\norganizations “greenwashing”—using
\nenvironmental messaging to cloak anti-immigrant sentiments<\/a>. Publicly, the
\nmainstream environmental community has largely remained silent<\/a> on immigration
\nissues (with the exception of a couple of contentious debates in 2004<\/a> and 2005<\/a> that
\nsprang up around Sierra Club board elections). In this silence, anti-immigrant
\ngroups have co-opted the
\ngreen messaging<\/a> and started gaining public support from those who generally
\nascribe to environmental values. These groups suggest
\nthat limiting immigration<\/a> would be a good way to slow the population growth
\nof the U.S.—and without any prominent environmental voices countering them, they’ve had
\nplenty of room to make the case that immigration is a main driver of
\nenvironmental degradation.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
While their argument might sound green at first, it is far
\nfrom it. The argument blames individuals rather than focusing on the main
\ncauses of degradation—polluting industries, bad policies, and rampant
\nconsumption. Author Betsy Hartmann calls this “the greening of hate—blaming
\nenvironmental degradation on poor populations of color.”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
There are good reasons for environmentalists to be pro–immigrant
\nrights:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
First, people who are invested in and connected to their
\ncommunities are more likely to value things that will impact them and their
\nfamilies over the long term: clean water, clean air, parks and open spaces. When
\nour broken immigration system keeps families split apart for years—children
\nwithout parents, spouses without partners—their lives are marked by
\nimpermanence and uncertainty. It’s hard
\nto raise your children to be good environmental stewards when your family is always
\nwondering if they will still be in the same place tomorrow. If we care about healthy environments, then
\nwe need to care about making sure that families stay together, investing
\nthemselves in their communities and building stable futures. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Second, most environmental protections are funded by tax
\ndollars, and immigrants contribute a lot of those dollars. The 14 percent of U.S.
\nresidents who are foreign-born and the additional U.S. citizens who live in
\nmixed-status families foster environmental protection every day, by paying their
\ntaxes and contributing to economic growth that generates still more tax
\nrevenue.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Third, the demographics of our country are changing. We have
\na president who is the son of an immigrant. In recent elections, the votes of
\nnew Americans have been tipping outcomes—electoral power that will only
\ncontinue to grow. If the environmental
\nmovement were forward-thinking, we would be strategizing—like both the
\nRepublicans and Democrats—about how to court immigrant voters. For environmentalism to be relevant to the
\nfuture voters of America,
\nwe need to proactively seek to diversify our movement and connect with new
\nAmericans who could support pro-environment candidates and sustainable policies.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Fourth, in the coming years, immigration pressures are likely to increase as climate change disproportionately affects people living in developing countries. Environmentalists should help poorer nations adapt to the effects of climate change and work to develop compassionate immigration policies so those who must leave their homelands have a decent chance to rebuild their lives. To be effective, we must build partnerships within immigrant communities now so that we can address this future challenge. If we turn our backs on immigration reform, we are not just enabling but creating a future in which climate refugees become one more forgotten byproduct of an unjust political, social, and environmental system.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Finally, our global challenges are big enough that we need
\neveryone working together to solve them. Our movement should be about taking
\ncare of each other while taking care of the environment; we must act on these
\nvalues and advocate for the rights of our immigrant friends and neighbors.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Immigration reform and climate change are both poised to get
\nattention in Congress over the coming months. Is the environmental community going to engage in one debate and
\ncompletely ignore the other? <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I believe we environmentalists must take action on
\nimmigration reform. If we truly want to
\nbuild a long-term movement reflective of the entire United States, we need to
\nunderstand that immigrants are an essential part of the future. Unless we
\nrecognize the changing demographics of the country, support immigrant
\nintegration that helps people build stable and connected lives, and take an
\nactive role in promoting a more just immigration system, the relevance of the
\nenvironmental community—and our ability to affect real change—will never reach
\nits full potential. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I
\nhave three young nieces whose parents are raising them with strong
\nenvironmental values. I hope when they are
\nolder, they won’t find a divide between being pro-immigrant and
\npro-environment. Instead, I hope they
\nfind an environmental movement that promotes equity and justice for all and embraces
\nthe pro-immigrant culture on which this country was built.<\/p>\n
Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n Old growth, slow gain<\/a><\/p>\n Tech startup’s pollution detector aids enviro justice group<\/a><\/p>\n New cases of water pollution documented at U.S. coal ash dumps<\/a><\/p>\n