On Jun 29, 12:46=A0pm, California Poppy <GoldenStatePo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> Immigration, population and politics
> By Dan Walters - dwalt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, June 29, 2008
>
> California had about 27 million residents when Californians for
> Population Stabilization was formed in 1986 to raise alarms about the
> impacts of continued population growth in what was already the
> nation's most populous state.
>
> California has about 38 million residents now, which would indicate
> that CAPS, as it's called, has not been very successful. But it's
> still trying and has launched a new advertising campaign, in
> conjunction with like-minded groups in other states, to drive home its
> central point that if California continues to grow, it faces serious
> environmental degradation.
>
> "From impossible traffic jams, to record-breaking air pollution, to an
> exhausted health care system, many of the most serious problems facing
> California today have one root cause: too many people," CAPS contends.
> "An endless supply of newcomers places an ever-increasing demand on
> our state =96 and nation's =96 finite resources."
>
> By contem****ary political parameters, curbing immigration is
> considered a "conservative" cause, while protecting the environment is
> deemed to be a "liberal" imperative, but CAPS =96 whose leaders are
> academics =96 underscores the symbiotic relation****p between the two
> issues that few advocates of either would acknowledge.
>
> It's a simple demographic fact that as California's population grows
> by a half-million or more people each year, virtually all of that
> growth stems from immigration, legal and illegal. Were it not for
> immigration and babies born to immigrant mothers, California's births
> and deaths would be in balance and the state would have zero
> population growth.
>
> It's also obvious that population growth, whatever its source, creates
> the demand for more housing, more water, more schools, more highways =96
> more of everything =96 and that filling that demand puts pressure on the
> environment.
>
> Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club have attempted to ignore
> this cause-and-effect relation****p for political reasons, i.e., they
> depend on liberal politicians to advance their agenda, and tolerance
> of immigration, even illegal immigration, is a tenet of modern
> liberalism. The Sierra Club, et al., especially don't want to alienate
> Latino politicians and organizations, or the expanding ranks of Latino
> voters.
>
> That schismatic =96 even hypocritical =96 attitude was demonstrated a
few
> years back when the Sierra Club's leader****p beat back attempts by
> anti-immigration club members to change its neutral position.
>
> "Our position is that, ultimately, the Sierra Club is going to have to
> acknowledge this problem," anti- immigration activist Dick Schneider
> said after losing the second attempt to change the policy three years
> ago. "Overpopulation driven by unsustainable levels of immigration is
> bringing on more traffic congestion, escalating energy prices,
> overcrowding of our beaches, parks and recreational areas, and
> increasing demands on our limited water supply."
>
> That said, while the low- or no-growth policies that CAPS and
> dissident Sierra Clubbers advocate might lessen the environmental
> issues inherent in adding a half-million more humans each year, they
> would also create new and difficult economic and social problems.
>
> With the very large baby boom retiring out of the labor force,
> shortages of trained workers are already looming in California. Who
> would be there to do the work, pay the taxes and provide the services
> that a rapidly aging population would demand? Low-growth countries
> such as Japan are already feeling that pinch.
>
> Without ever-expanding, tax-generating construction, employment and
> retail sales, state and local governments would face a further
> flattening of revenues, or be compelled to raise taxes on an aging
> population with fixed incomes.
>
> We should remember that big changes of political policy often produce
> unintended consequences.
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--=AD-----
|
