.
Feedback

Distasteful Political Ad of the Month

This thing really ticked me off

When this (actually, the fourth video down) came up on the news this morning I could only react, "Oh, my goodness!"

Since I watched it, you don't have to. In it, this Nice Young Man is trying to argue that immigration is dangerous to the environment.

Now, let that soak in for just a moment. He isn't saying "illegal immigration," he's saying "immigration" — as in all immigration. He throws in this bogus statistic about how immigrants (again, not illegal immigrants) produce four times as much carbon as they did in their home countries. Well, of course they do, dingleberry, most of them come from considerably less-industrial societies. What a stupid git.

If you should succumb to the temptation to look at their website, you will quickly perceive that this is not an environmentalist group. It really bothers me that this anti-immigration group (again, anti-all-immigration, not just improper immigration) is using Earth Day to try to make the association between environmental degradation and immigration, like they're trying to seduce the tree-huggers into sharing their somewhat troubling attitude. And as a CCTH (Certified California Tree Hugger) myself, I find it somewhat offensive; I refuse to be associated, even second-hand, with this 100% baloney attitude. (Racist? You judge).

I'm fairly liberal when it comes to the question of people who came to the U.S. over the back fence rather than through the front gate, but I can easily understand the point of view of those more hard-core than I when it comes to "illegal immigration." But that's not what these guys are about.

I don't want to waste my energy, or yours, on a refutation of their argument; it seems obvious to me. If that attitude is informed by the fact that my Mom was born in Poland and my Dad's parents in Ukraine, well, there you go. "We came here from someplace else, but you can't." Sounds infantile, really. This reminds me of , or that bumper sticker you sometimes see up North, "Welcome to Oregon, Now Go Home." But those were meant to be sardonic.

Happy Earth Day.

