Colleagues,
Today I sent this message--below--to as many list as I am on, all over
the US and the world. Please do the same, if you support the following
position I outline.
Most sincerely,
Michael Dorsey
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 09:02:00 -0500 (EST)
>APOLOGIES FOR CROSS-POSTINGS<
Environmentalism or Racism
by
Michael K. Dorsey, Director
National Board of the Sierra Club
**An edited version of the following piece appeared in
February-March 1998 Earth First! A Radical Environmental Journal**
This spring, the membership of the Sierra Club, the oldest and
largest environmental organization in the United States, will be
faced with an important ballot question on population policy and
immigration, concurrent with the election of new members to the Board of
Directors. Members will be able to vote on one of two positions.
One position, argues for a "comprehensive US population policy."
It made it to the ballot through the petitioning efforts of a small
faction of Club activists. Supported by various right wing foundations
and organizations--like Alan Weeden's Weeden Foundation and the National
Grassroots Alliance, a group of "immigration control advocates"
in Northern California--this faction argues in that a reduction in US
population growth is only possible through a "reduction in net
immigration". This position targets immigrants as the cause of our
domestic environmental problems.
The other ballot position argues if Club members and environmental
activists really want to do something about the population problem then a
truly comprehensive policy is needed. Such a policy addresses not only US
immigration, but migration and the factors that drive it--the lack of
economic security, human rights and access to adequate health care and
nutrition. This meaure was placed on the ballot by the Board of Directors
and has drawn widespread support of Club leaders, as well as many other
environmental organizations, activists, scholars, and government
representatives.
In a political climate that blames immigration and environmental
regulation for the nation's economic problems, the Sierra Club must
recommit itself to defend the public health, the environment and human
rights. Taking a position against immigrants can easily suck the Club into
a growing vortex of fear, divisiveness, xenophobia and hate.
There are many reasons why the Sierra Club should take no position
on immigration. First and foremost immigration is only remotely an
environmental one. Although patterns of human migration have
environmental consequences, immigration - the movement of individuals
across specific borders - in and of itself does not.
No doubt wild rivers filled to the brime with toxic and solid
waste. But do we blame immigrants or American chemical companies that
amass numerous violation of Clean Water Act, not to mention try to abort
reauthorizing the Act? No doubt wildlands have been spoiled by the never
ending press of (sub)urban sprawl. But do we blame immigrants or American
consumer culture? Environmental issues in the U.S. are inextricably bound
to irresponsible patterns of consumption and poor resource management.
Blaming immigrants will not solve our environmental problems.
There's no doubt that Americans are making a mess. The U.S., with
only 5% of the world's population, consumes 32% of the world's petroleum
and plastics, and produces 25% of the world's greenhouse gases. Our 265
million residents produce more solid waste than the combined populations
of China and India, which total more than one and a half billion people.
It is, however, specious to consider this per capita excess as an
argument to close the borders, rather it argues strongly that we need to
change our super-consuming economy. It is patently absurd that here in the
U.S. we can consume and destroy our resources like no society on earth,
and then actually use that as a rationalization against immigration.
Immigration is not the cause of sprawl. Immigration is not the
cause of corporate pollution. Immigration is not the cause of phosphorous
loading on Eastern Shore farms. Slowing immigration solves none of these
threats.
The numbers illustrate this further. Take the state of Maryland,
for example. There there are 5 times more births than new immigrants to
the state each year. Immigrants have substantially lower unemployment
rates than native Marylanders. They have lower rates for welfare
assistance and food stamps. And immigrant communities are getting
recognition by state agencies for resettling and revitalizing communities
in already developed areas, particularly in Baltimore City and the
Washington suburbs. (An aside: Why use Maryland statistics? Well, why not?
It would seem one arbitrary border is as good as another. Anyhow, national
statistics are similar.)
The Sierra Club's interest in population issues has been, until
this moment, properly deliberate. The issues of global population growth
and the environment are indeed serious and worthy of our venerable
organization's attention. The Club is absolutely justifiable in its strong
support for full funding of global family planning programs, for example.
But wading into th issue of U.S. immigration - drawing the line at the
U.S. border - is perhaps the ultimate act of NIMBYism. Environmentalists
are fond of saying that pollution knows no borders, so it is ironic that
some environmentalists would argue for greater control over those
artificial political boundaries. Indeed, it smacks as elitist, imperious,
jingoist, and paternalistic. But worst of all, a particularly unfeeling
strain of racism lurks just under the surface. (Fortunately, those who
are attempting to mis-focus our attention on US immigration represent a
small faction of members.)
In an essay called "Pulling up the Ladder: the Anti-Immigrant
Backlash" the author, Doug Brugge says, "It is the issue of jobs and the
environment that provide the right's anti-immigrant campaign its strongest
entree into mainstream attitudes." And Brugge offers the Sierra Club's
coming ballot question as evidence. Indeed, a quick check of the internet
home page of David Duke shows that in the middle of a listing of
horrifyingly racist planks on a purported platform comes the statement "I
will fight to limit overpopulation and protect our environment by stopping
illegal immigration and almost all legal immigration into America."
