No Excuses For Forsaking Fundamentals Such As Intellectual Honesty
Opposition Members were singing the refrain, “Na Na Na Na, Hey, Hey Good-Bye” to the Liberal Government on Monday. As Canadians know, the singing was a response to polls that show the governing Liberals plummeting as a result of accepting kickbacks from participants in the sponsorship scandal.
But forsaking fundamentals such as honesty on money matters, as well as forsaking intellectual honesty on other matters such as immigration, is something that a number of elected officials (including MP's of all federal parties, not just the Liberals), have to do something about, says Immigration Watch Canada.
Despite the abundance of evidence that clearly contradicts current high immigration intake, and the absence of research to support it, none of the four main political parties currently takes a strong stand to correct the dishonesty.
Most openly perpetuate the dishonesty.
Elected officials are not alone in their intellectual dishonesty. Environmental groups in Canada and the U.S. should have acted as a good example on how to handle the issue of high immigration intake. Pretending that millions of new immigrants are environmentally neutral in Canada and the U.S., as both environmental groups and elected officials have done, is hypocritical, to say the least. Obviously, the fact that one group does it, does not make it right for another group to follow suit.
No matter how much the truth gets twisted, the total environmental impact in any country will always be the average individual's impact on the environment multiplied by the number of people.
Here are some reasons why environmental groups have forsaken such a fundamental and are guilty of abandoning the fundamental of intellectual honesty. (Elected officials should take note.) The following are part of a research document (Forsaking Fundamentals) prepared for the U.S. Center For Immigration Studies by Leon Kolankiewicz and Roy Beck:
(1) DROPPING FERTILITY: By 1972, the fertility rate in the U.S. had declined, naturally and without coercion, to a level low enough to eventually produce zero population growth, as long as immigration remained reasonably low. Many Americans, including environmentalists, … mistakenly concluded that the population problem was solved. Support for organizations which focused on population began to drift away. (Support has not returned despite the prediction that by 2050, U.S. population may reach 500 million, largely as a result of immigration.)
(2) ANTI-ABORTION POLITICS: The population movement began to be tarred as anti-Catholic because of the perceived linkage between the legalized abortion and population stabilization causes. Environmental groups became afraid of offending their own current and potential members who were also members of the largest religious denomination (Catholic) in the U.S.
(3) POPULATION GROUPS' DE-EMPHASIS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND
NEW EMPHASIS ON FEMINIST ISSUES: The 1994 U.N. Conference in Cairo, for example, contained hundreds of recommendations about women's rights, but made no mention of the connections between population growth and environmental ills (which had been a key focus of earlier U.N. conferences).
(4) RIFT BETWEEN CONSERVATIONIST AND NEW-LEFT ROOTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS: The two older roots (the wilderness preservation movement and the resource conservation movement) of the three roots of the modern environmentalist movement accepted the proposition that, with humans as with other organisms, greater population size inflicts greater impacts on the environment. The third much younger root (an outgrowth of New-Left politics) came to focus more on urban health issues such as air, water, and toxic contamination…and forcefully downplayed the role of population growth as a cause of environmental problems. It became strong enough to force an end to their organizations' population stabilization policies and later it defeated efforts by many conservationists and preservationists to reinstate those population policies.
(5) THE ADVENT OF IMMIGRATION AS THE CHIEF FACTOR IN POPULATION GROWTH: Modifications to U.S. immigration law in 1965 inadvertently set in motion an increase in immigration through extended family members…. Immigration rose rapidly to three or four times traditional levels. (Legal immigration is now around 1 million annually. Illegal immigration, mostly across the U.S.-Mexico border is much higher.) Between 1965-1975, some groups directly advocated that immigration numbers be set at a level consistent with U.S. environmental needs. This advocacy ceased because of fear of alienating “progressive” allies; emphasis on total global population vs. that of individual countries; influence of human rights organizations, particularly poverty groups advocating the right of migrants to cross borders; fear of backlash
against environmental organizations from ethnic groups; most important of all, fear of loss of funding to environmental groups (both left- and right-leaning directors of funding foundations are inclined toward high imigration levels; the U.S. Sierra Club is a clear example of an environmental organization which fears the loss of a major donor and consequently refuses to take a stand against immigration).
END OF PRESS RELEASE