are going to have to work much harder, and think much deeper, if we are to ensure that human beings and the other species of animal with which we share this planet can continue to co-exist,” he said. Prince William is courageously venturing into the oft-ignored issue of overpopulation.

We should take our cues from Prince William’s leadership.

According to the United States Census Bureau, the current U.S. population totals over 326 million. Shockingly, unless immigration is reduced, the nation’s population will climb to nearly 400 million by 2050. That’s a 22 percent increase in just 33 years! America does not have enough available resources to sustain a population this size without further damaging the environment from growing development related pressures. Though rarely discussed, the reality is that we must curb future immigration in order to save our country’s remaining wildlife for future generations.

Which is one reason why the RAISE Act, now pending in the Senate, makes such good sense.

Phasing down levels of legal immigration will help stabilize the U.S. population in time. The RAISE Act would reduce legal immigration by 50 percent. Immigration would become manageable because the RAISE Act ends chain migration and restores our nation’s ability to determine its demographic destiny. Prince William understands the need for population stabilization – why can’t our own congressional leadership?

http://immigrationreform.com/2017/11/03/prince-william-breaks-taboo-speaks-overpopulation/

Interesting guest of Tucker Carlson

 
Recently Tucker Carlson dove into a subject pretty much verboten in present-day political discussion – How Many Is Too Many? That’s the title of his guest’s book, by Philip Cafaro, a professor of philosophy at Colorado State University.
 
Cafaro’s book, subtitled The progressive argument for reducing immigration into the United States, was published in 2015, but thanks to Tucker and some emerging enlightenment elsewhere, it’s now beginning to be discussed more publicly.
 
The chapter headings in Cafaro’s book indicate the framework of his argument:  Good people, hard choices, and an inescapable question.- Immigration by the numbers.-The wages of mass immigration.-Winners and losers.-Growth, or what is an economy for?- Population matters.-Environmentalists’ retreat from demography.-Defusing America’s population bomb—or cooking the earth.
 
Discussion of these subjects is very welcome, because most newspapers and other media today as well as many education groups and even some trade unions perpetuate the idea that all immigration is wonderful, without limits, endlessly enriching life in the U.S.  And they try to enforce that thinking by shaming questioners as unspeakable bigots.
 
Cafaro asks:  “Why are immigration debates frequently so angry?  People on one side often seem to assume it is just because people on the other are stupid, or immoral.  I disagree.  Immigration is contentious because vital interests are at stake and no one set of policies can fully accommodate all of them.”
 
He details in his book “how current immigration levels—the highest in American history—undermine attempts to achieve progressive economic, environmental, and social goals.”
 
Anyone who’s ever looked at the Census Bureau’s Population Clock should understand that thesis.  As of July 10, 2017 the clock ticks like this:  One birth every 8 seconds; one death every 12 seconds; one international migrant (net) every 33 seconds, net gain of one person every 12 seconds.  Our population is now over 325 million, and only quite recently it was 300 million; the rate of growth is enormous, and at present there’s no end in sight.
 
The 300 million mark was reached on Oct. 17, 2006, not quite 11 years ago.  Will there be another 25 ½ million people in 11 years?  If you’re feeling the increasing pressure of population density now, what will the quality of life be in the U.S. then?
 
Cafaro proposes sensible steps to restore controls over immigration and our future.  The first step he suggests is a temporary moratorium on all non-emergency immigration.  Amen to that!
 
The Carlson-Cafaro interview can be seen in the second segment of this YouTube video.  Cafaro has written an article summarizing the content of his book which is posted online here.
 
Note:  NumbersUSA, formed in 1996, brings together “moderates, conservatives & liberals working for immigration numbers that serve America's finest goals.”  It now has over 8 million supporters.  For those who care about a livable environment, here’s a good organization to join.
 

Some thoughts for Earth Day, 2017

 

Earth Day, celebrated annually on April 22, is supposed to inspire appreciation for our natural environment and action to preserve it in a healthful condition, recognizing that all life depends on air, water and soil.
 
