Letters: Immigration issue takes off

Re “Rich bird-lover’s anti-immigration legacy has wings,” July 25

As an immigrant and an environmentalist, I’m appalled by the late heiress Cordelia Scaife May’s legacy of funding anti-immigration groups.

May’s belief that immigration fuels population growth and harms the environment is racist and outdated. A 2010 University of Pennsylvania study showed that Mexican immigrant fertility rates rapidly decline in subsequent generations, debunking previous reports of continued high population growth among Latinos. The Census Bureau recently lowered the U.S. growth forecast due to marked declines in births among immigrants.

Moreover, immigrants tend to be strong environmental advocates who fight polluters in their neighborhoods. A majority live in metropolitan areas, which have significantly lower per-capita carbon footprints than the rest of the country. They use public transportation and carpool more often than native-born residents.

We are part of the solution, not the problem.

Nora Hazi

Pacific Palisades

The article provides an interesting back story to the funding of groups concerned about immigration levels. However, I found the use of the terms “anti-immigration” and “anti-immigrant” offensive.

Accurate language is necessary when discussing immigration; “anti-immigrant” is no more responsible in describing Californians for Population Stabilization, NumbersUSA, FAIR and other such organizations than “anti-child” would be in describing Planned Parenthood.

Unless you are for an open borders policy, some restraint on numbers is necessary. We might argue about the proper number, but we are all for immigration regulation — we’re “anti-immigration,” to misuse your parlance.

Tim Aaronson

El Cerrito, Calif.

ALSO:

Letters: Sick over DWP’s pay policies

Letters: Big buildings in little Hollywood

Letters: Pope’s message for Brazil rings hollow