Banner
    Earth Day: Illegal Immigration Is Killing The Environment, Says Group
    By News Staff | April 20th 2014 04:10 PM | 10 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    Between 2000 and 2010, native-born Californians had fewer children and a giant chunk of the middle class fled the state, but California's population still grew by 3,390,000.

    The state is expected to add another 13 million people by 2050, according to estimates by the California Department of Finance.  The increase, based on U.S. Census Bureau and California Department of Public Health data, is going to be driven by mass immigration and births to immigrants. During the 2000 to 2010 period, 2,580,000 immigrated to California and 2,474,300 births were to immigrants, according to Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS), an advocacy group dedicated to the ultimate social authoritarian policy - stopping human population growth.

    The group, founded in 1986, wants California to remain just like it was the week before they moved to the state. More people mean a terrible environment, they believe. To protect the air, water and land in California, they want American immigration policy to become more like Europe, and not let children of illegal immigrants be citizens just by being born. And enforce immigration laws rather than encourage illegal immigration by doing another round of amnesty.

    The link between population growth and environmental degradation is made often in retrospective studies, which is why they aren't really considered valid, but clearly more people living better lives is the hallmark of progress. Activists worried about the environment don't want better lives unless it means fewer lives too. More people means more cars, trucks and buses, more air pollution, more parking lots and less green spaces. In their progressive dystopian future, there are more chemicals, more trash and more runoff cascading down super sewers into our streams, lakes and oceans means more damage to California's biodiversity hot spots. Plus, more people means more pressure on declining water supplies. 

    "Part of the solution to reversing California's environmental decline, while not politically correct or convenient, is certainly simple," Jo Wideman, Executive Director of Californians for Population Stabilization, said in their statement. "If we slow mass immigration, we can slow population growth and save some California for tomorrow." 

    They launched television ads to celebrate Earth Day, running in Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco.  The TV ads feature a child asking the audience: "If Californians are having fewer children, why are there so many cars?"; "If Californians are having fewer children, why isn't there enough water?" The child concludes, "If Californians are having fewer children, where are all the people coming from?"  

    And then the answer is obvious; immigrants are the problem, they say. And they want immigration to stop.
       

    Comments

    I guess it was too much to expect a non-snarky take on this, "News Staff."

    Truth be told, environmentalism is almost wholly a white thing.

    Truth be told some more, U.S. immigration prior to 1965 was mainly white, due to the quite rational approach of keeping immigration patterns in line with existing racial/ethnic distributions in the citizen population.

    One might want to ask why immigration suddenly became overwhelmingly non-white after the Immigration Act of 1965 was passed. What was the motivation for this? You don't have to be a "racist" to question the wisdom of this policy, just intelligent enough -- or non-ideological enough -- to realize that change for change's sake isn't always the best way to go.

    And really, what does a "better" life entail? People's ideas on this will differ widely, to say the least.

    " . . . why immigration suddenly became overwhelmingly non-white?"
    Research Emanuel Celler, and look up the Ted Kennedy and LBJ quotes.

    "environmentalism is almost wholly a white thing."?

    Nothing has done more to diminish the quality of life for the middle class through higher housing (land) costs, competition for jobs, greater poverty, mortgage fraud, medicare fraud, crime, cost of public schools, cost of college, depletion of resources, burden on the taxpayer and overall congestion than the increase of and change in population since 1965, driven almost entirely by immigration.
    Because we are overpopulated, millions of young people graduating this year will never be able to buy a home in the town where they were born. What sort of person wishes for that?
    The high price of housing is a major factor in poorer quality of life for the middle class and the poor. Population density is the main driver of the price of land, and thus the price (and quality) of housing. High immigration is the main driver of population density.
    See, for example, Immigration and the revival of American Cities by Jacob L. Vigdor for the Americas Society/Council of the Americas and the Partnership for a New American Economy, in which he claims that more than 40 million immigrants currently in the united states have increased housing prices nationwide by $3.7 trillion. Or, get the population and housing price data for 1900 to 2010 from the Bureau of the Census and do your own analysis. Don't forget that change in population leads change in price by ten or twenty years. (You won't find many studies on this politically incorrect subject).
    Re competition for jobs, note that companies such as Hewlett Packard have laid off thousands, but seek H1B visas for replacement.
    Re poverty, note that the USDA is advertising food stamps in Spanish, and that the US Census shows that Hispanics are disproportionate users of welfare (why are we importing poverty? Don't we have enough of our own?) In Los Angeles County alone, with the $550 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for healthcare, the total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers exceeds $1.6 billion dollars a year, according to LA County Supervisor Michael Antonovich.
    Re mortgage fraud, note the disproportionate number of immigrants involved.
    Re medicare fraud, note the disproportionate number of immigrants involved, as evidenced by the HHS OIG most wanted list, the fact that Glendale, California is the medicare fraud capitol of the US.
    Re crime, see the LAPD most wanted list. Quite obviously not mostly 5th generation Americans.
    Re cost of public schools, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent annually in Los Angeles County alone for education of children of immigrants. Their parents taxes don't come close to covering those costs, let alone the other costs of EITC, SNAP, Medical, etc.
    Re cost of college, it's obvious that more lower income students will draw on financial aid, burdening those middle class families who are not eligible for aid. And the US Census shows that recent immigrants tend to be lower income.

