Thread: Democrats support Sierra Club lawsuit over border fence

Bennie Thompson, Dingell, Conyers, Reyes, Ortiz, other Democrats support Sierra Club lawsuit over border fence (DHS, environmental waiver)

A cast of Congressional characters (all Democrats; listed below) intends to file an Amicus Curiae brief in the case where the Sierra Club and the Defenders of Wildlife are suing the Department of Homeland Security to prevent them from using apparently congressionally-mandated waivers that would let the DHS bypass environmental and related rules in order to build sections of the border fence.

Bennie Thompson, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee attempts to portray this as a Constitutional matter:

this waiver by the Secretary of Homeland Security is a direct challenge to Congress’s Constitutional role. The American people entrust Congress to ensure that the laws of this land are faithfully executed not excused by the Executive Branch

However, the plaintiffs and a quote from John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, makes the intent clear:

our responsibility to be stewards of the earth cannot be thrown aside for the sake of an ill-conceived border fence

The others involved are: John Dingell, James Oberstar, George Miller, Louise Slaughter, Bob Filner, Silvestre Reyes, Solomon Ortiz, Zoe Lofgren, Sheila Jackson Lee, Susan Davis, Raul Grijalva, and Yvette Clarke.
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007617.html

I don't know anything about this organization nor web site, but I thought many would find it interesting given the current context and debate about the fence:

http://www.susps.org/

From the default page of the site above:

For the love of money

Since 1996, leaders of the Sierra Club have refused to admit that immigration driven, rapid U.S. population growth causes massive environmental problems. And they have refused to acknowledge the need to reduce U.S. immigration levels in order to stabilize the U.S. population and protect our natural resources. Their refusal to do what common sense says is best for the environment was a mystery for nearly a decade.

Then, on Oct. 27, 2004, the Los Angeles Times revealed the answer: David Gelbaum, a super rich donor, had demanded this position from the Sierra Club in return for huge donations! Kenneth Weiss, author of the LA Times article that broke the story, quoted what David Gelbaum said to Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope:

"I did tell Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me."

In 1996 and again in 1998, the Club's leaders proved their loyalty to Gelbaum's position on immigration, first by enacting a policy of neutrality on immigration and then by aggressively opposing a referendum to overturn that policy. In 2000 and 2001, Gelbaum rewarded the Club with total donations to the Sierra Club Foundation exceeding $100 million. In 2004 and 2005, the Club's top leaders and management showed their gratitude for the donations by stifling dissent and vehemently opposing member efforts to enact an immigration reduction policy.

Mr. Gelbaum is entitled to restrict how his donations to the Sierra Club Foundation are spent. But he should NOT be permitted to influence how other members' dues or donations are spent or to dictate policy choices via the threat of withholding contributions. That is completely inappropriate.

Even worse, Sierra Club leaders accepted Gelbaum's conditions in secret and forced a modification of the Club's policy to conform to his wishes. Furthermore, Club leaders certainly shouldn't have misrepresented immigration reductionists as anti-immigrant or racist in order to guarantee Gelbaum's donations; there is nothing inherently racist or anti-immigrant about sustainable levels of immigration.

Worst of all, the U.S. population continues to grow by about 3 million people per year, of which nearly half are immigrants, and two-thirds of the growth is a result of immigration, if the children of immigrants are included. Our forests continue to be clearcut to provide construction materials, our groundwater is depleted to provide water for our growing population, we grow more and more dependent on foreign sources of oil, and we are unable to reduce our output of greenhouse gases, all thanks to our burgeoning population.

We don't like it when the oil, timber, coal, and nuclear power industries oppose environmental reform, yet we understand why they do it: for the love of money. Is it any better when the Sierra Club opposes environmental reform for the love of money?