Greetings,
Please note that I am directing any population/environment correspondence
to my Yahoo address:
mjp...@yahoo.com.
Please find pasted below a summary of my trip last month to D.C. for a
series of population-group meetings.
Thanks for supporting this trip through your organizational budgets.
Mark
October 2011, Population
meetings in Washington,
D.C.
I attended a series of population-related
meetings on October
2nd, 3rd and 4th of 2011.
The first meeting was held by the Social Contract Press and had a sharp
focus on immigration, and especially on illegal immigration. Several of the
speakers were citizen activists and politicians who described their efforts to
pressure the appropriate authorities in their jurisdictions to enforce existing
laws regarding illegal immigrants. The Social Contract Press
meeting also included a number of presentations about media campaigns and social
media strategies. I found these segments informative, but
overall I felt a little uncomfortable at the Social Contract Press event because
of the focus on illegals, which in my mind put too much energy into the premise
that illegal immigrants are inherently bad people and should be
feared. I feel that this is not an effective strategy with
which to engage the American public. In contrast, there was
relatively little discussion of the overall impact of U.S. population growth and
its social and environmental impacts.
The second day’s meeting, hosted by the
Population Media Center, seemed much more in line with my own views. It
emphasized the concerns about population growth around the globe, but did not
shy away from addressing the impacts of U.S. population growth, of which
immigration, legal and illegal combined, is the largest
component. While some of the discussion addressed illegal immigration, this was
far less of a focus than it had been at the Social Contract Meeting.
The first presentation at the PMC event had a global focus.
A graduate student from the University of Hawaii shared insights from his multi-year
effort to determine the effectiveness of internationally recognized marine
sanctuaries in achieving their stated goals of protecting significant portions
of the marine environments. He found that the effectiveness of such programs
were greatly hampered by lack of enforcement and an inability of national
governments or international organizations to provide adequate resources to
truly protect these “sanctuaries.” Clearly, this was a very
important study, and it provided a strong rationale for all governments to
support programs aimed at slowing global population growth.
A series of speakers and presenters
followed. A panel of young Americans spoke of their interests
in population matters and attempted to convey to the group a sense of how best
to engage the interests and energies of their generation in addressing both
global and domestic population growth. It was clear that these young people were
exceptions among their peers, and that there remains a very challenging battle
ahead if we ever hope to get younger Americans to take stand on population
growth, especially the U.S. growth that is so largely driven by
immigration.
Another speaker addressed the efforts by some
on the left to characterize any efforts to reduce population growth, and most
notably efforts aimed at reducing U.S. immigration, as inherently racist. He
took particular issue with the Center for New Community, a Chicago-based
organization that has attacked some key figures, most notably John Tanton, and
tried to argue that because of this one individual’s modest role in the efforts
of many population groups, their arguments are all invalid and driven
exclusively by racial bigotry.
After lunch, I introduced the seven minute
version of my video challenging the Census Bureau’s misleading characterizations
of U.S. population as a “slowing of growth.” This served as a
seque into a discussion of the 1969 Environmental Protection Act
(NEPA). In the panel that discussed this topic, one woman
from Florida described her
efforts to require the federal government to prepare, in keeping with NEPA, an
environmental impact statement for U.S. immigration policy.
This was a fascinating discussion, and one that offers a germ of hope
that current policies might soon be facing a much more rigorous challenge than
anything we have seen thus far.
By this time, I had come under the influence
of a bad cold, and I had to skip out of the last two segments of this meeting
and also the screening of “Mother,” a film about the global
population’s imminent arrival at 7 billion people.
On the following morning, I was well enough to
return to the Kaiser Family Foundation building for a meeting of Progressives
for Immigration Reform. This was a more targeted group than
the PMC meeting hosted, but it was clearly more population-focused than the
Social Contract meeting had been. Compared to the Social Contract meeting this
group evidenced a higher respect for immigrants as people and focused less on
illegal immigration and more on immigration’s overall impact on population
growth. I was most inspired by Mr. Frank Morris, a former
Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus. Here
was a very stately and dignified African American speaking without inhibition of
the impact of the U.S. immigration policy on the millions of low-skilled,
low-income blacks throughout our country. I found it truly
compelling to see how strongly he was willing to state the truth, that the
overabundance of foreign workers in our country was having a devastating impact
on native-born African Americans. This is a man, and a message, that more
progressive Americans need to hear.
Submitted by Mark
Powell