April 25, 2005

13% of Sierra Club members support massive immigration

The AP reports that Sierra Club members have voted down an immigration-related provision sponsored by Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization. None of the five SUSPS candidates for the Club's board were elected either.

However, only 16% of the Club's members voted, and 84% voted for the status quo. Thus, only about 13% of the Club's members decided this issue.

The Sierra Club elections were last discussed in this post. If you read that and the current AP article, you'll see that they repurposed what is probably a convenient lie from the Sierra Club:

Opponents, including many current and former club leaders, argued that wading into the politics of immigration would alienate allies such as labor unions and civil rights groups, and will not slow population growth worldwide.

In the earlier post I discussed one David Gelbaum, who gave the Sierra Club Foundation over $100 million. Here's a quote from him:

"I did tell Carl Pope [Executive Director of the Sierra Club] in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me..."

In that spirit, allow me to annotate this quote from Sierra Club president Larry Fahn with my own personal opinion:

"Our member$ have once again di$played great wi$dom and made their view$ perfectly clear... Now we can put our focu$ back where it i$ needed mo$t, into $trengthening communitie$ and building alliance$ to protect our environment for our familie$ and our future."

Posted to Immigration2005a at April 25, 2005 10:09 PM

Comments

Deciding what is worse here, the sheer craven political correctness, or the blanket absurdity of an environmental organization failing to take a stand opposing massive, population swelling immigration, is left as an exercise.

Bonus question: Explain what immigration reduction has to do with "civil rights".

Posted by: eh at April 26, 2005 08:11 AM