Does immigration hurt the environment? No, says Brit paper the Guardian
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
Guardian writer Ben Whitford takes a swipe today at anti-immigration groups who are trying to tempt the environmental lobby into their camp through a series of ads running in U.S. media that claim illegal immigrants hurt the environment.
Whitford says that, in fact, illegal immigrants themselves have little significant effect on the quality of the environment and that studies show that, as a group they contribute least to congestion because they’re more likely to carpool or use public transport. He also points out that:
‘Three of the five groups behind the current campaign are listed as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Centre’s Intelligence Project for their ties to white supremacists and their promotion of racist conspiracy theories. It’s hardly surprising, then, that many of the ads’ claims are best taken with a hefty pinch of salt.’
As for the border fence -- which of course is at the center of the immigration debate in the United States -- well, there’s no doubt that is causing environmental damage, but isn’t that a policy decision, rather than the fault of the immigrants themselves?
The security fence being built along America’s southern border slices through a number of key wildlife refuges, preventing the migration of animals such as black bears, grey wolves and jaguars. A study by the Mexican government found that the border fence would put as many as 85 endangered plant and animal species at heightened risk, in violation of a 1983 conservation agreement between the US and Mexico. That’s apparently of little concern to the Bush administration. Homeland security chief Michael Chertoff has routinely waived environmental regulations in order to hasten the wall’s construction.
Read the rest of Whitford’s Guardian piece here.
-- Deborah Bonello in Mexico City