The reality is that immigration into the U.S. in the 1990s is only
slightly more in absolute numbers (9 million or so) than the immigrants
arriving between 1900 - 1910 (8.8 million). On a percentage basis,
immigration into the U.S. is much smaller now - barely one third of what
it was back then. Furthermore, the current proportion of U.S. residents
that are foreign born is only 8%, high by recent standards but lower than
every decade between 1850 and 1950.
The main difference? Today's immigrants aren't uniformly European
and white.
The problem with the immigration issue in a "population and
environment" discussion is that despite the claims of objectivity,
neutrality and the use of slippery-slope terms like "carrying capacity"
and "quality of life" the fact remains -- population control always comes
dow to which populations and by whom?
The Sierra Club membership will be faced with a ballot initiative
this spring that, if it passes, will oblige many to reconsider their
membership in the Club. To date, already more than 100 Sierrans have
already written to renounce their membership. More will follow, if the
Club falls into the anti-immigrant malaise.
What can you do?
If you're a Club member and you want to keep the Sierra Club
strong and effective--resist the immigration ballot trap by supporting
thousands of Club leaders, including the Board, as well as many outside
organizations and voting for a the Club policy that reaffirms a
committment to addressing the root causes of global population problems.
This policy argues that the key to working on population by protecting the
right of all families to maternal and reproductive healthcare; empowering
women; and addressing the root causes of international migration by
encouraging environmental sustainability, economic security and human
rights in all nations and communities. If you're not a member of the
Sierra Club you can encourage members you know to vote against the
anti-immigrant measure, or circulate this piece to further audiences. We
must all be wise to anti-immigrant measures which are nothing less than a
mean-spirited attempt at scapegoating and discrimination that will never
strengthed the environmental movement.
BELOW IS A PARTIAL LIST OF SUPPORTERS
OF THE ALTERNATIVE BOARD BALLOT MEASURE
A Partial List of Organizational Endorsers
California League of Conservation Voters
Friends of the Earth
Communities for a Better Environment
Pesticide Action Network, North American Regional Center
Earth Island Institute
California Nurses Association
United Farm Workers
Environmental Working Group
Headwaters
Urban Habitat
Transnational Resource & Action Center
Chinese Progressive Association
Greenlining Institute
Poltical Ecology Group
A Partial List of Individual Endorsements for Measure B
Hazel Wolf, National Audubon Conservationist of the Year
Sam Schuchat, Executive Director, California League of Conservation Voters
Michael Fisher, Former Executive Director, Sierra Club
Dr. Owens Wiwa, international environmental and human rights activist
Brent Blackwelder, President, Friends of the Earth
Richard Toshiyuki Drury, Legal Director, Communities for a Better
Environment
Monica Moore, Program Director, Pesticide Action Network, North American
Regional Center
David Chatfield, Californians for Pesticide Reform* and formerRegional
Dir.,Greenpeace
Carl Anthony, President, Earth Island Institute, and Exec. Dir., of Urban
Habitat
Bill Walker, California Director, Environmental Working Group
Ted Smith, Executive Director, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition*
Josh Karliner, Executive Director,Transnational Resource & Action Center
Johanna Wald, Senior Attorney, NRDC*
Ann Notthoff, Senior Planner, NRDC*
Karen Garrison, Senior Policy Analyst, NRDC*
Joel Reynolds, Senior Attorney, NRDC*
Gordon Mar, Executive Director, Chinese Progressive Association
Leslie Lowe, Executive Director, New York City Environmental Justice
Alliance
Renee Saucedo, Executive Director, Northern California Coalition for
Immigrant Rights*
Jim Schwab, author of Deeper Shades of Green
Mark Dowie, author of Losing Ground
Mark Palmer, Earth Island Institute
Senator Hilda L. Solis
Senator Tom Hayden
Senator Richard Polanco
Senator Diane Watson
Assemblywoman Deborah Bowen
Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin
Assemblywoman Sheila Kuel
Assemblyman Kevin Shelly
Assemblyman Kevin Murray
Michele Perrault, Board of Director Member, former Club President
Tony Ruckel, Board of Director Member, former Club President
Chuck McGrady, Board of Director Member
Robbie Cox, Board of Directors, former, Vice-Pres. of Conservation,
former
Club President
Richard Cellarius, former Club President
Denny Shaffer, former Club President
Richard Cellarius, former Club President
Denny Shaffer, former Club President
Sue Merrow, former Club President
Joe Fontaine, former Club President, past Co-Chair National Population
Committee
____________________________________________________________________
VISIT ME AT: http://www.coil.com/~roclarke/dorsey.htm
YOU MAY EMAIL YOUR REPLY TO:
mkdorsey@jhu.edu or mkdorsey@ais.org
OR SEND SOMETHING VIA REGULAR MAIL TO:
Johns Hopkins University
Department of Anthropology
404 Macaulay Hall
Baltimore, MD 21218
410-235-5570
FAX 410-516-6279
____________________________________________________________________