Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Immigration opponents move toward taking over Sierra Club

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-28-04 12:15 PM
Original message
Immigration opponents move toward taking over Sierra Club
By Shawn McCarthy
TORONTO GLOBE AND MAIL

January 28, 2004


NEW YORK – Anti-immigration activists have launched an aggressive bid to take over the Sierra Club, one of the most respected environmental groups in North America.

(snip)

The immigration issue is not a new one for the Sierra Club. For years, the organization has championed world population control as a key element in global environmental protection. But a vocal minority in the club is urging a stronger focus on population control within the United States, including measures to decrease immigration.

In a 1998 referendum, Sierra Club members rejected calls to adopt what critics said was an anti-immigrant position. Now, a group calling itself Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization is supporting three new candidates for the board of directors, telling backers that their election would allow virtual control of the 112-year-old club.

(snip)

Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/wed/news/news_1n28sierra.html



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-28-04 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. repuke infiltration
of leftist groups? Imagine that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-28-04 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yes, but I'm not sure that's what this is.
It's kinda scary either way.

That Zuckerman guy sounds like he is concerned about overuse of resources. I.e., if a Mexican comes to the US, his use of resources suddenly jumps from the relatively low level he used in Mexico to the vastly higher amount used in the US. That ain't exactly a freeper worry.

I'm a liberal, and I'm anti-illegal immigration, but for different reasons (excess immigration drives the American laborers standard of living down). It sounds to me like this is a ideological takeover by a group who supports the environment, but who support taking a really strong stance against immigration.

It is kinda scary though. To me, the Sierra Club is more about protecting the environment, preservation of natural resources, etc. This group seems to be distracting it from it's original purpose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stopthegop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-28-04 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I agree DBill
"In a 1998 referendum, Sierra Club members rejected calls to adopt what critics said was an anti-immigrant position. Now, a group calling itself Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization is supporting three new candidates for the board of directors, telling backers that their election would allow virtual control of the 112-year-old club."

This doesn't appear to be new..and a knee-jerk response of "It's the right wing' will not have any positive effect on the outcome..and will make those jerking look silly...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-28-04 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. So the Mexicans should stay in Mexico & stay poor?
If our overuse of resources is the problem, then it needs to be fixed here.

Global thinking is needed. Increasing justice for all workers will decrease their need to emigrate. Raising standards of living & education help reduce population--voluntarily.

It's a big order, but turning the USA into a gated community is not the answer. Pollution does not respect national barriers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-28-04 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I didn't say I agreed with their philosophy.
I was simply saying that I don't think it's necessarily a right-wing group.

And I agree about the 'global thinking'. NAFTA and WTO are jokes without all countries agreeing to laws which respect worker rights to organize and which create environmental protections.

Unfortunately, in the absence of those provisions in NAFTA and WTO, American jobs are fleeing to Mexico and China, and Mexican illegals are pouring into the US taking jobs that many Americans WOULD do (and DID do for most of our history), if the wages were halfway decent.

You can't tell me that no American would hang drywall or paint or do landscaping work if he could make a decent living. Americans are being priced out of those markets though by illegal workers who will do the job for less, and who can then be further screwed by their employers since they are 'illegal'.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-28-04 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
4. Groan. I thought they were over this.
Regardless of whether the immigrants use more resources here than they do in Mexico, they use way less resources per person than Americans. And, they tend to have fewer offspring once they move here as well (they probably have more than the average American family, but ultimately fewer than they would in their country of origin.)

This issue is maddening and all the more so because I have liberal friends who got on board with this last time. The Sierra Club did the right thing last time but I guess if it goes through, I'll have to shift my environmental donations back to Greenpeace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yo-yo-ma Donating Member (185 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-28-04 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. NIMBY approach to the environment
I too have had friends who got on board the last time. Every ten years or so the Sierra Club trots out some similar perspective. Interesting that none of the other environmental groups do.

Although easy to rally support - historically at least there is a strong republican grounding to the environmental movement too (Teddy Roosevelt, Nixon) - this campaign appeals to isolationist tendencies in some environmentalists -- this is a limited strategy for dealing with both national and global environmental concerns.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterC2003 Donating Member (65 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-28-04 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Hard issue to face honestly from the left
Those on the right are of course utterly unconcerned with the fate of the poor anywhere on the planet, except to the extent that they secretly gloat in their suffering, and they could give a shit about the environment. But we on the left care about the environment AND the poor, and there's no denying that one of the most pressing assaults on the environment in the Third World is the sheer explosive growth of human population. The reference to Malthusian in a subsequent post is a cheap dodge -- world population growth is projected to level off at 9 or 10 billion, but there's not guarantee that these projections are accurate, any more than Malthus' projections were right. I would like to think we can keep pulling techno fixes out of our hats to allow the ecosystem to remain intact as the human race grows more numerous and more resource-intensive, but it's foolish to count on that -- as the right wants to do on global warming issue.

I'd say taking a hard look at immigration and population growth from an environmental viewpoint is a responsible thing to do. Of course, this conflicts with the general principle that we should try to help poor people everywhere lead better lives, but there's no helping it -- it's a real point of conflict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-28-04 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
6. Very reactionary.
A lot of environmentalism is reactionary garbage--population control, anti-technology, real Malthusian politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-28-04 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
7. I may have to tear up my membership card.
Ugh.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 04:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC