Saturday, April 29, 2006

Immigration

I was speaking with a bunch of greens tother day and the topic of immigration came up. Immigration has been in the news lately because of the Conservative appointment of Encana's X-executive and from a bunch of Liberal candidates. So I suppose it was predictable that some greens would have it on their minds, too.

I was a little surprised at how ungreen the immigration ideas were. Or, so as not to say ungreen, surprised at how orthodox and commonplace the immigration ideas were. If greens want to be known as having more than simply an environmental policy then perhaps a bit of applied green thinking in other areas (such as immigration) will be necessary.

From listening to the others debate immigration it would have been impossible for a remote listener to know it was a debate amongst greens.

It is not really their fault. The last GPC platform had a blanket illegal immigrant forgiveness plank. That has been done a couple of times before that I can remember. It is more of a bureaucratic assist than anything else. "Official" green policy is to reduce the "need" of immigration -- a bit ambiguous, that. I understand that to mean by reducing wars in the world then the need of immigration would be reduced. And it is also "official" that Quebec be allowed greater say over immigration policy -- this not being particularly descriptive of what the actual policy would be.

I swim upstream in thinking when everybody else is floating downstream and drinking beer and generally having fun. I think green immigration policy should be demonstrably green in statement. I'll tell you immigration should NOT be:
- bring in rich people: growth for the sake of growth is not green; and
- leech skilled professionals from less developed countries: they need them.
Aren't these green precepts?

What immigration should do is:
- recognized a net IMPROVED global footprint; and
- recognized the desireability of uniting families.
So we should be bringing in parents and grandparents, cousins and uncles, of existing landed immigrants. We should be bringing in refugees to balance the footprint tune when rich Canadians leave for tax-free havens or other countries.

I don't recognize economically driven immigration as valid.

It is easy to train doctors (despite what THEY may tell you).
If there is a shortage of unskilled workers then "immigrate" what you can according to a net lower footprint but otherwise make the economy adapt to a new reality -- less people must do more, business will adapt. Or the economy will change. Either way, it's good.

Greenish thinking. Different, yet green.


As for what values .. ? Well, gee, I have to pull out my handy-dandy reference guide:

Preamble: closing gap between rich and poor; rights to cultural life; asserting the need for changes in people's attitudes.
Principle #2 - Social Justice: equitable distribution of social resources; opportunities for social development; close gap between rich and poor; citizenship based on rights.
Principle #5 - Sustainability: limiting the material expansion of human society; ensure the rich limit consumption and allow the poor their fair share.
Principle #6 - Respect for Diversity: rights of minorities to develop culture with full social participation.
Political Action #1 - Democracy: challenge corporate domination of government especially wrt political participation.
Political Action #4 - Biodiversity: reduce the transport of goods around the world.
Political Action #8 - Sustainable Planning: promote measures of well-being rather than GDP; consumption in industrialised countries is excessive by any measure.
Political ACtion # 10 - Acting Locally: show leadership in establishing policies that meet the challenges of sustainable development.

Therefore, I submit that immigration is a moral imperative so it cannot be done away with entirely; that it should be based upon basic human values rather than sterile, nihilistic corporate values; that it should strive for a reduced net global footprint in accordance with putative sustainable precepts; that it support family and community over GDP considerations; and that it should promote and support green thinking.


Canbarra Document of International Green Values


1 comments:

  1. A more restrictive immigration policy had been taken for granted as sound environmental policy for a long time, and for good reason. People coming into the US, for instance, tend to increase their consumption and "carbon footprint" dramatically.

    But something of a surrender has taken place; The Sierra Club made a big deal out of getting out of the immigration debate, declaring racist, well, anything other than the policy suggested by the US Chamber of Commerce, La Raza and the Democratic Party, all of whom have their own interests at stake.

    Of course, the problem of immigration enhances the greater problem we have--trying to green the earth with a global economy that is based on growth--in population and consumption.

    Most greens here in the States are also liberal Democrats or further left, yet they routinely characterize skepticism about the current economic model (not directed at corporations and Republicans) as something like bigotry-driven autarky.
    Thus they perpetuate two goals in direct opposition to one another: increasing the number of working class Americans to establish electoral primacy, and "greening" the economy. Why does no one call them on it?

    ReplyDelete