>From dgorr@ucdavis.edu Mon Jan 30 20:49:49 1995 Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu (franc.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.183]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id UAA06768 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 1995 20:49:44 -0700 Received: from [128.120.250.74] by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.9/UCD3.0) id TAA09579; Mon, 30 Jan 1995 19:53:36 -0800 X-Sender: szorr@peseta.ucdavis.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 19:57:28 -0800 To: ppn@csf.colorado.edu From: dgorr@ucdavis.edu (David Orr * Waste Prevention & Recycling Coordinator) Subject: Re: Migration -- Sierra Club proposed policy The following is a proposed draft of a Sierra Club national policy on population and migration, with comments from a committee member. I would be interested in constructive comments from list readers on the substance and structure of this document. Your comments will be forwarded to the Sierra Club committee deliberating this issue. Thank you, David Orr dgorr@ucdavis.edu --- begin forwarded text X-POP3-Rcpt: szorr@peseta Date: Mon, 30 Jan 95 15:18 PST RICK, THANKS AGAIN FOR THE DOCUMENTS. I THINK THE DRAFT IS WELL DONE AND PRETTY THOROUGH IN ITS INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE GUIDELINES BUT AS IT IS JUST A BROAD POLICY FRAMEWORK THAT APPARENTLY DOESN'T ATTEMPT TO PRIORITIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE VARIOUS FACTORS, IT DOESN'T LEAD US IN ANY SPECIFIC DIRECTION AS REGARDS IMMIGRATION. THE DIRECTION WILL DEPEND ON THE IMPORTANCE OR VALUE GIVEN TO EACH FACTOR. THE IMPORTANCE WILL LIKELY BE INFLUENCED BY WHETHER THOSE DOING THE EVALUATION PERCEIVE THEMSELVES AS BENEFITING FROM VARIOUS LEVELS OF IMMIGRATION. THEREFORE, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THOSE DECIDING POLICY DO NOT CONSIST SOLELY OF THOSE WITH IMMIGRANTS IN THEIR SERVICE OR THOSE WITH LITTLE TO LOSE IN THE SHORT TERM IF IMMIGRATION CONTINUES AT HIGH LEVELS. AS THE DOCUMENT POINTS OUT, A DECISION IS RESPONSIBLE WHEN THOSE WHO MAKE THE DECISION HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES. I HAVE A FEW PRELIMINARY COMMENTS ON THIS DRAFT AND HAVE DISPERSED THEM THROUGHOUT. IF ANYONE HAS SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO ACCESS THE #FORUM-POPULATION FROM THE INTERNET, I WOULD APPRECIATE GETTING THE INFO. In message <9501290059.AA08706@ivy.cs.ucdavis.edu> Rick Crawford writes: > From: mike.mccloskey@sfsierra.sierraclub.org > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 94 14:52:45 > To: > #Forum-Population__Policy__at__Sierra-Club-SF_at_Sierra-Club-SF@sfsierra.sierr > aclub.org, > george.coling@sfsierra.sierraclub.org, crawford@cs.ucdavis.edu, > karen.kalla@sfsierra.sierraclub.org > Subject: discussion paper on migration > > > October ll, l994 > > > Robbie Cox has suggested that I put this draft proposal into the > Forum on Population/Immigration. I prepared it on the request of > Club Vice President for Conservation, Joni Bosh, who wanted me to > see whether there was any way to get the club's Ethnic Diversity Task > Force and Population Committees together on a common draft. > PERHAPS IT WOULD ALSO HELP FOR THESE TWO GROUPS TO COMMUNICATE THEIR SPECIFIC CONCERNS DIRECTLY TO EACH OTHER SO THAT WE COULD BETTER UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER'S POSITIONS. IS THIS WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE FORUM? > I worked with staff for the two committees in the Washington,D.C. > office to see what they thought might work with these two committees. I > started out with a draft reflecting more of the thinking of the Population > Committee and then modified it enough to get the support of the Ethnic > Diversity Task Force (though officially they are still deciding whether to > endorse it or something like it). Instead of commenting on this > draft, Frank Orem preferred to focus on perfecting his committee's > draft. Thus, this effort did not succeed in bridging the differences, > but it