Derb notices something interesting:
Both the Sierra Club and Zero Population Growth used to be immigration-restrictionist. Then in the mid-1990s, after some very nasty infighting, both groups lurched over to open-borders positions. Roy Beck wrote a brief account here.That transformation was one of the most striking cases of political correctness trumping common sense. Preserve the wilderness... stabilize the population... open the borders... Uh-huh.
Never underestimate the power of political correctness.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
The Sierra Club is officially neutral on immigration issues. So, it's a bit of a stretch to claim it is lurching to open-border positions.
Mr. No-Name is correct. I got this last time when asked what the 'anti-US' position of the Sierra Club was.
What actually happened was that the Sierra Club, back in the late 70s, as part of their 'US population stabilization', urged Congress to look at immigration.
In the next 20 years, that came under increasing criticism as being sorta stupid, considering the Sierra Club had shifted focus from the US to the world as it teamed up with international concerns, and thus shifted focus from reducing US population growth to reducing worldwide population growth.
Where people live does not appear to be very important in that goal, and it was causing all sorts of divisiveness, so in 1996 they got rid of it and stated they had no official position on immigration.
Official policy: The Sierra Club affirms the decision of the Board of Directors to take NO position on U.S. immigration levels and policies. The Sierra Club can more effectively address the root causes of global and United States population problems through its existing comprehensive approach: ...
Not taking a position is not the same as 'open borders'.
You can question that change, but, frankly, the Sierra Club's 'population growth' aspect has always been rather delusional in the first place, and most of what they actually usefully do is related to land and resource management, pollution, and energy use.
"...frankly, the Sierra Club's 'population growth' aspect has always been rather delusional in the first place, and most of what they actually usefully do is related to land and resource management, pollution, and energy use."
Hear hear. Another case of a useful group being used by people with other agendas. One would think that careful land and resource management, pollution and energy use are necessary regardless of the population size - in fact, they get more important the bigger the population!
Having a stand on population size only serves to drive away potential supporters. I pulled my membership a few years back during a struggle for SC control by outside groups - I think it was an animal rights agenda that time. They couldn't achieve their agendas with their own groups so they risked tanking the Sierra Club.
Sierra Club's 'population growth' aspect has always been rather delusional in the first place
I agree. Pushing an agenda of less people (in a democracy) could only work by multiplying "your people" like crazy, and then a generation or two later voting in a one-child policy.
Otherwise, pushing an anti-population position hurts the cause, and pushes that culture out of the gene pool. All the Sierra types will do the "right thing" and cut back on kids, ensuring people like them become irrelevant while all the "bad breeders" take over. I call it Shaker logic. Crazy.
Regarding Sierra Club on immigration: if the world environment is what matters, wouldn't they would want as much immigration as possible to the US? We use a lot of resources, but we certainly preserve more land and are much nicer to the environment that most other places.
Sierra Club, back in the late 70s, as part of their 'US population stabilization', urged Congress to look at immigration.
In the next 20 years, that came under increasing criticism as being sorta stupid, considering the Sierra Club had shifted focus from the US to the world as it teamed up with international concerns, and thus shifted focus from reducing US population growth to reducing worldwide population growth.
SC philosophy is here www.sierraclub.org/vision. It is clear that first and foremost it is US National organization with associated concerns for the world and planet.
So it is rather foolish to express indifference about the largest factor in environment impact: population growth. US population is almost totally due to legal and illegal immigrants and their children.
It is especially so in California, the birthplace and power base of SC.
To be blind to immigration is an idiotic position to take.
SC had to do it because most of the members are liberals and value tolerance and non-discrimination as the highest values.
It is not possible for them to be against unlimited immigration and be true to an absolute non-discrimination.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.