yes! i read this ad and was instantly suspicious of all the bland sounding organizations that sponsored it. and i'm a believer in negative population growth.

I love how the obvious conclusion is not that we need better transit, including mass transit and urban planning but TOO MANY PPL OMG. Jeez.

This is such an odd connection... It reminds me of bad psych papers that try to say if a->b and b->c, then a->d... ummmmm no

I lose a little more hope for humanity when I find out that organizations like the "Social Contract Press" exist.

Eugh. That is so fucked.

Oh, and personally I'm all for limiting population growth (not race-specific though >:|), but it won't happen. It just won't, no way.

It'd be much more likely to have some fucked racist sterilisation programme implemented than anything across the board anyway

My fantasy is some sort of hormonal contraception in the water where you have to buy something to negate it. Basically you only get pregnant if you actively want to AND go out of your way to make the effort. That'd make some difference (not that such a thing exists)

I am a bit confused about this post. I can see taking issue with what these organizations think about immigration, but I am confused on some other points. Their logic makes sense, more people means more cars means more congestion means more polution... The solutions are less people or less cars or less harmful cars or better roads or a combination of all of them. All of the things are very much connected. Over population is a huge problem that every living thing can face. Migratory paths, feeding grounds, scarcity of food, polluted water supply... Something always has to give when faced with overpopulation. The add thinks that one of the ways is going to be by controlling population, which is admittedly one of the easier to implement solutions. Other solutions might call for mass public transport to be installed and if the population is going to double, then pollutants must be cut in half just to match current rates. So, these people are in favor of certain possible solution to a definite problem, so why are we taking issue with how the link things, isn't the real issue what solution we think is best. And really, how do we decide what solution is best, or to what degree do they all need to be implemented.

Fits well with this horrific article on the cover of the Washington Post today, where the author reports unquestioningly on lots of people being outraged because a drunk driver killed a teenage girl. Their answer to this? Well, the driver was an undocumented immigrant, so this is clearly the fault of immigrants!

Actually, you could theoretically lace the water with hormones. But it would be awfully expensive to get them in concentrations that would matter and then there is the problem of making sure only certain people drank it -- so no, not terrifically feasible (yet).

That said, FAIR is a far-right racist organization that the SPLC has crossed swords with before. Jeez loo-eez, it's the same racist crap that has marred immigration discussions since the know-nothings of the 1840s.

Y'know, nobody ever talks about "push" factors with immigration. Like, if our government hadn't insisted on destroying democracies wherever they threatened to appear, all those people from Latin America might have stayed home.

If our government hadn't insisted on destroying the livelihoods of farmers in southern Mexico, all those people would still be there.

If we had not insisted on using cheap labor abroad as a method of fighting inflation here (and making damn sure those pesky workers didn't get too comfortable with things like decent wages), all those folks might have been able to stay home and get better jobs instead of having to gut their own labor protections to race to the bottom for foreign investment.

If we hadn't insisted on a resource-use rate that dwarfs every single developed nation by at least a factor of two.

SO yeah, we kind'a shot ourselves in the foot a bit here.

Actually, you could theoretically lace the water with hormones. But it would be awfully expensive to get them in concentrations that would matter and then there is the problem of making sure only certain people drank it -- so no, not terrifically feasible (yet).

That said, FAIR is a far-right racist organization that the SPLC has crossed swords with before. Jeez loo-eez, it's the same racist crap that has marred immigration discussions since the know-nothings of the 1840s.

Y'know, nobody ever talks about "push" factors with immigration. Like, if our government hadn't insisted on destroying democracies wherever they threatened to appear, all those people from Latin America might have stayed home.

If our government hadn't insisted on destroying the livelihoods of farmers in southern Mexico, all those people would still be there.

If we had not insisted on using cheap labor abroad as a method of fighting inflation here (and making damn sure those pesky workers didn't get too comfortable with things like decent wages), all those folks might have been able to stay home and get better jobs instead of having to gut their own labor protections to race to the bottom for foreign investment.

If we hadn't insisted on a resource-use rate that dwarfs every single developed nation by at least a factor of two.

SO yeah, we kind'a shot ourselves in the foot a bit here.

David,

The problem with connecting immigration to population growth and environmental harm is that it is an absurdly parochial view of the world. The environment is not an American issue, it is international. If you want to solve the problem of over-population you have to have an international solution, not an immigration limit.

