immigration

The &;politically incorrect&; issue of whether or not a society such as a Australia has the right to control its population levels through immigration controls

THE ELEVATOR CALLED CANADA

Imagine a tall office building with five elevators, some larger than others. The lobby is jammed with a multitude of people pushing toward the elevators, desperately trying to board them. They all want to get out of the place they’re in and reach a better destination. Who can blame them? But each elevator has a limited capacity, including the one we’re in. The limit is stated in terms of numbers of people, but to be precise it is the weight of those people that matters. Our elevator—Canada—looks very capacious at first blush but actually it has a carrying capacity of only ten people, according to the panel on the wall. That figure is premised on the assumption that the average passenger has a body weight of 170 lbs. Presently we already have 12 people on board, but in the face of outside pressure, some occupants wish to admit more people from the lobby. One of us is an economist who simply denies that our elevator has a limited carrying capacity. For him the sky is the limit. Another of us is a politician who welcomes new entrants as potential supporters. Yet another is a clergyman who thinks that because most of the people in the lobby are of the less advantaged or “people of colour”, they should be accepted in seemingly unlimited numbers. But then there is the trendy “environmentalist” who does in fact acknowledge that our elevator has a limited carrying capacity. So what does he propose? That we close the door and think “safety first”? NO! He tells us—the 12 occupants—to go on a crash diet so we can reduce our weight demands on the cables above, and then continue to admit more people from the lobby. Now, I could lose some weight, most of us could—I consume more than I need to. But what is the point of the exercise? Less consumption, but more people? Right now, according to UN estimates, there are anywhere between 15-50 million people “in the lobby”. With rising sea levels that will double, triple or quadruple. And Canada, America, Australia, Argentina and Northern Europe will be, realistically, the only “elevators” available. To accommodate even a fraction of these numbers each one of these “elevators” would strain, the cables would fray and snap and bring down every one in it—both the human occupants and the biodiversity they depend on. Limits have to be set. We set them every day. They are set by fire marshals, by the Workers Compensation Board, by Transport Canada, by any number of agencies for any number of reasons. They are set on elevators. On the number of people who can sit in restaurants, theatres or ice rinks. Or even on the number of people who can use a given Provincial Park at a given time. Limits are being set by town councils like the one in Qualicum Beach, B. C. or Okotoks, Alberta or Noosa Shire and Port Douglas Shire in Queensland as to what a healthy population level will be for those communities. If economic and population growth limits can be set by local communities, they can be set nationally. All it takes is resolve. IF WE DON’T SET THOSE LIMITS, NATURE WILL SET THEM FOR US.