Mark Irons April 20, 2012 at 12:40 pm
I'm rushing this a.m. Jeff, so I've just skimmed your post but I want to mention that not long ago there was a faction Malthusians in Sierra Club who were pushing a similar platform .
Frances Montell April 20, 2012 at 03:10 pm
It is indisputable that global population growth has environmental implications. But to claim that people born into poor countries don't have a right to the same standard of living we enjoy in the U.S. of A. is just plain wrong. How 'bout these anti-immigration people tell us what *else* they are doing to protect the environment, since they are obviously so concerned about it.
Jeff Mark April 20, 2012 at 04:30 pm
Yeah, I heard of those guys.
(1) They're wrong. (See #3) (2) There is a distinction to be made, I think, between an environmental group making a (flawed) argument against immigration and an anti-immigration group using BS statistics in an attempt to cozy up to environmentalists. (Frances had some appropriate snark.) (3) That they called themselves "Malthusians" is telling. Malthus was wrong. Food production can increase exponentially (or close enough) and human populations can restrain their own increase. I think human — including cultural — diversity is exactly analogous to species diversity and habitat diversity. Thanx, Mark.
Dee Lonn April 20, 2012 at 06:37 pm
This is just all kinds of wrong.
Jaan Carter April 20, 2012 at 09:02 pm
Seems to me if we don't get it together pretty soon, it's going to be a case of folks like us hoping we can figure out how to live well... the way the third world folks live now.
Jeff Mark April 21, 2012 at 01:57 am
The point Mark raises deserves to be expanded upon, now that I've had a chance to think about it a little more.
The point seems to be that some environmentalists oppose all immigration. That's a fact. But I don't believe it's the position of any mainstream group. I think the argument itself is fallacious at its core, and based on a human-phobic assumption. I rely on first principles; to argue that there need to be culverts for turtles to migrate through under border fences preventing human migration seems self-contradictory. For those poor deluded folks, the primary objective is constructive environmental policy. They are arguing against immigration in the employ of that primary objective; they believe that limiting immigration will protect the environment. For the even-more-deluded CAPS folks, however, the primary objective is limiting immigration. If they wanted to *mirror* the environmentalists' argument, they would use an environmental argument in the employ of *their* primary objective. They could argue, for example, that constructive environmental policy contributes to reduced immigration. (And they might have a case to make.) But that's not what they do. They don't mirror the environmentalists' argument, they parrot it back at them. They're trying to say, "We agree with you on the environment, so you should agree with us on immigration." It's the difference between naiveté and mendacity. Thanks, Mark for giving me an excuse to clarify my thoughts.
Jeff Mark April 26, 2012 at 01:30 pm
This ad caught the eye of the fine folks at the Colbert Report:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/413205/april-25-2012/the-word---united-we-can-t-stand-them
Mark Irons April 26, 2012 at 02:12 pm
Wow Jeff, that is top ten for hysterical word play on Colbert. Amazing how well satire can cut to the point. There was an interview on the Daily Show of an Arizona school board member about their ban on Hispanic history classes, supposedly because the curriculum included stuff about white people stealing the land from Mexico. In short it was anti-Caucasian. Yikes.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Alameda Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Harve Coats June 14, 2013 at 09:17 pm
Woke me from a dead sleep. Sounded like 6 or 9 gun shots north of Melrose on Maitland DR.
David Howard June 15, 2013 at 02:08 pm
APD said they found no evidence of gun shots and suspect fireworks.Read More http://www.action-alameda-news.com/2013/06/09/fourth-of-july-public-service-announcement/
JSanders June 17, 2013 at 11:55 am
When they build that high density development on the Harbor Bay Club site with 25% low incomeRead More housing requirement, Bay Farm will be hearing a lot more gun shots at night.
Analisa Harangozo (Editor) June 12, 2013 at 11:42 am
So sad to see. Did you report this to East Bay Regional Park District? I provided the number in yourRead More last posting.
Lorraine Sarullo June 12, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Yes, I reported it to the EBRP staff who happened to be nearby at the beach. I also reported it toRead More the warden of Fish and Wildlife in Sacramento and the warden of the local territory. The local warden told me yesterday that he will be patrolling the area, but I did not get to speak to him today (only left both wardens a voicemail message).
Analisa Harangozo (Editor) June 12, 2013 at 04:11 pm
Nice, thanks for the update, and sharing these posts with us, Lorraine. If it is a person behind allRead More of this, hopefully he/she will get caught soon.
Carol Parker June 12, 2013 at 12:00 pm
Anonymous tip to the fire department?
quietneeded June 12, 2013 at 04:17 pm
Leaving a note to them is a bad idea if it really is a illegal operation. So many ways that can goRead More wrong. Just call the police dept. Leave a tip. Simple and safe.
Analisa Harangozo (Editor) June 13, 2013 at 09:03 am
Agree with Carol. Perhaps an anonymous tip to Alameda Fire or Alameda Police.
Alex Gronke (Editor) June 11, 2013 at 07:35 am
My condolences to Mort's family. This was a man who had a rich, full life. Thank you for sharing.
Nay June 11, 2013 at 09:24 am
Given the targeted harvesting of parts, this is not a "times are hard and food is scarce"Read More issue. It's greedy, ignorant, and yes it's disgusting and disrespectful to nature. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/2012/01/17/manta-rays-endangered-by-sudden-demand-from-chinese-medicine/
Lorraine Sarullo June 11, 2013 at 04:13 pm
Thank you both (Nay and Analisa) for the information. Maybe I got the name of the park serviceRead More mixed up. It was the beach area around Grand St.
Lorraine Sarullo June 11, 2013 at 11:18 pm
I contacted Crown Beach (part of the EBRP). They checked into the matter with Fish and WildlifeRead More (previously Fish and Game), to see if there was any wrongdoing. On the surface of things, it seems the wings (fins) are the edible part of the ray. And apparently, the way regulations are written it may not be even be considered littering! So, however inhumane, disrespectful, selfish, gruesome it may seem, there may not have been any fishing laws broken. Although, when I spoke with the warden of Fish and Wildlife he said he will be looking into the matter. To voice your opinion and propose changes to regulation, you can write a letter to and attend a Fish and Game Commission town hall meeting here is the link: http://www.fgc.ca.gov/contact/ and http://www.fgc.ca.gov/meetings/2013/index.aspx I plan on writing to suggest regulation against polluting public beaches with unused portions of the catch from fishing and also ask for recommendations on limiting the catch on fish that only have small percentage of edible parts (such as the rays). I would welcome any help in a letter writing campaign, the contact information is listed on the link provided above. Many Thanks.