Moreover, undocumented immigrants from central and south america are, almost universally, poor and as such they have far less of an environmental impact than a documented immigrant who has a well paying job and commutes like a regular white, middle class american.

The problem in the U.S. is a consumption problem. We need to get rid of the personal auto, not get rid of the immigrants.

I'll add the quote from the statue of liberty, that seems especially apt at times like these, when immigrants are so demonized.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

I find the style this is written in to be rather odd... It's like some mutant mixture of technical terms and dumbed-down, simple sentences. I wonder if that's more to do with who the intended audience is or who wrote it? Because it seems intentional.

David isn't it obvious? This ad is pointing a finger at immigrants, instead of looking inward at our own energy and fuel consumption. We, the people already here are creating the problem of congestion, not immigrants, many of which cannot afford cars or even legally drive. We have also voted people into office who don't care about the environment or public transportation, not immigrants. This is also embracing the attitude of having the right kind of people (mainly white people) instead of the wrong kind (people of color) in this country. Why isn't this add advocating sterilization among the rich, white people, instead of stricter immigration policy?

We, the people already here are creating the problem of congestion, not immigrants, many of which cannot afford cars or even legally drive.

Not being able to legally drive does not preclude someone from actually driving, and an illegal immigrant has already demonstrated their willingness to break the law by virtue of being here. (I assume you meant illegal immigrants instead of just immigrants, since immigrating legally is not cheap and so is largely closed to the poor.)

Why isn't this add advocating sterilization among the rich, white people, instead of stricter immigration policy?

Because rich people have the least number of kids of all economic classes. Duh.

First, overpopulation is a problem because it hurts people. Reducing population growth by hurting people (instead of by increasing reproductive freedom) totally defeats the purpose of reducing population growth!

"My fantasy is some sort of hormonal contraception in the water where you have to buy something to negate it."

That would totally suck for people who have bad reactions to the side effects.

"Basically you only get pregnant if you actively want to AND go out of your way to make the effort."

That would be cool if it happened via the nervous system having more concious control of the reproductive system. Too bad we're not built that way.

"David isn't it obvious? This ad is pointing a finger at immigrants, instead of looking inward at our own energy and fuel consumption."

...and instead of looking outward at how greenhouse gases are a global issue! The atmosphere doesn't respect national borders. Meanwhile, every immigrant is also an emigrant from somewhere else too. When she or he migrates, that's a net change of zero in the world population, not an increase. Hmm...

I just remembered one more thing:

"My fantasy is some sort of hormonal contraception in the water where you have to buy something to negate it."

Keep in mind the many things the water gets used for. What about when a woman, a man, a toddler, a cat, and a dog all get their drinking water from the same tap? Somehow I doubt that the same ppm of extra hormones in the water would be safe for all 5 of them...

Please perform an online search re: environmental hormones, which i have mentioned before. I hope posters are being facetious.

There are some people I have encountered online, and those I read of in news magazines who promote being childless in the name of the environment. They argue that having a child (that is to say, simply existing and consuming) in a society such as that of the US, has the greatest environmental impact, prolonging and compounding the problem. I can see their point. It should also be left to choice. As one of the already born, I'll take my chances with a possibly higher sea level, more intense storms; food, water and energy shortages; and resulting wars and waves of refugees, in decades to come. If global warming is directly linked to levels of atmospheric CO2 (or methane, or other greenhouse gases), we're already on our way. Enacting every countermeasure imaginable (including requiring licenses to reproduce) will not hold it off indefinitely.

Mass transit and telecommuting. There ! Traffic congestion problem solved.
Next !

"Please perform an online search re: environmental hormones, which i have mentioned before."

Great point. Check out the links and comments at http://www.metafilter.com/51255/Nine-out-of-ten-transgendered-carp-prefer-Prozac-to-Zoloft . It also reminds me that I should have included a pet fish in the scenario I just posted. Personally, I like being on the Pill and I know my Rx isn't for everyone.

Very interesting findings in Canada re: environmental hormones. Actual switching of gender. In Japan, the problems (or media coverage regarding the dioxin pollution identified as the cause) were limited to underdeveloped testes in river carp, and decreasing sperm counts among Japanese men (no, they did not investigate the effects of boxers vs. briefs on sperm production).

When I first read this I thought it was a one-off ad from the 60's or 70's.

Population control, either via reduced births or a reduction of immigration, is a viable way to ease congestion on the roads. This part is true.

