Thread: Let's talk, Sierra Club, about immigration reform

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2005 ... 005/132592

Let's talk, Sierra Club, about immigration reform
September 30, 2005 1:06 am
As an immigrant and an environmentalist, I would like to thank Bob Sargeant for his article on Sierra Club leaders forgetting the main mission, which is to protect the environment ["Sierra Club leaders forget the mission, all in the name of politics," Sept. 22].

In order not to address immigration, the Sierra Club argues that Americans must first solve global poverty.

But there are billions of people in the rest of the world who live in poverty and wish to come here. In addition, some 75 million are added every year worldwide, and they also need to be fed and educated.

Realistically, what are the chances that the U.S. can successfully empower 10 percent of poor people abroad in 50 years--within the lifetimes of today's college students? By then, according to a projection by the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. population could exceed half of India's current population!

If the Sierra Club is willing to sponsor three balanced, highly publicized debates on immigration, inviting immigrants and civil rights activists presenting environmental arguments to reduce immigration, I am confident that most of the Sierra Club members will support immigration reduction, a necessary step to protect the environment.

So far, most voting members were misled by name-calling.

In order not to address immigration, the Sierra Club argues that Americans must first solve global poverty.

Maybe I missed something in civics class, but when did the United States become responsible for global poverty? Aren't we supposed to provide for our OWN citizens FIRST?

The Sierra Club stopped being a meaningful advocate for the environment and started being an advocate for some form of global communalism when it succumbed to political correctness. The U.S. will have near zilch effect on world poverty by bringing it here, but there will be great success in making the U.S. equally world poverty stricken -- with a destroyed environment as a side effect. I guess that is supposed to make everyone happy -- it must be that social justice stuff that many environmental groups talk about.

I've always thought Rush Limbaugh was naive when it came to environmental issues, but he does seem to get it right about left-wing environmental groups.

Money may be the root of all evil, but political correctness is the root of all insanity. Well, a lot of it anyway.

So far, most voting members were misled by name-calling.

Name-calling is the weapon used to advance political correctness because facts, logic, and debate sure won't work. Too bad the name-calling is working so well.

The Sierra Club has shown itself to be nothing more than hypocrites on environmental issues. They have sold their agenda to the highest bidder according to articles posted in another discussion on the forum a few weeks ago. One big donor by the name of David Gelbaum has single handly changed their position on immigration and the environment.

https://www.alipac.us/ftopict-9921-sierra.html+club

It would certainly appear that David Gelbaum's donations are a huge factor, if not the controlling factor, in the Sierra Club's stance on immigration issues.

The politically correctness that I was referring to above actually goes back to before Gelbaum. Gelbaum, if I'm correct, has been pressuring the Seirra Club not to change back to an earlier policy that population stabilization including immigration curtailment is essential to protect the U.S. environment.

A few years ago, there was a website owned by a group called Sierrans for Population Stabilization, or something similar to that, which was a group that split off from the Sierra Club after the policy was changed. I don't know if it is the same group as the current SUSPS group or not. But, according to information on that older website (which no longer exists that I can find) the explanation for the shift in policy was along the lines of 1) The Sierra Club decided they needed more diversity in leadership positions, 2) they went out and found some diversity, 3) after accepting the positions the diversity demanded that the Sierra Club change its policy on immigration or they would resign and shout that the Sierra Club was a racist organization, 4) the Sierra Club then changed it's policy due to the PC blackmail.

It may be possible that there were things going on behind the scenes that this group didn't know about at the time and they were mistaken about the true reasons for the shift in policy. But, as I remember it, the website info seemed detailed and plausible enough and the information was put out shortly after the policy change and was available on the site for quite some time. I wouldn't think they would have made things up that could be easily disproven.

Anyway, that was the reason for suggesting that political correctness accounted for the (initial) change in policy.