The ball is in your court: Hard questions for Soft Greens

You say you’re OK with the idea of reducing our population. But you are not comfortable with immigration cut-backs. Birth control, more abortion services, tax incentives for fewer children are fine. But your parents, or grand-parents, or friends are immigrants and by the way, aren’t mine too? The problem is, all the measures you would agree to would do little to reverse population growth in North America. Immigration accounts for 70% of American population growth and two-thirds of Canada’s. Without immigration, population in both countries levels off. If immigration persists at current rates, the USA will see one billion citizens and Canada 70 million by century’s end. But you’re just not comfortable about dealing with immigration in a country of 33 million people. Will you be comfortable dealing with it when we reach Jack Layton’s goal of 40 million—shared by other federal leaders? Will you be comfortable with no immigration freeze at 50 million? 60 million? 70 million? At what point would you be willing to concede that we had exceeded our carrying-capacity in Canada? DO YOU EVEN ACCEPT THAT WE HAVE A “CARRYING CAPACITY” IN CANADA?” According to Millenium Assessment findings 60% of 24 ecosystem services were being degraded unsustainably over the past 50 years. There is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and ecosystem services and between economic growth and biodiversity conservation. Economic growth is a function of population level and per capita consumption. You say you want to reduce consumption. Great. But you apparently want to take population growth out of the equation. Absurd. Paul Ehrlich’s old “IPAT” formula still applies. When assessing environmental impact, its I (Impact)= P(Population)X A(Affluence or Consumption) X T for Technology. Biologist Neil Dawe of the Qualicum Institute, in the most optimistic guess I’ve read, said that biodiversity could probably subsist alongside Canada’s current population of 32 million---if we consumed at the level we did in 1950. Do you think that’s likely? You speak of hybrid cars, solar panels, windmills and retro-fits. How far toward 1950 will that get us? And when Jack Layton’s dream comes true—very shortly—and we have 40 million Canadians, will we then need to consume at the level of 1935? How “green” would consumers have to get to erase the damage that that extra 8 million consumers will inflict on the environment? And we haven’t yet talked about that great sacred cow of Canadian political discourse---REFUGEES. Oh dear me, we can’t keep them out, can we? OK then, how many? The UN says there are 15- 50 million right now. How many of these are we going to take in? 1 million? 5 million? 10 million? That’s just for starters. Along comes global warming and rising sea levels. Al Gore says that around the city of Shanghai alone 40 million people will be displaced. Multiply that a hundred times around the world. Where will your bleeding heart take us then? You call yourself an “environmentalist”. Your politics are “green”. But your concern for people obviously takes priority over your self-proclaimed concern for nature. Trouble is, nature is in the driver’s seat. Whatever number of people you want to admit to Canada is academic. It’s what the ecosystem will sustain. And with 33 million people, it’s not bearing up very well. To repeat , 60% of 24 ecosystem “services” are degraded. Your human rights agenda will come right up against biodiversity collapse. Its called a “Limiting Factor”. There is a limit, yes even in Canada, to population growth and to the economic growth it propels. And when push comes to shove, there will also be a limit to our compassion. Or to put it another way, our compassion toward the world will no longer come at the expense of our compassion to our own families, our community, our own nation, and the biodiversity that sustains us all. So the ball’s in your court, soft green. You won’t face up to the need for population stabilization. You would prefer runaway population growth to immigration cut-backs and an open-ended refugee policy without regard to the environmental consequences of such a course. Apparently, for you, the sky’s the limit. All we need do is be good little “green” consumers and reduce our footprint just a little bit more for each new entrant to the country. Now tell me how this is all supposed to work. How is biodiversity supposed to co-exist with 40, 50, 70 million Canadian consumers, however “green” they are? How do you reduce green-house emissions when you substantially increase the population. Tony Blair’s bold plan was to reduce emissions with tough new standards by 20% over 10 years. Instead, emissions increased 3% ! Why? Because although factories and cars spewed less noxious gas, economic and population growth increased the number of factories and cars! Back to square one! Numbers do matter. Until you cope with these questions, soft green, you are, in my estimation, a counterfeit green. And in your estimation I am, no doubt, all of those nasty adjectives in the politically correct lexicon—a callous, xenophobic, misanthropic, deep ecologist with a fortress mentality and a hidden “racist” agenda. It’s OK. I’m used to it. The race card always gets played when all other arguments fail. I’m inclined to believe that what was said of patriotism is true of anti-racism—it’s the last refuge of scoundrels. Tim Murray

Illegal aliens burn precious forest while Sierra Club is mum

Funny, I never read about THIS in any Sierra Club publication or newsletter. I wonder why? Environmentalists have had much to say about the damage a Mexican border fence would do to wildlife movement. But precious forests being torched and they say nothing? Could it be that David Gelbaum's money has bought their silence on this outrage too? Is there any catastrophe involving immigration---illegal or legal---that WOULD awaken this organization's conscience? The website of our local Sierra club---"Sierra Quadra"---described themselves as a "respectable" environmental organization. If they were an authentic environmental organization they would not be "respectable", ie. compliant with government policy, but quite the opposite. Paul Watson, for example, understands the threat that human population growth in North America poses to wildlife habitat and is not willing to step around politically correct eggshells just to widen his subscription base and fund a bloated bureaucracy. From the Washington Times of 18 June 2007:

Illegals setting fires to burn agents out of observation posts and patrol routes

"U.S. Border Patrol agents seeking to secure the nation's border in some of the country's most pristine national forests are being targeted by illegal aliens, who are using intentionally set fires to burn agents out of observation posts and patrol routes.

The wildfires have destroyed valuable natural and cultural resources in the National Forest System and pose an ongoing threat to visitors, residents and responding firefighters, according to federal law-enforcement authorities and others.

In the Coronado National Forest in Arizona, with 60 miles of land along the U.S.-Mexico border, U.S. Forest Service firefighters sent in to battle fires or clear wild-land fire areas are required to be escorted by armed law-enforcement officers.

Are these arsonists the kind of people the ruling clique of the Sierra Club referred to when it said it had to keep immigration reduction and population stabilization out of its policy book so it could broaden its membership base beyond English-speaking people---and keep David Gelbaum's $100 million bribe?

And then there are the thousands of tons of trash left by illegal aliens who have made the Sonoran Desert of Arizona north of the Mexican border a virtual landfill site. Have the self-appointed guardians of North American wilderness---the Sierra Club---said boo about this environmental disaster?

Apparently not. The Grand Canyon Chapter of the Club, stationed in Phoenix, is more worried about the damage that 7 miles of border fencing will do in impeding jaguars from reaching their historical American range. What the Sierra Club does not understand, because its livelihood depends on not understanding, is that nothing threatens wildlife like the traffic of HUMANS across the Mexican border. Runaway population growth will destroy wildlife habitat, and is rapidly doing so. Even the protected national parks are being loved to death. Oxymoronic 'smart' growth palliatives so favoured by the Sierra Club and the green establishment can't indefinitely sequester wildlife from developmental pressures propelled by rapid population growth.