does reflect one stab at blending the thinking emanating from > these two committees. > > It also provides a rationale for a somewhat different approach that > would address migrations everywhere as impacting on local carrying > capacities. But it would do so in the context of blending carrying capacity > considerations with social factors. > > We would be interested in reactions. Thanks. > > > > > > Second Draft > > M. McCloskey > August 8, l994 > > > PROPOSED POLICY ON MIGRATION TO SUPPLEMENT > OTHER POLICY STATEMENTS ON POPULATION > > Resolution: > THE FIRST SENTENCE HITS ONE OF THE NAILS ON THE HEAD. > > Problems of an over-populated planet are not fundamentally solved > when people move from one place to another. Prime emphasis must be > placed on stabilizing the size of human populations, family planning > through culturally sensitive means, and providing reproductive health > care so as to bring human numbers over time into alignment with > environmental constraints. > > Migration per se must be viewed in context, considering all relevant > environmental and social consequences of people moving from one place > to another, both within and between nations (see attached guidelines for > factors which must be taken into account). > > Public policies to deal with migrations should reflect assessments of > the net effects of specific patterns of migration, taking all environmental and > social factors into account. Public policy should accord migrants civil > rights and liberties under international law, should be non-discriminatory in > nature, should arise out of open decision-making, and should employ fair > and humane means of enforcement. THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH DOES NOT MENTION NATIONAL LAW, AND I BELIEVE THAT SOVEREIGN NATIONS STILL HAVE SOME CONTROL IN THIS AREA. CIVIL RIGHTS NORMALLY REFER TO CIVILIAN/CITIZENS OF A NATION DON'T THEY? I BELIEVE THAT NATIONS ARE STILL DEMANDING AND RECEIVING SOVEREIGNTY OVER ISSUES DEALING WITH POPULATION CONTROL AND IMMIGRATION. WITHOUT GOING INTO THE REASONS WHY, SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT WE SEEM TO BE THE ONLY NATION WITH ANY SQUEAMISHNESS ABOUT THE IDEA OF CONTROLLING OUR BORDERS. > > The prime focus of public policy must be on alleviating the underlying > causes which produce pressures to migrate: over-population, poverty, > poor conditions for health, environmental degradation, oppression, political > instability, strife, and the absence of democracy and good government. > Highly developed nations must also address underlying factors which attract > migrants (such as opportunities for excessive consumption). > THE DEGREE OF CAUSATION OF THE ABOVE LISTED FACTORS NEEDS TO BE FIRMLY GROUNDED. CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION. FOR EXAMPLE, DEMOCRACY WOULD NEED TO BE DEFINED AND EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ITS INCLUSION SHOULD BE AVAILABLE. > Background > > This approach to policy-making for the Sierra Club is proferred as > an alternative to drafts that have long been discussed by the club's > Population Committee and its Task Force on Ethnic Diversity. > > Instead of looking at the issue from the standpoint of trying to manage > conditions in the U.S. and Canada alone, it looks at the issue in a broad > international context. Moreover, it recognizes that similar issues arise > both within and between countries, depending on their size. It also > perceives that the issues are exceedingly complex and must be viewed > through a number of lenses of human concern--social as well as > environmental. Because of this complexity, it contemplates situations > where sometimes it will make sense to encourage migration (as away from > environmentally limited habitats) and other cases where migration should > be discouraged. WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT BUT LOOKING AT THE ISSUE FROM A BROAD INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT MAY HAVE THE EFFECT OF CREATING PARALYSIS DUE TO THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM. IT MAY ALSO DIVERT OUR ATTENTION AND RESOURCES AWAY FROM THE AREA WE HAVE THE MOST CONTROL OVER - OUR LOCAL ENVIRONMENT. KEEPING IN MIND THE EARLIER DEFINITION OF RESPONSIBILITY AND EXAMPLES FROM VIRGINIA ABERNETHY'S WORK CONCERNING THE POSITIVE CORRELLATION (NOT CAUSATION) BETWEEN FERTILITY RATE AND ABILITY TO MIGRATE, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD ENTERTAIN THE IDEA THAT THERE IS ANY LONGTERM PEACEFUL AND SUSTAINABLE ADVANTAGE TO ENCOURAGING MIGRATION. IT IS PRECISELY MIGRATION THAT HAS CAUSED SO MUCH CONFLICT OVER THE CENTURIES. > > Because the world is now over-populated, success cannot be achieved > by dividing up all of the world into control units and positing that none > of them can have populations exceeding carrying capacities. Some are > bound to have excess numbers because there are already too many people, > and everybody now born must live somewhere on this planet. Thus, > from a universal standpoint it is not possible to allocate populations > in terms of ideal ratios of population numbers to places. I DISAGREE. I THINK IT IS ESSENTIAL TO DETERMINE THE CARRYING CAPACITY OF BOTH THE WORLD AND OF LOCALITIES. IF ALL LOCALITIES ARE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR MOVING TOWARD THEIR CARRYING CAPACITIES (THEY ARE NATURALLY AND DIRECTLY THE RESPONSIBLE UNIT, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY CAN MAKE THE DECISION) THE ENTIRE WORLD WILL MOVE TOWARDS ITS CARRYING CAPACITY. WHO ELSE CAN MAKE THE DECISION WHO WILL ALSO HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES? I HATE TO BRING IT UP, BUT SAYING THAT "EVERYONE NOW BORN MUST LIVE SOMEWHERE" IS PROBABLY CONTRARY TO THE LAWS OF NATURE. STRIKE THE "MUST' AND TELL US HOW LONG. > Moreover, the strict logic of carrying capacities only works with closed > systems. However, the increasing globalization of economies is moving us > toward a multiplicity of open systems, as far as nation-states are concerned. > Increasingly, there is one global system as far as the movement of energy, > materials and wastes involved with support of human populations. Thus, > one must take a more systemic approach keyed to the one closed system > that operates, which is at the global level. > OK, BUT WHAT GOVERNMENT EXISTS TO DISTRIBUTE ENERGY, MATERIALS AND WASTE IN THE WORLD SYSTEM AND WHO WILL ACCEPT ITS LEGITIMACY? WHEN WILL THE DEBATE OVER AN ADEQUATE LIFESTYLE BEGIN? THE INCREASING GLOBALIZATION AND INCREASING INEQUITY IS AT LEAST IN PART DRIVEN BY UNSUSTAINABLE POPULATIONS AT CURRENT CONSUMPTION LEVELS. IF AN AREA IS GROSSLY OVERPOPULATED AT EVEN MINIMAL CONSUMPTION LEVELS, DOES THAT POPULATION THEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO COME LIVE WHERE YOU DO? DO YOU INVITE THE HOMELESS AND THE UNDOCUMENTEDS IN TO SIT AT YOUR OWN TABLE? > This draft does not purport to serve as a complete statement on the > subject of population stabilization. Rather it is designed to supplement > more complete policy statements on the question, both existing and > proposed. > > Moreover, it assumes that any broad policy statement of this sort needs > to be applied in various jurisdictions (e.g., states/provinces, U.S. and > Canada, internationally). For those entities, subsequent efforts must be > mounted to apply the policy to given circumstances. This statement is > merely designed to provide a broad policy framework to guide such efforts. > Thus, it contemplates a three-part approach: (l) broad population policies; > (2) this component on migration; and (3) later amplifications, for instance, > for the United States (which may involve public policy issues of the moment). > > Proposed Guidelines > > In assessing the net impact of given migrations, the following factors, > among others, should be taken into account: > > l. ENVIRONMENTAL > > a. whether the new area has the capacity, within environmental > constraints, to support the migrants, taking into account: > > ...the remaining capacity in the receiving area and whether the > population in this area is otherwise growing or declining; > > ...and whether the migration into the area is balanced by migration > out of it; >HOW DOES "REMAINING CAPACITY" RELATE TO QUALITY OF LIFE? IF YOU CAN SUPPORT ANOTHER HUMAN BODY IN AN AREA, DOES THAT MEAN YOU SHOULD? WHERE DO THE REST OF THE SPECIES ON THIS EARTH FIT IN THE DEFINITION OF "REMAINING CAPACITY?" > b. appraisal of the net environmental effects of the migration; > this involves comparison of the environmental impacts of living in the > old versus the new environment, which in turn entails: LETS NOT FORGET THE NO INCREASE IN POPULATION OPTION IN OUR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. ALSO, REMEMBER THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF MIGRATION LEADS TO MORE BIRTHS IN BOTH THE OLD AND NEW ENVIRONMENTS. WILL YOU BE ASKING THE PEOPLE IN THE ROCKIES TO GIVE UP THEIR SALAMANDER SO THAT A TOAD MAY LIVE IN CHIAPAS? IF SO, WHAT GUARANTEE DO YOU HAVE THAT THE POPULATION IN CHIAPAS WILL THEREBY NOT CONTINUE TO INCREASE AND THAT THE TOAD WILL INDEED SURVIVE? > (l) a comparison of the drain on resources and energy of living in the > old and new places; > > (2) a comparison of the relative pollution loadings per capita in > the two places; > > (3) a comparison of the impacts of the migration on reducing or > increasing congestion and dis-amenities in the two places; > > (4) a comparison of the costs of providing needed infrastructure > in the two places and whether any abandonment is likely; > > (5) these comparisons should also take into account the following > offsetting factors: > > ...whether those migrating were suffering from under-consumption > (i.e., debilitating poverty); > > ...what the impacts of continuing to live in the old place would > have been if developmental trends continued; > > ...and whether success might be achieved in reducing tendencies > toward over-consumption and waste in the new place. OVER-CONSUMPTION REMAINS UNDEFINED. ALSO, THE FIRST TWO "OFFSETTING FACTORS" ABOVE TEND TO DISCOUNT THE IDEA OF RESPONSIBILITY PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED AND LISTED UNDER sec I. ENVIRONMENTAL f. HOWEVER, IF ONE CAN PROVE THAT, FOR INSTANCE, THE PRESENT INHABITANTS OF THE WESTERN INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS HAVE CAUSED THE CREATION OF SAY 1.5 - 2 BILLION IMPOVERISHED PEOPLE IN LESS DEVELOPED NATIONS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR ACTIONS, UNDER THE RESPONSIBILITY DEFINITION, IT WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE NOT TO "LIVE" WITH THEM. GOOD LUCK. > > b. assessment of the impact of the migration on both rates and volumes > of consumption and population growth over time by the progeny of > those migrating; > > > c. the implications the migration has on setting proper models of > sustainable living and sound stewardship; e.g.: > > ...will migrating encourage "fouling nests" and then moving on; > (e.g., are the migrants people who are nest foulers, or are they > merely victims of situations controlled by others); what impact > does the possibility of migration have on the desire of exploiters > to leave "dead zones"; WILL MIGRATING ALLOW THOSE WHO ARE VICTIMS AN OPTION THAT IS EASIER THAN FIGHTING THOSE WHO VICTIMIZE THEM, THUS ALLOWING THE VICTIMIZATION AND MIGRATION TO CONTINUE ENDLESSLY? > ...will migration encourage patterns of living sustainably within > the natural constraints of given habitats, or does it encourage > huge imports of outside resources to maintain artifical standards > of living; > > d. whether the migration is designed to move those leaving into a more > or less sustainable pattern of life; > > e. whether the migration undermines or obviates making > > commitments to stabilizing population growth among those involved > and in the jurisdiction from which they are leaving? > > f. and whether the migration affects relationships that promote > responsible conduct (i.e., whether those who make decisions affecting > the environment have to live with the