Jonathan Nadle and John F. Rohe: Finding common ground on immigration

In a surprising development, the co-authors of this article have become friends.

Surprising because Jonathan’s organization, Group Against Smog and Pollution (GASP), decided last year to decline further funding from Colcom Foundation, John’s employer and a major funder. The decision was made over concerns about Colcom-funded groups that seek reduced immigration. Although we hadn’t yet met, this put the two of us in an awkward situation, mirroring the national debate on this deeply contentious issue.

We agreed to meet. Over the past year we have had frequent, thoughtful discussions on immigration policy and environmental issues. We discovered a shared environmental ethic, lifelong Democratic party affiliation, an analytical education background, and immigrant parents and grandparents.

U.S. immigration policy has long been polarizing and immigration levels have varied dramatically. In recent decades, legal immigration has hovered above 1 million annually, historically high. Opponents of President Trump’s immigration policies and rhetoric argue they’ve been divisive and harsh. Supporters believe he is addressing an important issue needing more attention.

We believe Americans generally support a middle path, one often drowned out by the extremes. National polls consistently show public support for immigrants, rejecting their demonization. But the public also supports humanely secured borders to reduce illegal immigration, as well as reasonable legal immigration limits — for reasons having nothing to do with fear, prejudice or hate.

Why be concerned about the level of immigration at all? Why seek to control it? The issue ultimately comes down to the notions of natural limits and finite resources. Our environmental backgrounds place us firmly in the “limits” camp.

Federal census data shows current U.S. population at 331 million. The Pew Research Center projects an increase of 117 million in five decades, with 103 million (88%) of that growth attributable to immigrants and their descendants.

At some point, population size overwhelms local systems. Land, ecosystems, habitats, biodiversity, air and water are not infinitely resilient. Noted environmentalist Edward Abbey cautioned, “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell.” Economist and philosopher Kenneth Boulding observed, “Anyone who believes in indefinite growth … on a physically finite planet, is either mad or an economist.”

Supporters of continued high immigration point to vast tracts of thinly settled western land as open for expansion, saying U.S. population could hit 1 billion before equaling the population density of Europe — although 660 million is the actual equivalent. Much of that land is arid, unlike Europe’s fertile lands. Also, population growth isn’t evenly distributed. People tend to cluster in major coastal cities and towns, drawn by economic, social and cultural opportunities.

The current pandemic shows the vulnerabilities faced by densely populated urban centers like New York City. Greater density exacerbates congestion and susceptibility to opportunistic viruses.

Western states are grappling with climate change-driven droughts and water shortages. It’s predicted 40 states will face water shortages over the next decade. Can we sustainably provide enough food, energy and housing to a large, dense population? Will our few remaining intact forests and natural areas have the resilience to survive further human encroachment?

It’s true that cleaner, renewable energy has beneficially reduced our nation’s per capita carbon footprint. But green technology can’t save us unless we acknowledge and address the limits of growth. Despite per capita reductions, overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have not decreased. In other words, the improvements made by technology, conservation, etc., have been canceled out by our ever-increasing population.

While it’s true a new immigrant has a smaller carbon footprint than the typical U.S. citizen, it’s also true that, in absolute terms, more people require more land and consume more resources. One need only look to places like India, Bangladesh and the Philippines to see the harsh realities of overpopulation. Every four days the world adds a net 1 million additional people.

Limiting growth preserves resources and quality of life for all present and future Americans. Softening our carbon footprint allows a portion of the savings to be yielded to citizens in less privileged countries, providing a broader benefit.

We believe immigration policy must:

• Be compassionate, fair and respectful, acknowledging immigrants as people seeking better lives for themselves and their families.

• Stabilize immigration levels. The most recent presidential immigration commission was appointed by President Clinton and chaired by civil rights icon Barbara Jordan.

It recommended essentially eliminating illegal immigration and limiting legal immigration to about 550,000 per year. That annual number still receives broad public support and would remain the highest, consistent number of immigrants accepted by any country in the world.

• Determine appropriate immigration numbers for the various classifications, such as family members and workers, to advance the common good, not the corporate interests seeking to depress wages.

• Implement worker verification (E-Verify) to ensure that employers play by the rules.

• Ensure that reforms are comprehensive, combining reasonable legal limits, humane, consistent enforcement against illegal entry and a path to citizenship for deserving, undocumented persons, with special attention to “Dreamers.”

Any fair analysis of immigration must acknowledge the multiple “push factors” driving it. These include wars, civil strife, climate change and lack of economic opportunity — compounded by continued, unsustainably high population growth in developing countries. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees documents more than 70 million “forcibly displaced people” worldwide.

John, a former Peace Corps volunteer, saw firsthand the hardships endured in the developing world. His experiences confirmed the need for effective development policies supported by sufficient foreign assistance. The U.S. and developed world must help countries address these problems, not simply wall ourselves off and leave the rest of the world to fend for itself.

As progressive Democrats, we worry our party has largely ceded immigration issues to extremists at both ends of the political spectrum. But this should not be a partisan issue. Given the opportunity to have an informed, pro-immigrant, bipartisan conversation on immigration, our country may find more common ground than expected. We did.

John F. Rohe is vice president of the Colcom Foundation. Jonathan Nadle is president of the board of Group Against Smog and Pollution. The views expressed are those of the authors.