Conserving energy by restricting immigration?

Is restricting immigration an effective way to confront environmental problems? The Sierra Club is currently divided in opinion and their upcoming election has brought the issue to a head.

In 1998, the Sierra Club membership voted to take no position on US immigration policy. Some members not in accordance with the majority vote, however, organized themselves in a loose coalition called Sierrans for US Population Stabilization (SUSPS). Last year, the Sierra Club membership elected two SUSPS-endorsed candidates to the national board of directors, Wisconsin Secretary of State Doug LaFollette (D) and Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

What does immigration have to do with the environment? According to the SUSPS, because the United States uses more energy than other nations, allowing more people into the country would simply exacerbate our problem of over-consumption, increasing the rate by which we exhaust resources.

On the 2004 Sierra Club ballot for the board of directors, there are new candidates that support stricter immigration regulation in accordance with the SUSPS. These candidates include Richard Lamm, former Democratic governor of Colorado, David Pimentel, a Cornell University ecologist, and Frank Morris, former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation.

Biology Professor George Ellmore feels that restricting immigration for the sake of environmental concerns runs the risk of "developing a practice of environmental racism."

"The Sierra Club appears to be using environmental rationale to justify a conservative agenda," Ellmore said. "It's as if they're picking on immigrants instead of putting pressure on corporate America to behave more responsibly."

"How would the Sierra Club feel about exchanging immigrants for CEO's of large polluting companies?" Ellmore asked in response to members of Sierra Club's stance on immigration.

On its website, SUSPS states that it supports "US population stabilization purely for ecological reasons." The group stresses the importance of overpopulation, not only on a worldwide level, but also on a national level.

"Only by confronting birth rates and mass migration as the root causes of US population growth will we be able to ensure sustainability for future generations -- of all species," according to SUSPS website.

In a forum by the Sierra Club, candidates responded to questions on several issues, including immigration. Candidate Dick Lamm supports limiting immigration into the US for environmental reasons. "Current Club policy calls for stabilization of the population, first of the United States and then the world, since population growth exacerbates all the environmental problems," he wrote. "I support this viewpoint and support the Club policy added in 1999, a call for reduction in the population of the United States. The only way to reduce population is for the combination of birth and immigration rates to be less than death and emigration rates. No other way is possible, and anyone who says otherwise does not understand fundamental demography."

SUSPS believes that the Sierra Club is too concerned with political issues instead of environmental issues. As it states on its website, "SUSPS demands that the Sierra Club stop placing political sensitivities ahead of the environment and begin addressing migration levels and birthrates in the US."

Sophomore Daniela Mauro disagrees with the SUSPS argument for immigration restriction. "It's a bogus platform," she said.

Sophomore and Environmental Studies major Chelsea Bardot feels that the bigger issue is not immigration, but how countries of different economic levels consume.

"Developing countries have less efficient methods of extracting energy," she said. "People will consume no matter where they live. At least in the United States there is room for change -- we can move toward more efficient practices. In poorer countries survival is the primary concern."

Other students feel that immigration restrictions involve issues other than the environment. "I don't necessarily think that immigration should be restricted, but immigrants should be aware that the US does not have the economic capacity to take care of them; chances are they will have a difficult time," sophomore Elizabeth Halperin said.

Sophomore Kristen Cassazza is for limiting immigration in the US, but not for the same reasons as the SUSPS. "I'm not sure how much immigration relates to [our use of natural] resources," she said. "I have more problems with immigrations policies for economic reasons and national security reasons than the environment."

In a recent issue of Grist magazine, writer Bill McKibben expressed an ethical consideration regarding the restriction of immigration on the basis of environmental caution. "In some sense it's our moral duty to let lots of people in, since we've so carefully rigged the rules of world trade to keep most of the rest of the planet incredibly poor," McKibben said.

Anti-immigrant and white supremacist groups have taken an interest in the upcoming Sierra Club election, though Sierra Club board candidates have denied any involvement with these groups. SUSPS denies any support from people who have racial motives for reducing immigration, and says that as an organization it espouses both biodiversity and cultural diversity.

In response to concern regarding this issue, the board recently approved an "Urgent Election Notice" to be attached to the 2004 ballot, which will be mailed this week. The notice provides a list of organizations, including white supremacist groups, that have expressed interest in the impending election.

Included is a qualifying statement made by the Sierra Club: "It appears that non-environmental groups are trying to take advantage of the Sierra Club's open and democratic nature to influence the composition of our board of directors and our policies... Please cast your vote in this year's election as a means of demonstrating to outside groups that they cannot influence our organization."

The current Sierra Club board has agreed to another membership vote on US immigration policy in 2005.