If immigrants and their children will potentially add another 105 million consumers to America in the next five decades, the choice will not be, as the Grand Canyon Chapter would put it, between jaguars or a border fence, but between jaguars or illegal immigrants.

One cannot help but observe, with bitter irony, that both the environment and the North American working class would prosper from a "closed-borders" policy, and yet, both are betrayed by organizations led by those who take the contrary position.

Tim Murray
Quadra Island, BC

Bush's legacy

Here are some startling immigration numbers from the US since George Bush took office, according to Edwin S. Rubenstein of The illegal alien population grew by 5.3 million or 79% The legal immigrant population grew by 20% The proportion of foreign-born grew from 10.9% to 12.4% of the total population Well over half of new Jobs under Bush went to immigrants The proportion of total employment accounted for by immigrants went from 12.5% to 15.4% Deporting illegal aliens would effectively cut taxes by $60 billion or more than $5000 for every American citizen Immigration has reduced the average wage of native born high school drop-outs by 7.4% according to Harvard economist George Borjas. Immigrant workers reduce native wages by an average of 5.4% (Borjas) According to official estimates, illegal aliens account for about 4% of the US population. But 27% of all prisoners in Federal Bureau of Prison facilities are criminal aliens, two thirds of these Mexican. Notice the pace and momentum of these changes, all of which occurred in just 6 years. A government friendly to mass immigration and oblivious to the plague of illegal immigration can usher in a massive make-over to a society over-night. In a matter of four short years, the Irish government permitted the foreign-born content of its workfoce to grow from 6% to 10%. Before the public could catch its breath, Irish society had been transformed forever---without their consent. And now for some bad news. The number of illegal aliens in the United States maybe more than twice the official 12 million figure. It maybe 25 or even 38 million.

Racist-baiting of immigration reformers is left-wing McCarthyism

Everyone gets in a lather when we propose an immigration moratorium for Canada. We are racist xenophobes with a fortress mentality who think that a national "gated" community will seal off CO2 emissions from China and India. Instead we should drop our fence, welcome newcomers, and thereby send out a message of friendship so as to gain global cooperation in our plan to fight global warming, and yes, over-population, which after all are GLOBAL problems that Canada can't solve alone.

Similarly, those Americans who propose building a more extensive and imposing fence along the Mexican border patrolled by more guards are called by similar ephithets. And their panaceas are ridiculed as unworkable. More border guards have been correlated with even more illegal alien intrusions. Ted Kennedy, using the tried and true vocabulary of the Quisling environmental movement, calls not for "open" borders but "smart" borders. That is, open borders that allow illegals to pour in at a more even pace. Kennedy wants to do the good decent liberal thing and crack down on the big bad employers who lure Mexicans into the United States. He has broad agreement on that. And he also wants to help the Mexican economy out with aid so that Mexicans will stay put. Good luck. But like so many, Ted Kennedy hasn't the backbone to face a Mexican and say "no". Like a 21st century Will Rogers he apparently never met an illegal alien he didn't like. This kind of hospitality is the univeral affliction of western governments, political parties, labour unions and environmental NGOs. And it is killing us.

What is interesting is that wherever migration is debated on any continent, the race card is played. Hispanic leaders complain about the overt racism of anti-immigration reformers. White liberals, socialists and greens indulge in the same psychologizing, which Sidney Hook long ago described as the classic trade-mark of the politically correct. Rather than deal with your arguments, they put you on a psychiatric couch and impugn your motives. But notice these soft-greens and socialists only target white European cultures that are under threat. They scream about Bush's Mexican border fence, but do they ever mention that Mexico has a shoot-to-kill policy regarding illegal immigrants on ITS borders with Central American countries? Or that India is completing a fence of several billion dollars to keep 150 million Bangledeshi's from overwhelming and despoiling what remains of India's wilderness? Did they ever mention, decades ago, when they were crying ad nauseum about the wicked "White Australia" policy, that Australia's regional neighbours were not allowing any immigrants into their countries no matter WHAT their skin colour? Did we ever hear of a "Yellow Japan" or a "Yellow Indonesia" policy?

It seems in the left-green universe only "people of colour" are permitted to control their borders. Some are even allowed to control the flow of people WITHIN their borders without much comment from the politically correct. Internal passports were not uncommon in the Marxist-Leninist orbit.

Our critics do not hold the moral high ground when debating these issues. Their stance smacks of nothing less than hypocrisy and inconsistency. And their attempt to intimidate and shut down discussion with name-calling is contemptible McCarthyism in fashionable left-wing clothing.

Pages