consequences). THIS IS REALLY A KEY FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED IN ANY ACTION OR DECISION. > > 2. SOCIAL > > Social factors would involve weighing and balancing equities, taking > > into account such considerations as: > > a. whether those who wish to migrate are the victims of oppression; > (e.g., whether they are oppressed minorities); AND WHETHER VICTIMS OF OPPRESSION SHOULD FIGHT THEIR OPPRESSORS TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT OF JUSTICE. YOU NEED NOT LOOK FAR TO FIND MANY VICTIMS OF VARIOUS FORMS OF OPPRESSION. OF THESE THERE ARE PERHAPS 3 - 4 BILLION. > b. whether their migration will do greater injustice, which is not > avoidable, to those who are adversely impacted in the new location; > (e.g., depressing wages for unskilled labor or imposing undue > financial burdens); I HAD BEEN UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT CITIZENS, THOSE BELONGING TO THE NATIONAL GROUPING, WHETHER IMPOVERISHED, OPPRESSED OR NOT, HAD FIRST PRIORITY TO THE SHARING OF LARGESSE. IF YOU LOOK FOR JUSTICE, AND INTEND TO SHARE THE NATIONAL RESOURCES, THEN FIRST INSTITUTE JUSTICE AND EQUITY AT HOME. FAILING THAT, THEN ENSURE THAT THE COST OF MIGRATION IS BORNE BY THOSE WHO HAVE, NOT BY THOSE WHO DO NOT. > c. whether there is any way to rationally and fairly distribute refugees > from injustice or catastrophe among potential new locations?; IT'S A NO-BRAINER TO SEE THAT THE CURRENT NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF COSTS, WHETHER BY STATE OR BY CLASS IS NOT FAIR OR RATIONAL. > d. the values (e.g., energy, initiative and cultural richness) and > skills that the migrants would bring to another place; also the social > impact of withdrawing those values and skills from the place of > origin; I FAIL TO SEE THE NEED FOR THE ABOVE SECTION. WHAT IS CULTURAL RICHNESS? CLITORECTOMY? IS NOT INITIATIVE ANOTHER WORD FOR MOTIVATION? POVERTY COUPLED WITH OPPORTUNITY IS MOTIVATNG. WHY NOT PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PEOPLE (BLACK, BROWN, YELLOW, AND WHITE) WHO ARE ALREADY HERE? ENERGY CAN BE DIRECTLY LINKED TO MOTIVATION. MOTIVATION TO BECOME A SUPERCONSUMER, TO LEARN THE RULES OF EXPLOITATION, OR TO CREATE A SUSTAINABLE RESPONSIBLE SOCIETY? > e. compassionate concerns in re-uniting families and relatives; JUST ASK THE PEOPLE IN WAUSAU, WISCONSIN. > f. the comparative injustices suffered by those competing to gain > > admission to a new place; > > g. the desire of those who share the same religious tradition, or > other affinities, to gather together; ASK ISRAEL ABOUT THE RIGHT OF RETURN. > > h. whether the new location affords a secure, congenial place to live > for the migrants; > > i. whether the migration will increase border tensions and reduce civil > liberty in affected places in ways that cannot be avoided; > > j. whether migration increases or decreases social justice and > democracy in the place being left and in the new place; and VERY IMPORTANT. THE HISTORY OF IMMIGRATION IS THE HISTORY OF EXPLOITATION AND HAS BEEN USED CONTINUOUSLY TO KEEP MARGINALIZED WORKERS MARGINALIZED. > k. whether the receiving place owes a social debt to the place from > which the migrants would come because of unfair or burdensome > foreign policies? (e.g., if our companies exploit and deplete the > natural resources of a given place, then we in concscience should > provide a home for environmental refugees from there); THE SOCIAL DEBT BUSINESS IS A DIFFICULT SELL INTERNATIONALLY DUE TO THE PROPENSITY OF PEOPLES TO OPPRESS THEIR OWN PEOPLE AND DEPLETE THEIR OWN RESOURCES FOR THE SAKE OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS. AND WHO OWES? > l. whether there are places that are willing to admit migrants under > their laws? NOT MANY OTHER COUNTRIES BESIDES US. > ### IF YOU RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. I APOLOGIZE FOR ANY DUPLICATE MESSAGES YOU MAY HAVE RECEIVED IN THE PAST. I AM JUS LEARNING THE NEW SOFTWARE AND HOW TO NEGOTIATE THE INTERNET. CHRISTOPHER CHRISTIE --- end forwarded text