    Kennedy et al on immigration
    "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same… " Ted Kennedy
    "This bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives." Lyndon Baines Johnson at the signing of the Hart-Celler Immigration Bill in 1965
    Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset…. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia….
    “In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.”
    Emanuel Celler, Philip Hart, Jacob Javits, Julius Edelson,Harry Rosenfield, Maxwell Rabb, Myer Feldman, Abba Schwartz, Norbert Schlei, Ted Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson . . .
    “This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.” Ted Kennedy on the 1986 Simpson Mazzoli amnesty

    "(If) the current immigration laws are repealed, the number of immigrants next year will increase threefold and in subsequent years will increase even more ... shall we, instead, look at this situation realistically and begin solving our own unemployment problems before we start tackling the world's?" - Rep. William Miller of New York, a letter to The New York Times, Sept. 8, 1964, p. 14.)

    Inarguably, every one of the assurances issued by the legislation’s supporters proved to be false. With adoption of the Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965, legal immigration began a striking rise from both Latin America and Asia. In the decade of the 1970s, Europe and Canada sent 20 percent of legal immigrants and Latin America and Asia sent 77 percent, a pattern that has continued through the 1980s, 1990s, and into the 2000s.32 (The 5,000 immigrants from India that Robert Kennedy predicted turned out to be many, many times that.) And the ethnic mix of America has been radically altered, with implications that reach into every corner of our policy-making and our politics at the local, state, national, and international levels. CIS at http://cis.org/NYT_immigration_coverage

    while no subsequent immigration reform debates have generated coverage quite so egregiously one-sided and myopic, since 1965 the Times has failed to report on various immigration debates with needed balance and rigor. Demagogic accusations of nativism continue, as well as an institutional resistance to framing and pursuing vital journalistic questions, demonstrating, on too many occasions, a “contempt prior to investigation” that the 19th century liberal political philosopher Herbert Spencer said “is a bar against all information” and “proof against all arguments.” CIS at http://cis.org/NYT_immigration_coverage

    “In light of our 5 percent unemployment rate, our worries over the so called population explosion, and our menacingly mounting welfare costs, are we prepared to embrace so great a horde of the world’s unfortunates? At the very least, the hidden mathematics of the bill should be made clear to the public so that they may tell their Congressmen how they feel about providing jobs, schools, homes, security against want, citizen education, and a brotherly welcome ... for an indeterminately enormous number of aliens from underprivileged lands.” ...Whatever may be our benevolent intent toward many people, [the bill] fails to give due consideration to the economic needs, the cultural traditions, and the public sentiment of the citizens of the United States.” (Myra C. Hacker, Vice President of the New Jersey Coalition, U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 681–687.)

    At our current level of immigration (approx. 1 million legal per year), the U.S. will hit 600 million people by 2100. If you don't think that will negatively impact the environment more than conservation efforts, you're fooling yourself.

    Shortly before his death in 2005, Earth Day founder Gaylord Nelson told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: “...in this country, it’s phony to say, ‘I’m for the environment but not for limiting immigration.’ It’s just a fact that we can’t take all the people who want to come here. And you don’t have to be a racist to realize that.”

    http://www.wiscnews.com/juneaucountystartimes/news/opinion/column/articl...

    CAPS RESPONDS TO CRITICS OF OUR RECENT AD CAMPAIGN

    As usual, critics of our recent ad are resorting to scurrilous accusations and hot rhetoric to distract from a constructive, civil debate. And from their perspective, I can understand that tactic as they do not have the facts on their side. But just for a moment, let’s focus on the facts:

    Countless Studies Have Linked Population Growth To Environmental Woes. One study is the U.S. National Report on Population and the Environment by the Center for Environment & Population. Another is Environmental Impacts from Unsustainable Population Growth by the Worldwatch Institute. Another is Global environmental resources versus world population growth, by Ecological Economics.

    California’s population has grown dramatically during the last 20 years. Just in the last decade, the state has added more than 3 million people and is projected to add another 13 million by 2050. Those numbers are from the California Department of Finance.

    The No. 1 driver of population growth in California is mass immigration. In the last 10 years, the state experienced a net loss of about 184,000 native-born Californians and a net gain of 3,574,500 immigrants and births to immigrants. Those are the facts.

    Relative to water, California is indeed in the midst of one of the worst droughts in history. However, adding millions of more people to our state is only going to make the water challenge more difficult.

    Relative to immigrants having a higher propensity to use public transit, we agree. But just because they have a higher propensity to use public transit doesn’t mean they aren’t driving cars. And of course, buses do contribute to congestion and air quality issues too.

    Are we saying immigrants are the cause of California’s environmental problems? Of course we aren’t. What we are saying is that the state’s current population, comprised of native-born Californians and immigrants, is too large to allow for a healthy sustainable environment and that more population growth is only going to make matters worse. So, if we slow mass immigration, we can slow population growth. It’s pretty simple.

    Additionally, we are not advocating ending immigration. We recognize the wonderful contributions made by many of those who have immigrated. But we are advocating cutting current mass immigration which is more than 1 million a year to the U.S. to around 300,000 per year. That should allow for a more sustainable environment.

    CAPS was founded by a group of California environmentalists and scientists who simply want to save some California for tomorrow. Take a look at the site, CAPSweb.org. Talk to us. Let’s have some constructive debate. If we work together, we may be able to have a positive impact on our natural treasures and save some California for our children and grandchildren.

    This article should be called "California's Environment/Culture/Society is Being Ruined By Racist Conservatives in Southern California"

    Hank
    Yep, those science, environmentalism and surfer racists in the south (of California) are THE WORST.
    in the US Constitution, amendment it says " Fourteenth amendment states in Section 1,

    Section 1 - “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    so if they are born in the US there are Citizens