Too many environmental organizations have lost their way and morphed into political groups that will not face the topmost threat to the environment – overpopulation, caused in the U.S. by excessive immigration.   See Ann Coulter’s analysis of what happened to the Sierra Club here.
 
Also, Joe Guzzardi, a long-time writer on immigration and the environment, presents this concise summary of the problem, with his recommendations for remedy. The article below was published in the Greeneville Sun, Greeneville TN.
 
 
 
Apr 20, 2017
 
As a Californians for Population Stabilization Senior Writing Fellow, each Earth Day and on many other days during the year I address the key words that my organization strives for — population stabilization.
 
Environmentalists have written volumes about the importance of achieving sustainable population. On Earth Day, politicians pay token attention to how overpopulation contributes to the environment’s fragile condition. Yet the only change since the first 1970 Earth Day is that more people have been added. Today, global population is 7.5 billion, more than three times what many consider a sustainable total, and U.S. population is 325 million, more than twice what some scientists agree is the optimum number of humans.
 
In the U.S., population growth is less an individual family choice than the direct result of conscious congressional decisions to expand immigration that date back to 1965. During the Senate hearing about the effect the 1965 Immigration Act might have on population, New York Senator Robert Kennedy, responding to North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin’s questions, acknowledged that the legislation would eventually double U.S. population, and that mass immigration to America couldn’t and wouldn’t solve global overpopulation. Senators Ervin and Kennedy were right in their analysis, but wrong in their votes to pass the legislation. Both sides of the aisle overwhelmingly voted for the 1965 Immigration Act.
 
The Pew Research Center, in its retrospective on the 1965 Immigration Act, found that since its passage and through 2015, new immigrants, their children and grandchildren added 72 million people to the U.S., which accounted for 55 percent of the nation’s population growth.
 
The modern immigration wave vastly exceeds previous migration flows: between 1840 and 1889, 14.3 million immigrants came to the U.S., and between 1890 and 1919, an additional 18.2 million arrived.
 
Assuming continued decline in native fertility rates and a modest decline in net immigration, the Census Bureau calculates that in 2051 the U.S. population will hit 400 million.
 
But the Census Bureau is a government entity, politically motivated to calculate conservatively. Other independent studies, namely Pew and Decision Demographics, estimate that by mid-decade U.S. population will increase to more than 435 million. The same researchers concluded that if immigration were cut in half, population would grow only 70 million; if eliminated, only 31 million.
 
More than half a century has passed since the 1965 Immigration Act was enacted. Millions more live in our overcrowded nation. The question that Congress must answer is how many immigrants should be admitted annually to guarantee the best quality of life for future generations. Arguments to reduce immigration should not be confused as anti-immigrant, but rather pro-environment. Congress has numerous options that could establish sensible immigration that would help immigrants and native-born alike.
 
They include:
 
- A sharp reduction in employment-based visas for all but the truly exceptional. Visa holders’ U.S.-born children are automatically granted citizenship which helps permanently anchor their parents in the U.S. Students, tourists and family visitors must return home when their temporary visas expire. Congress passed an entry-exit plan 30 years ago that hasn’t yet been implemented.
 
- Pass mandatory E-Verify, which would ensure that only citizens and legal immigrants are employed. E-Verify eliminates the jobs magnet that lures illegal immigrants.
 
- End the visa lottery, and promote refugee resettlement near their home nations.
 
- Pass Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton’s RAISE Act that would cut legal immigration from more than 1 million annually to 500,000. Less immigration creates tighter labor markets and puts upward pressure on long-stagnant wages.
 
The U.S. has no population policy, and therefore no understanding of the limits to growth.
 
Congress must act to reject the political correctness, which has made the mere mention of population stabilization taboo, and act quickly to create an improved quality of life for all.
 

Tribute to Dr. John Tanton

John H. Tanton, M.D. - retired ophthalmologist and eye surgeon is recognized as the founder of the modern immigration immigration reform movement.  A video tribute to John H. Tanton, M.D. is now available.  Tanton is also publisher and former editor of The Social Contract.

