The right is right on immigration reform

This being the holiday season, a time of brotherhood and good will, I’ve been searching my progressive soul for any political common ground that I have with the right-wing in America.

I’ve been listening more than I usually do to Tony Snow, Sean Hannity, Lars Larson, and Victoria Taft (a local Portland rightie) as I cruise around in my progressively pure Toyota Prius, wishing that I could harness the hot air emanating over the radio waves for even greater mileage.

There’s one issue—only one—that makes me nod in agreement when I hear it discussed on the conservative talk shows: immigration reform. Not Bush’s weenie guest worker version, but the hardass lock up the borders and send illegals home variety.

When I read, “Republicans ready to turn the screw on immigration,” I say “Go for it!” One group of House Republicans wants, among other things, to build a 2,000 mile fence along the Mexico-U.S. border, stop granting citizenship to U.S. born children of illegal immigrants, and require employers to verify that their employees are legal workers.

Sounds good to me. Sometimes the right is actually right. Progressives should support this tough immigration reform legislation, even if most on the left will have different reasons for liking it.

I agree with the folks at the Carrying Capacity Network who say that immigration reduction is key to stabilizing our country’s population, which in turn is the foundation for solving our environmental, energy, and social problems in a sustainable fashion.

The Center for Immigration Studies recently released a study which found that more immigrants came into the United States since 2000 than in any other five-year period in the nation’s history. And almost half, 3.7 million, entered illegally. That’s scary.

SUSPS, a network of Sierra Club activists who disagree with the Club’s blasé attitude toward population growth, say “no to racism, yes to environmentalism.” Their desire to drastically reduce immigration, like mine, stems almost entirely from ecological concerns.

I don’t like Michael Savage’s Borders, Language, and Culture jingoish mantra. I’m not interested in keeping America pure. I want American to be livable. I want America to consume a smaller percentage of the Earth’s non-renewable resources. I want America to embrace a philosophy of sustainability rather than mortgage the future for current economic growth.

None of those wants is going to happen unless this nation’s population growth gets under control. And SUSPS points out that immigration is the largest factor contributing to that growth.

So for once I agree with the most rabid right-wingers in Congress on an issue. Miracles do happen.

Comments

[Allan]

I want the _planet_ to be liveable; The USA and all. I don't see how closing the borders to immigration and denying people their _natural human right_ to move about freely on _our_ planet is going to actually solve any environmental concerns.

It's not Mexican immigrants driving around in Ford Expeditions (and Toyota Prius's for that matter), it's rich, white _Americans_. Poor immigrants don't pollute _nearly_ as much as affluent citizens.

I'm sorry, but the problems we face are WAY bigger than can be dealt with by such band-aid measures that you suggest (measures that are, I assure you, based on racism--whether you see it that way or not).

Major changes in lifestyle need to take place. Changes such as laws that stop American corporations from raping the rest of the planet will stop so many people from wanting (needing) to move there just to have half a chance. American foreign policies that promote war (ecomomic and otherwise), therefore dessimating people's home countries need to be ceased. There are so many other issues that need to be addressed that would be FAR more effective without being discriminatory and arrogant.

Down with borders, up with Freedom. One World. One Love. It's time to change our lifestyles and stop blaming other people for the issues they're causing.

Sincerely,

Canadian For Open Borders (Allan)

[Allan]

Hey, ummm, I sort of posted without looking at the rest of your blog ... I'm sorry for probably coming across as a hyper-critical jerk. You do and say some cool stuff. As you can see, I really disagree with you on this issue though.

Anyhow, Peace, Love and keep up the good work :) --just change your mind on this immigration thing ;)

[Rain]

If we truly did as the writer commenting first suggests, we'd have no order, no rules, no nothing. There are borders for a reason. Each country has its own laws and system. A world system (scratch system) would be chaotic and impossible to enforce. Not sure who that would benefit but certainly not people trying to be law abiding.

