Apologies for mangled sentence above.

Intended:

My personal belief is that the US greatly benefits from both documented and undocumented immigrants. The most affluent (legal immigrants and permanent residents) obviously consume more per capita. Those without documents – as a group – tend to consume less per capita than the “papered”. For both groups, migration to the US results in increased per capita resource.

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/34256/

I read the first part of your three part series with interest and appreciation. Along with other eco-activists, I despised the racists who infiltrated the green/enivro communities and “movement” to push their hate and nativist crap. Glad you called ‘em out.

Nevertheless, we Americans – as a group – are among the most rapacious consumers on the planet [I’m told the citizens of Dubai and the UAE en toto may have aced us out in the global profigacy ratings, but haven’t seen confiriming stats.]

As relocation to the US from less developed nations predicts those taking up residence (and their kids) will draw closer to “American” levels of resource consumption, I can’t deny the fact that undocumented (and documented) immigrants only add to the diproportionate demand that we Americans already place upon global resources and global carrying capacity.

My personal belief is that the most affluent legal immigrants and permanent resident aliens consume the most. I have been told that the ratio of undocumented to “legal” immigrants is so high that – as a group – the (annual flux of) undocumented immigrants raises net global resource consumption more than dors the entire group of documented immigrants/resident aliens admittted to the US each year.

So I’m left with a conclusion which discomfits me and dismays my progressive eco-activist friends: the conclusion that the net effect of undocumented immigration is good for the US economy (in the ways you describe above) yet a net detriment to the biosphere.

If you could address this question (or point me to reputable studies which have sought to assess this question), I wold be most grateful.

Thanks!

I guess my main concern has been to build consensus about this issue in Liberal circles. If we’re able to do that, we’ll be able to dampen the impact it has right now, and take away an issue Republicans have been using to try and “divide and conquer” us.

Perhaps this distinction is the key, along with chrisc’s reframing ideas. Not sure…at first glance I can see many saying, “Oh you’re just playing with semantics…illegal, undocumented…whatever, they’re still breaking a law and deportation is the penalty instead of speeding ticket.” You know, stuff like that, but if as you’re saying, you apply the civil/criminal distinction to their own lives and the laws they’ve broken like speeding or jaywalking, then I could see it working.

I’ll have to work on this now and try it out! Thanks.

I think that is a BIG deal. A major law was broken with major democracy altering consequences.

I do not think that crossing a geopolitical boundary in order to provide one’s family with enough food so they do not starve to death is quite in the same category. And let’s remember that there have been migrants crossing the border from before it was even a border. Much of it is not only tolerated- but it is encouraged. If everyone who is undocumented were to be deported, the economy would collapse. The migrants situation is treated as political football-. Nobody really wants to stop it- they just want to toss it around for effect.