Stopping immigration will not do much to help with pollution or greenhouse gases as those people still exist and pollute in other countries (unless their home countries are poorer and they don't have access to things like cars and power). Population control will help with pollution.

I refer you to the slightly humorous Voluntary Human Extinction Movement: http://www.vhemt.org/

But don't we need to at least maintain our population so that our social benefits systems don't collapse under the weight of retiring baby boomers?

Just want to point out that population growth affects more than just the environment, as important as the environment is.

Um, and I really hope you're joking about the mass-sterilization effort. Pro-choice includes NOT using birth control if you so choose. I don't see much of an ethical difference between outlawing BC and forcing it on people. They're both pretty heinous. Let's keep working on empowering women and families so that they have the knowledge and resources to have the kinds of families they want, when they want to have them.

In one of my environmental studies classes (just graduated, yay) we talked about how the US is predicted to be the only 'westernized' country without a negative population growth rate. This is a GOOD thing economically (an aging nation and retiring workforce is causing panic in many other places like japan and italy), and it is only happening because of immigration. And if you're thinking we want a negative growth rate for environmental/sustainability reasons, I can think of about 100 other ways to reduce impact without trying to reduce population. They would all be more effective as well, since US citizens use many many times the resources of any other country per capita (and this is not as true of recent immigrants). Additionally, I think a leveling off population will come naturally, as it has been shown that decreased birth rates goes hand in hand with industrialization and introduction of women's rights.

Don't even get me started on the faulty logic that the 3 hour transit ride is being caused by illegal immigrants and not by bad planning/lack of public tranportation. I could probably write a 50-page thesis on all the reasons that paragraph is ridiculous.

Alice-- The children of "rich, white people" also have a larger carbon footprint than poor children. The waste more resources across the board.

Undocumented workers (with or without driver's licenses) are also more likely to use public transportation, carpool, and/or purchase a used car. ALL of these options leave a smaller carbon footprint than driving around in a new car. Even if the "new car" is a hybrid vehicle, the environmental cost of the energy and resources required to MANUFACTURE said car are greater than those incurred by the use of a less efficient used car.

You're not a member of FAIR, are you?

The children of "rich, white people" also have a larger carbon footprint than poor children. The waste more resources across the board.

Hmm, I guess there is that. I was just thinking from a population perspective.

Undocumented workers (with or without driver's licenses) are also more likely to use public transportation, carpool, and/or purchase a used car.

That is all probably true, but I wasn't making a point about their environmental impact, or even that they drive a lot. I was just disputing the claim that people won't drive just because it's illegal. Plenty of people who can legally get licenses or mandated insurance don't, and still drive.

You're not a member of FAIR, are you?

No. I only have a problem with immigration as a rule of law issue. As a citizen of America, I think that immigration should be much easier, but American immigration policy is not for would-be immigrants to decide, and so I must assert that if the American people, contrary to my own wishes, desires that immigration be as limited as it is, then so be it.

Also, in regards to the universal birth control thing, it doesn't look like they're actually talking about making it any more mandatory than it is now (though hormones in the water is obviously a horrible way to go about it.) Doing something like that while leaving the antidote freely available would merely change fertility from opt-out into opt-in, which strikes me an entirely desirable. It wouldn't affect people who wanted kids but would stop pregnancy from happening accidentally.

"Pro-choice includes NOT using birth control if you so choose. I don't see much of an ethical difference between outlawing BC and forcing it on people."

Exactly! I should have been clearer when I said

"That would be cool if it happened via the nervous system having more concious control of the reproductive system. Too bad we're not built that way."

and emphasized that it would need to include each person having the built-in ability to turn fertile as soon as she or he wants to conceive as well as not being fertile when she or he doesn't want to conceive. :)

"They would all be more effective as well, since US citizens use many many times the resources of any other country per capita (and this is not as true of recent immigrants)."

BTW, there's a problem with judging resource usage per capita. For one example, suppose a couple uses N gallons of gasoline a week for themselves and their 2 children. Their per capital fuel usage is N/4. They could halve that to N/8 by saving fuel (if combining trips, carpooling, going to work on bus or subway, etc. any more than they already do are feasible for them). They could also halve that to N/8 by making 4 more people for the household (if they're fertile enough for that to be feasible) while burning no less fuel...

So, maybe per capita measures aren't the best ones to use?

