Guest Post by Joe Guzzardi
On Tuesday, 12 Democratic presidential hopefuls took to the stage at Otterbein University near Columbus, Ohio, to pitch their credentials. The dozen are, if not open borders supporters, then at least advocates for loose borders. Ask the candidates their positions on the environment and ecological stability, however, and the dozen would be on board about the importance of a green America. But the reality, which they prefer to ignore, is that open borders are incompatible with protecting the nation’s environmental future.
The candidates are more than willing to talk about the perceived benefits of Medicare for all, income inequality, gun control and climate change.
But record high legal immigration and quasi-open borders, an informal policy that has for decades allowed hundreds of thousands of people to come to the U.S. illegally, remain taboo not only on the debate stage, but also in the halls of Congress, even though there are significant negative environmental consequences.
The link between immigration, illegal or legal, and environmental degradation is indisputable. Years ago, before huge illegal immigrant border surges overwhelmed agents, the Government Accountability Office issued a report that outlined the challenges that illegal crossings presented to land management agencies, specifically the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service and the Forest Service. The GAO found that rising illegal activity on the border and its federal lands threatens law enforcement officers, visitors and employees, and “damages fragile natural resources.” Human traffickers smuggling aliens into the U.S. have destroyed irreplaceable vegetation and natural species. Lax immigration enforcement has led to blatant disregard for the 1973 Endangered Species Act.
Various amnesties, including the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, and other immigration actions have also blatantly disregarded the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), signed into law in 1970, which obligates “any agency considering an action that will affect the environment to analyze and publicize those effects.” In a recent lawsuit, nine plaintiffs brought a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security for its crass indifference to NEPA in its immigration policies. The fallout from DHS’s ignoring NEPA has been great, the lawsuit charged. American communities have suffered from poor air quality, urban sprawl, excessive water demands, traffic congestion, school overcrowding, green space loss, including farmlands and forests, and loss of wildlife. These are inarguable conclusions.
Nevertheless, the presidential candidates embrace their commitment to more immigration. In the previous debate, Joe Biden endorsed bringing in an additional 2 million legal immigrants annually to the existing more than 1 million. Assume Biden got his wish. The annual 3 million total will need housing, transportation, education and medical care that will create pressure to develop more land. The 3 million will eventually mushroom into millions more. Once these new immigrants become lawful permanent residents, through chain migration, they can petition to bring family members from abroad. On immigrants’ needs and how to fulfill them once they’re U.S. residents, Biden and other immigration advocates remain mum.
The Pew Research Center, using Census Bureau data, projects that new immigrants and their descendants accounted for a population increase between 1965 and 2015 of 65 million, and will be responsible for a staggering 103 million more residents by 2065. Looking back at historical immigration levels, the comparison is shocking. Between 1776 and 1965, annual immigration averaged 250,000 people per year. Changes to immigration laws in the 1950s, 1960s and 1990 sent the numbers skyrocketing.
No one is calling for an end to immigration. But presidential candidates who claim to have America’s best interests at heart should campaign on returning to the traditional 250,000 immigrants per year. The 750,000 reduction would benefit the environment and the individuals who hope to enjoy nature’s bounties.
Watch related video: NEPA: Make America Green Again
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Unsustainable? The author needs to drive I 40 from Oklahoma City to Phoenix or I 80 from Salt Lake City to Chicago and see just how much room there is for growth. Not that I’d want it but America has enough land to double her population without breaking a sweat. Just calling BS on the premise of the article, that’s all.
Much of the land isn’t really suitable for human habitation, or growing crops, and adequate water.
Additionally, because of industrialization and technology there are a lot more people than jobs. Forget about gas station attendants, bank tellers, check out clerks, etc. Supporting these breeders, breathers, eaters, is bankrupting the US.
Ridiculous statement. Sure, you can live there if you have power for AC, all your food and water shipped in . . .
There’s beaucoup room in West Texas, if you like desert, hellacious high temps, rattlesnakes, no water, sand, freezing cold at night and think the Moon would make an excellent place to live too.
Without doubt, overpopulation is the biggest problem for our future; not for lack of space, but for lack of resources. Every single issue stems from that central problem.
And yet not a word of it is spoken by those who craft The Narrative.
Curious.
The fact that about half the people are nuts is the problem. Liberal/Democrat kind of nuts.
Check out this demographic analysis. Growth rates in America, Europe, and Asia have already topped out, while Africa continues to grow.
“By 2030, Africans will be 22% of the worlds population, be 200% of annual growth among the childbearing population, and be responsible for 38% of global births.”
https://econimica.blogspot.com/2019/09/is-elon-musk-right-about-global.html
I guess we need people who are willing to work.
un says columbus was right
&t=1571440110&ymreqid=587a1262-89ed-f61a-1c5e-9f01b501a200&sig=GG8x3X.ilxzmjzlFphGpiQ–~C
If America wants to go after “foreign collusion” & election tampering, they may want to focus on H-1B visa workers from India who are discussing in their forums, in organizations like Immigration Voice & SIIA, on how to target a Senator. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHLh-QEWsAEu4Pz?format=jpg&name=large
Think of all of Americas resources as one big pie. Everyone wants a good life meaning enough food, medicine when needed, safe water, comfort for both heat and cold. Without planing for our resource potential, in good times and bad, we are plotting on our demise.
“No one is calling for an end to immigration. ”
well let me start then…