What I don't like about "Avocado Greens" - and its relevance in the GE

[NV1962]

Green on the outside, with a hard brown core.

No, I don't refer to PETA people; also not to pro-environmentalists (how the heck can one consciously be "anti-environment" anyway!) and I don't mean the honest and principled Green Party-leaning progressives, certainly well-represented here on DU, either.

I mean this ilk:

http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2004/02/18/news/nation/wednat02.txt

There are a few pertinent links to the two sides involved in the issue described in that article, about the upcoming election of five seats in the 15-member board of the Sierra Club.

Immigration as a wedge issue, peddled by those "avocado greens" in an unholy alliance of the far-right and radical animal rightists.

Here's their argument in a nutshell: Earth is suffering from overpopulation, and the US has a disproportional environmental footprint, disproportionally depleting the resources of this planet, which combined with the fact that immigration is the largest contributor to the US population growth, leads to an imperative need to stop immigration.

There's just an itsy bitsy problem with that logic: immigrants don't appear out of nowhere. They don't create a "new" environmental footprint; at best, they enlarge their (small) current one. Just as their fellow country people aspire to do in the long run, but their aspiration is often sabotaged by Western "values and principles" reflected in unfair trade, export of noxious industries (or export of pollution under the shameless guise of "buying emission rights") wrecking the self-reliance of national economies (courtesy the savage "free-traders" who believe state sovereignty is a commercial commodity) and a host of other barbaric outrages, including but not limited to warfare, genocide and corrupt arm sales.

Most immigrants move from an underprivileged background into another, more wealthy country. And that's not unique to the US, either: Western Europe also exerts a strong attraction over people who decide to move away from their family, in desperate search of justified hope.

As a wonderful case in point for the universality of the avocado green, how about this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3494627.stm

The anti-immigrant stance that is manifest in a few "outsiders" desiring to put their grubby hands on an environmental organization denies the progressive principle of solidarity:

• external solidarity -- which at the very least ignores the right of developing countries to advance, if not the moral obligation to help ensure that they develop with less toxicity;
  
• internal solidarity -- no pity with the grievous conditions in which most immigrants live, upon arrival in their "new home" (think "environmental justice" for another shameless irony)

There's just too much wrong with that picture, the far right joining hands with the far left.

And here comes why I think it's relevant for the general elections. In 2000, a nation-wide total of 2,883,064 people cast their vote, I venture mostly in anger at the Democratic party, for the Green Party. Looking back -- completely ignoring what happened on and after that November 7, 2000 -- I can understand the frustration with a party that hasn't been extraordinarily successful in casting itself as the "people party." However, since then, a few things have happened that in my opinion have completely changed the electoral stage.

Now we all know what that "plain, folksy guy from Texas" really is about. Now we know what he has done to the environment, to civil liberties, to other countries, to many things that are near and dear to us progressives. I am positive that a very substantial number of those who in 2000 voted for Ralph Nader will now unite, teeth gritted and seething with anger, to oust the Supremely Appointed President.

But I see, as illustrated in the case of the Sierra Club, how there is an organized effort underway to wedge progressives apart, on bogus premises and with an even more despicable prospect: to have another four years of Bush in power as "a lesser evil" compared to the "corrupt" Democrat that runs to defeat him and his ilk.

This year, it's not an election: it's a national reality show called Survival, with 290 million contestants barely hanging on to the edge of the abyss. This year, there is a realistic opportunity to choose from within the Democratic party candidates.

I think the Sierra Club needs help; moreover, I think this country deserves better than fraudulent charades cross-dressed as a "progressive alternative" which is really nothing less than a mutilating ticket, back to the unwashed past that we are supposed to progress from.

What say you?

[NV1962]

1. *pling*

:kick:

[NV1962]

2. *plong*

Not a peep? Is it that bad?

:cry:

[NV1962]

3. Nobody worried that "progressives" run an anti-immigration campaign?

Well? Nobody worried about that fifth column marching in?

[On the Road]

4. You Could Make the Argument that Immigration HELPS

Poverty breeds high birth rates. Although immigrants may use more resources in the US, their higher standard of living means that they will probably reproduce less. So in the long run, it may help.

[NV1962]

5. $30 billion in remittances going mostly through US firms' channels

Thanks Ribofunk... I thought I managed to post an invisible topic...

It helps today already. There's a report by the Pew Hispanic Center on remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean (PDF file) here. If you want to learn about remittances (just one of the tangible, present-day positive effects of migration on living standards world-wide) there's an introductory piece here.

While being a succulent source of income for companies like Western Union and MoneyGram that "discreetly" make lots of money, immigrants help improve living standards in their home country alright; unfortunately, the necessary debate on immigration hardly goes beyond "stemming the influx of illegal immigrants" and related exploitation / abuse problems.

That is why I'm bringing this up: I am shocked and appalled that self-declared "progressives" adopt an anti-immigration stance, aggravated by an alliance with the far right.

This troubles me greatly.

[On the Road]

6. I Think a Lot of Anti-Immigration People Want CONTROLLED Immigration

at a rate the US economy and job market can accept. And I tend to agree. Benefits to foreign nationals are important, but I want the federal government to put US workers first. Right now, a lot of well-paying tech jobs are being given to foreign nationals with work visas. Corporate interests over private interests.

I hadn't thought about the beneficial effects of sending money back. That probably helps. In some places like the Phillipines, it's one of the major "industries."

If the issue is birth rate, a husband working overseas is not be having as many children. Unintended but effective.

[NV1962]

7. I'm pointing to an effort to *STOP* immigration

Big difference there - no-one can seriously contend that controlled immigration is a bad idea.

That's why I refer to 'em kindly as "avocado greens" - twenty years ago, in my more radical days, I'd have called 'em flat-out fascists.