Immigration is a large factor adding to our population. Some groups concerned with population levels in the U.S. promote immigration reduction to help stabilize our country’s population. Some of those groups have been accused of having underlying racist agendas. My preliminary research indicates that this may indeed be the case for certain groups which appear on the surface to be acting purely out of a concern for sustainability. Conclusive information concerning a couple of groups seems elusive, but one becomes suspicious when tracking down information on their founders and other key figures, and looking at other groups with whom they work. This appears to have created a messy political situation in environmental and overpopulation circles.

To varying degrees, many of the other population groups skirt the issue of immigration. This is problematic, for it is an unavoidable part of the math of population growth. In fact, many experts who clearly are concerned only with environmental and sustainability issues do support some level of immigration reform. Intellectual honesty dictates that one not ignore immigration as an important variable.

Of the groups which do say something about immigration, a small number (e.g., the Growth Education Movement) conclude that we can stabilize the U.S. population without immigration reform, through social and educational programs designed to reduce the fertility rate. Some maintain that, in any event, overpopulation should be addressed only globally. Still others take the view that we should seek to reduce worldwide population growth as well as the desire to immigrate here by better addressing poverty and other conditions which plague many third world countries. As mentioned, some experts with no racist intent, do conclude that some level of immigration reform is needed if we are to reduce population growth sufficiently and soon enough to avoid extremely serious environmental and human impacts.

I would ask the reader to remain aware that the U.S. has always set some numerical limit on immigration. So discussion of that limit within the context of striving to achieve sustainability (thereby ultimately saving many lives and mitigating tremendous environmental destruction) should not be seen as sacreligious or placed off limits in discussion among those grappling with the issue of population growth and its environmenal impact. Any agenda, however, on the part of any group, to reduce immigration for racist purposes should be exposed, censured, and repudiated by legitimate environmentalists and related groups.

While I believe the issue of overpopulation is of profound importance, I’m uncomfortable with certain of the population groups whose sites I’ve examined. As indicated above, some appear to have underlying agendas (or significant ties to people with such agendas) which I cannot support. Others refrain from addressing all the issues forthrightly, which I cannot support either. The groups and resources I provide in the links section are among the few providing objective, honest information with (as far as I know) no hidden agendas. I expect to add more over time.