As a strong conservationist and leading advocate for the environment, Dr. John Tanton founded the Petoskey, Michigan regional Audubon Society. He has been active in a number of environmental organizations, both locally and nationally. Dr. Tanton recognized that continued human population growth is a significant contributor to environmental problems and he therefore became involved with the Sierra Club Population Committee and became President and board member of Zero Population Growth.

As immigration became the driving force behind unending U.S. population growth, John Tanton founded FAIR - the Federation for American Immigration Reform. John Tanton is pro-immigrant and pro-legal immigration, but at reduced, sustainable numbers. He states:

"The stresses caused by population growth cannot be solved by international migration. They must be confronted by and within each individual nation. Fundamental to the concept of national rights and responsibilities is the duty of each nation to match its population with its political, social, and environmental resources, in both the short and the long term. No nation should exceed what the biologists call its 'carrying capacity.'"

This video is a tribute to the life and accomplishments of Dr. John Tanton. For more information, see:

The John Tanton website
http://johntanton.org/

The Social Contract
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/

So what, another Earth Day comes and goes

Oregonians for Immigration Reform was founded 16 years ago by just a handful of people that were very concerned about the impact on our environment of unfettered illegal immigration and excessive legal immigration. 

The roots of many organizations across the country working to stop illegal immigration and slow legal immigration to a more sustainable level often start with concerns about the environment and the impact of more and more people coming to the US.

OFIR has since expanded it's membership to include thousands of members across the state with those same concerns and many more, i.e. national security, terrorism, jobs, stagnant wages, over-crowded schools, crime, drugs, disease, a culture of corruption, gangs and on and on.

CAIRCO's Fred Elbel wrote of his experiences with the Sierra Club, a group that chose to ignore the impact of immigration on our fragile environment and our own quality of life.  They made that choice - for money.  He included an informative article written by Ian Smith and published in the Daily Caller that explains just how it happened.

NOTE:  The CAIRCO website is a treasure trove of information for anyone wanting to learn more about immigration.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yesterday was Earth Day. 

I once was a member of the Sierra Club in the mid-1990s, back when their population policy included addressing mass immigration as the root cause of US Population growth. At that time, environmentalists had a lot of common sense. 

Some environmentalists still do, but most environmental organizations today are feel-good social justice corporate profit centers. Take the Sierra Club as a case in point. They sold out to immigration political correctness to the tune of $100 million!

This excellent article by Ian Smith explains the gory details. It's a good read.

Earth Day: A Time To Remember When Tightening The Border Topped The Green Agenda, The Daily Caller, April 22, 2016.

I was a member and a director of SUSPS, which in the late 1990s fought to reinstate the Sierra Club's long-standing, sensible immigration policy:

"Since 1996, leaders of the Sierra Club have refused to admit that immigration driven, rapid U.S. population growth causes massive environmental problems. And they have refused to acknowledge the need to reduce U.S. immigration levels in order to stabilize the U.S. population and protect our natural resources. Their refusal to do what common sense says is best for the environment was a mystery for nearly a decade.

Then, on Oct. 27, 2004, the Los Angeles Times revealed the answer: David Gelbaum, a super rich donor, had demanded this position from the Sierra Club in return for huge donations! Kenneth Weiss, author of the LA Times article that broke the story, quoted what David Gelbaum said to Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope:

"I did tell Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me."

In 1996 and again in 1998, the Club's leaders proved their loyalty to Gelbaum's position on immigration, first by enacting a policy of neutrality on immigration and then by aggressively opposing a referendum to overturn that policy. In 2000 and 2001, Gelbaum rewarded the Club with total donations to the Sierra Club Foundation exceeding $100 million. In 2004 and 2005, the Club's top leaders and management showed their gratitude for the donations by stifling dissent and vehemently opposing member efforts to enact an immigration reduction policy...

Read more at SUSPS.

Here is a formal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on United States Immigration Policy. Immigration driven US population growth really does have environmental consequences - which most politicians gladly ignore in exchange for support from their donor base.

 

Sincerely,
 

Fred Elbel
Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform

 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - environment