Re: Anti-immigration assumptions

On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote:

> 
> Don't more Canadians immigrate to the US every year than Mexicans? Why is
> "immigrant" synonymous with "Mexican" in the rhetoric about US borders?
> 
> Andrew Austin
> Knoxville, TN

Of course not. Just one look at the international migration statistics
will tell you that. I also doubt that 'immigrant' is so synonymous with
'Mexican' (in California and Texas, probably so) but not so in Florida
('the Caribbean 'other') or New York who are the two other 'main gateways'
to US soil. It seems to me that people originating from the periphery are
mostly looked upon as the 'immigrants', but that is of course nothing new
as the history of the Know Nothings demonstrates. 
A serious question is: how to look for a (possible) corerelation between
overpopulation in a capitalist world economy on one hand and increasing
pollution (and destruction of flora and fauna, even entire species) on the
other hand, without falling into the trap of (subtle) racist
fingerpointing. Indeed, some radical ecologists in California have 
blamed recent ('non recycling large numbered') immigrant families (in
their case: Mexicans) for increasing pollution within California. This is
of course the core's NYMBY syndrome as far as pollution and 'undesired
others' from the periphery is concerned as it is unwilling to deal with
substantive issues one can raise if one takes a holistic perspective.
A good illustration is the debate wthin the SIERRA CLUB on immigration
issues. But as Richard pointed out, it is not because SOME (or many)
reactionaries / racists use the question regarding the above mentioned
correlation that one should label everyone who poses the question as a
reactionary who wants to 'wipe out' human beings.
Posing the question and looking for an answer (if there is a correlation,
to what extent?) is something we as social scientists should do, while
being aware of how some may want to misuse/ misappropriate some of the
findings...
But as I said before, from the point of view of an endangered
species, wiping out humans (and especially those in the core) would be a
good idea (and solution) since they have created the threats of extinction
(and the capitalist world economy for that matter).
This is just to say that I understand and welcome some of the recent
postings regarding the danger of racism in trying to answer this complex
question in a simplistic manner, but I also think we should avoid a form
of crude anthropocentrism (ie. 'human suffering is the only thing that
counts' attitude) which has been central to (social) science from
Descartes on...

kind regards,

eric mielants
soc. dept.
suny-binghamton