Paul Watson: Too much immigration puts whole planet at risk

Paul Watson

Opinion

All of the world's people are poor. Some just don't realise it yet.

The United States is viewed as the wealthiest nation on Earth yet its incredible debt makes it one of the poorest nations on Earth.

As Donald Trump once pointed out about a beggar he saw in Central Park: "That man has six billion dollars more than me because that is how much I owe."

It is all smoke and mirrors folks. Money on paper and not even in paper currency - just numbers shuffling back and forth among computers.

The illusion cannot be maintained forever. This economic system will inevitably collapse. If the dollar were still based on real wealth it would have crashed years ago.

The reality is the Ecological Law of Finite Resources. There is a limit to growth. We reached it years ago. The cost of our growth is the stealing of carrying capacity from other species, from other societies and from the poor among our own population. For our populations and material wealth to grow, other species and cultures must disappear. But the ecological Laws of Diversity and Interdependence dictate that there will be definite repercussions.

Limits to growth

Any solution must involve population reduction. All factors contributing to consumption of resources and increases to population must be addressed, including the contributing factor of immigration.

For those who just call for limits on consumption in the developed world: nice thought but, considering the selfishness of humanity, that is not going to happen unless it is forced upon humanity.

So we have in the United States those who want to accumulate as much wealth as possible on one hand and those who want to bring in as many people as possible on the other. And most, if not all, of the people coming in want to share in the dream of accumulating as much wealth as possible.

Planet Earth is caught in the middle between the anthropocentric demands of the selfish consumers and the anthropocentric demands of humanitarianism.

We humans are incredibly skilled at justifying our actions. The rich are skilled at justifying their place in society and the poor are skilled at justifying their tactics to overthrow the rich - usually for the objective of replacing them.

A Sierra Club spokesperson recently wrote: "I tend to think that a more appropriate strategy is to encourage our government to put pressure on other governments for the fair treatment of their people."

That's the sort of benevolent imperialism that President George Bush keeps promoting, although heavy on imperialism and light on benevolence.

Unfortunately most governments, and especially the current US government, represent corporations and special interests and not people. The government of the United States could provide fresh drinking water to every poor person on the planet for about US$10 billion, a fraction of what it is spending to represent the oil companies in Iraq. But the government will not do this because there is no profit in it for the corporate sector.

The selling of water will soon surpass the selling of oil as the world's leading industry. Providing clean fresh water, free of charge, to everyone would undermine the market. It's not going to happen.

Mexico needs a revolution

Mexico is a rich nation in resources and culture. Mexico's problem is not lack of material resources but a societal and governmental system based on blatant corruption.

In addition there is the stranglehold of the Roman Catholic Church which contributes to excessive population in a system that does not provide for these numbers and cares even less.

Years ago, Edward Abbey joked that every illegal immigrant to the US should be met at the border and given a rifle and ammunition and told to go back and overthrow their government.

He had a point. Mexico needs a revolution.

But illegal immigrants benefit the rich in the United States. Industrial agriculture is dependent upon this system of poverty and that is why President Bush is seeking to allow for more immigrants and not less. Modern immigration policies are just a form of neo-slavery with the difference that the plantation slaves of the south did not have to suffer the horrors of pesticides, herbicides, fertilisers and other chemical problems.

I view the neo-slavery of poor Mexican migrant workers as an evil no less exploitative than early American slavery of African Americans. And before people get all holier than thou, I suggest a visit to the fields of California. Spend a few days with these workers - better yet, labour in the field with them for low wages and no benefits - and tell me just how wonderful it is that they have the "opportunity" to come to America.

Restrictions on immigration are necessary for reducing the population of the United States and necessary for ending this socially acceptable exploitation of poor migrant farm and factory workers.

Mexico could provide work for its people if there were a revolution and the replacement of the current regime with one that would more equally distribute the wealth - but that would be viewed as communistic and the USA would oppose it.

Allowing the excess of Mexico's incredible birthrate to flood across the borders is akin to opening the flood gates on a dam to keep the dam from bursting. If Mexico is to change for the betterment of its people, that dam should be allowed to burst.

The Sierra Club's position

The leading national environmental organisation is pushing its head deeper into the sand. The Sierra Club policy on immigration is neutral, meaning that it has no policy at all. In effect, the Sierra Club has said that this is something for the next generation to deal with.

Sierra Club policy as early as 1970 was to "stabilise US population". In September 1999 the Board went further, voting for a policy that stated "reduce" rather than "stabilise".

The unwillingness to implement Club policy because it means advocating family planning and reducing immigration, is logically inconsistent and has angered many members.

The reason for this stand has little to do with conservation principles and everything to do with the fear of being criticised by the left as anti-immigrant.

The US population is increasing by about three million people per year and this does not include illegal immigrants. This rate of growth projects a population of one billion by the end of this century.

The rising levels of immigration will inevitably be the cause for a backlash from native-born citizens, and from legal immigrants who are kept in a state of poverty by the steady stream of replacement workers.

Mexico needs to reform its system and the United States needs to address the issue of population stabilisation.

If a more egalitarian society could be established in Mexico, the question of border control could be solved. The US-Mexico border would become like the US-Canada border, where citizens cross back and forth easily.

One of the reasons for this is that the average Canadian would rather stay in Canada where there are better opportunities for employment, education and medical treatment, but less military and less violence. And the beer is stronger and tastes better.

The average Mexican would also rather stay in Mexico but the opportunities for employment, education and medical treatment are powerful factors that motivate migration, especially illegal migration.

If such problems were solved, the flow of illegals would be reduced to a trickle and even legal immigration would be reduced.

But this will not happen as long as American corporations demand cheap immigrant labour and the government continues to provide this labour.

The great farm workers leader Caesar Chavez once lamented that the steady supply of migrant workers was a major hurdle in trying to achieve better conditions for California farm workers.

The problem is that the Sierra Club has decided that the conditions for farm workers today are not relevant or connected to the steady flow of illegal labour. The Sierra Club is more concerned with being seen to do the politically correct thing than they are with actually doing the right thing.

* Paul Watson is a director of the Sierra Club and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Canadian by birth, he lives in the United States.