This country has certain laws and they should be obeyed. We have an orderly process for immigrants to come here, and they have been ignored for profit motives of businesses as well as the American people wanting to save money and not thinking of the true price they are paying-- which include abuse of the illegal immigrants, but on a more selfish level keeping the minimum wage down for American workers as well as an attitude of-- rules, what rules! We should have a reasonble system for letting in workers legally and then pay them fair wages, give them legal protections like the rest of us hope for. I agree with Brian. Enforce the border.

[Brian]

Allan, the idealistic aspect of me resonates with your "No borders" call, but the realistic aspect rejects it. The United States has by far the greatest ecological footprint in the world--meaning, we suck up way more natural resources than other cultures.

So every person added to the U.S. population has a much greater effect on the Earth's carrying capacity than a person added, say, to the population of Mexico or India. Yes, the rest of the world is trying hard to be as wasteful as us, but they have a long ways to go before they reach our level of extravagance.

I agree: most illegal immigrants don't have the same lifestyle as current citizens. But the "get more" American culture steadily ratchets up the expectations of immigrants. Bigger car, nicer house, more stuff.

My state, Oregon, already is too crowded. Our social support systems are stretched to the limit. Immigration isn't the only cause of these problems, but it is a big part of it. Absent immigration, the U.S. population would have leveled off quite a while ago. Instead, our freeways are jammed, subdivisions are eating up farmland, wilderness is getting paved over.

I disagree with you that racism is linked to the environmentalist rationale for immigration reform. My wife and I are pretty self aware. Both of us feel that controlling population growth is key to a sustainable future for the United States. I can't detect any sign of racism in that desire.

Whites, blacks, browns, people of any color. The population of everybody has to be controlled. If there were millions of white people coming into this country illegally I'd be just as concerned.

I agree that the "culture" portion of Michael Savage's "borders, language, and culture" conservative manifesto has some racist implications (though not necessarily so). However, I don't think the environmental advocates in the Sierra Club who are urging immigration reform are racially motivated.

[Allan]

Regardless of how reactionary my original post may have been, let me say that I do, actually, see where you're coming from.

My concerns are:

A) Closing the border is different than immigration reform. Reform means doing it differently (and perhaps better). Closing the border to immigration all together would be dangerous and would the officiality of it would do little to nothing to stop the flow of _already illegal_ immigration. It's kind of like gun control. It doesn't stop criminals from getting guns. All you end up doing is punishing law-abiding people.

B) The issue is greater than controlling population via immigration laws. The environmental conerns of stopping population growth are valid, certainly, but I don't see these concerns as a valid excuse to shutting down borders and denying people their human rights. Two wrongs don't make a right. Again, the issue is bigger than this and needs to be addressed via education and foreign policy issues that create the problem in the first place.

C) I wasn't trying to call you, or the environmentalists who advocate for immigration reform racists. What I was trying to comment on (and I did a poor job of it) was the fact that you are _agreeing_ with those right wing folks for whom the issue of immigration _is_ racially motivated and these people are the ones who have the power to enact such measures and therefore, whether you like it or not, if such a measure were introduced, it would be done so for all of the wrong reasons. By saying that you agree with the "right" on this issue ties you to that racism. Again, I don't think you're a racist. You're reasonable human being doing good things for the planet :)

Once again, cool blog!!

[Rain]

Not that Brian needs anybody defending his viewpoints. He does quite well all by himself on it, but as a reader of the blog, I think his point was logical in that trying to find some places we can communicate with those we disagree with on pretty much everything is helpful. If you just take a knee jerk reaction to all that they say and have to disagree whether it sometimes (albeit rarely) makes sense, then you are as bad as they are.

I used to listen to many of the names Brian mentioned just to see how they thought. Almost a year ago, I gave it up because I was slowly going bonkers (scratch that rapidly). Now I skip talk radio totally because it got to a point I felt they all had an agenda and couldn't listen to anything but their own voices. They weren't really discussing issues but simply trying to justify their own side-- some worse than others in that. It's too bad too as I would enjoy listening to people discuss real issues, but it wasn't happening back when I gave up the habit.