Environmental Concerns - the FAQs• Isn't excessive consumption what causes environmental degradation? Cutting consumption alone will not stop environmental degradation. Even if we can reduce consumption by half, no progress can be achieved if we allow the population to double. Although population stabilization alone will not save the environment, if we work on growth management without stopping population growth, we can only win temporary battles. Eventually, we will lose the war. • Shouldn't we work on stopping worldwide population growth before we address immigration? At the turn of 20th century, immigration to the U.S. approached one million per year. Around 1924, Congress passed legislation to reduce immigration. Subsequently, from 1925 to 1965, the annual rate of immigration was less than 200,000 a year, on the average. No walls were built around the United States. We now have record levels of immigration because of a series of laws passed since 1965 to increase immigration. This is simply to show that the federal government can reduce immigration by enforcing existing laws to curb illegal immigration and by passing legislation to reduce legal immigration. It is also unrealistic to wait for worldwide population stabilization to reduce immigration: There are over six billion people on Earth. Among them, there are at least one billion women of child-bearing age who need to be empowered. In addition, every year, we add nearly 80 million people — mostly to poor nations who also need jobs and other services! How many years will it require for those one billion-plus women to be empowered? One hundred years? Five thousand? Without addressing immigration to the U.S., in 100 years or so, we could have close to China's current population! Would that kind of America help solve global poverty? Is this the kind of America we wants to leave for today's children. • Isn't overpopulation a worldwide issue and doesn't it require a global solution? Overpopulation, like pollution, is both a worldwide and U.S. problem. If we address pollution nationally and locally, why don't we also address U.S. population growth? • Isn't limiting immigration just a way to protect the quality of life of wealthy Americans? Immigration, the driving force behind the U.S. population growth, affects minorities and earlier immigrants the most. A study conducted by the National Academy of Science concluded that immigration results in a transfer of wealth from American workers to employers who hire immigrants. Po Wong, when serving as the Executive Director of the Chinese Newcomers' Service, said, “I don't think our community is equipped to welcome such a large number... It's very depressing to see so many people come here looking for work.” He has also said, “The community is not ready even for the influx of legal immigrants looking for housing, looking for work, looking for other social services, health services...” • Don't we just need to prevent unwanted pregnancies in order to stabilize U.S. population? The fertility rate of U.S.-born women (1.97) is slightly below the replacement level. U.S. population growth therefore is driven by immigration. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 2/3 of future population growth will result from immigrants arriving since 1994 and their U.S.-born descendants. Preventing unwanted pregnancies is desirable, but that policy alone will not stabilize U.S. population. • Is immigration a cost-effective way to help foreign nationals? The cost of rendering similar services abroad, such as education and health care, will only be a small fraction of what they cost in the U.S. Roger Winters, Director of the U.S. Committee for Refugees, has said that the cost of settling one refugee in the U.S. could cover the expenses of 500 refugees abroad! Also, many foreign nationals, like Nelson Mandela, can do more for their countrymen by staying home and working for change. (By using international pressure, the U.S. helped bring down the racist South-African government, thus helping Mandela become that nation's leader. Of course, it is no paradise yet in South Africa, but Rome was not built in a day either.) Absorbing billions of people abroad who live in poverty is not a viable solution. • American corporations have destroyed poor countries' environments and exploited their workers. Shouldn't we therefore allow people immigrate to the U.S. to enjoy the benefits of the U.S. economic policy? Injustices have been done in the U.S. and abroad, but turning America into another China or India is not the solution to right past wrongs! The cheap labor lobby is the main beneficiary of mass immigration and it promotes immigration to depress American wages. |
|
Home Diversity Alliance for a Sustainable America |