"Don't even get me started on the faulty logic that the 3 hour transit ride is being caused by illegal immigrants and not by bad planning/lack of public tranportation. I could probably write a 50-page thesis on all the reasons that paragraph is ridiculous."

So very true.

I'm all for population control and population reduction, but there are ways of doing that which do not involve resorting to racist/xenophobic tactics.

Widespread, comprehensive sexual education. Easy and inexpensive access to a wide range of birth controls and abortion. Training doctors in abortion and allowing people to provide it freely. Universal health insurance so that people can talk to doctors, a regular doctor they know and trust, about their reproductive health and the birth control options available to them. Or at the least, health insurance that is required to cover birth control AND abortion AND all other ranges of reproductive health.

And if they're really that concerned about congestion and pollution, there are two things they should do. Start putting in mass public transit systems. Buses, rail systems, hell, put in more bike trails and put bike lanes on roads. Then, make more fuel efficient, less polluting cars (of any kind: electric, hybrid, compressed air. So long as it's working technology, take advantage of it).

...or we could carpool?

Take the subway?

as a second generation mexican-american, I am gravely concerned by this. In the interest of saving on paper and the carbon miles it takes to cut, ship, manufacture, ship, print, distribute, and dispose/collect for recycling, I receive my NYT news via interweb and consequently miss out on the colorful ads. I'm not saying I have any answers, but I do know that the way we conduct our lives needs to seriously be reevaluated. as my 7th grade english teacher Ms. Howard would say "Reality check time!"
I actively participate in reeducating people everyday on issues of immigration in this and other countries. It is a system, a reticulate web of interconnectivity. what we do here affect the quality of life elsewhere. Tighter security measures only makes the trafficking of people more lucrative for coyotes and drug runners, and in the interest of this website, many women are taken advantage of in their travels/travails journeying to this country. But this country is not their destination. It is survival that they seek. not just their own, but often times it is a family or community that attempts the trip.
I would like to see how exactly poor immigrants and clandestine crossers who travel on foot (often times barefoot!) cause spikes in pollution. Often times when work is found they carpool (if it can be called carpooling).
This is yet another example of the oppressors blaming the victims. The scary thing is that groups like those who sponsored this add DO have an effect on the levels of animosity felt towards immigrants NOT on policy necessarily. It is far easier to attack an "foreigner" than it is to march on a capital building.

Shame on you: American Immigration Control Foundation, Californians for Population Stabilization, Federation of American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA and Social Contract Press.

Brushing the point of this advertisement off ignores the local environmental impact of immigration, as well as the other impacts. (such as the strain on social services, impact on wages, etc.) There are global environmental effects and local ones. In California, where we already have nearly 40 million people, we take in an average of nearly a quarter million immigrants a year. Our transportation system is already famously strained. In Southern California, we've had to close nearly a dozen county-run trauma centers in a decade (illegal immigrants overwhelmingly go to the emergency room for free medical care). Real estate prices are the highest in the nation. We live in a desert, where water is always scarce, and are going into a rather severe and probably long-lasting drought.

And, whether anyone wants to talk about it or not, there are social and economic costs as well. Having an ongoing influx of poor people who can be forced to work for peanuts is great for big business and for our elites. It's not good for the working and middle classes. California leads the nation in both the number of people with post-graduate degrees and the number of people who have never attended high school, while being below average (relative to its population) in people with high-school diplomas. We're creating a U-shaped class and income curve, looking something like the stratified societies of Latin America. The Mexican government benefits from this as well, getting to export the poor people it doesn't want to spend resources to take care of, and might otherwise become organized and unruly. We're actually losing cultural and racial diversity in this state, taking in an ongoing stream of people overwhelmingly of one background. African-Americans have been leaving the Los Angeles area steadily for a decade, and there's essentially an undeclared low-level race war going on on the streets, in the schools, and in the jails. Our public school systems are failing, trying vainly to educate large numbers of children who don't speak English. More than 50% of Los Angeles public school students never finish high-school, assimilating their students, at best, into the very bottom rungs of our society, with few opportunities and many challenges, for them and for us, in years to come.

The fact is that what we are witnessing today has no precedents in American history. We never took in more than a million illegal immigrants a year at any point in our history, and never took in so many, so fast, from just one or a few countries alone. The pace of current illegal immigration is more than double what the pace of immigration was during the influx a century ago. This is one of the largest mass-migrations in human history, and no historical precedent tells us how it will turn out. All we can base any predictions on is what we can see today, and it looks increasingly bleak.