The later Sen. Gaylord Nelson (D-WI), a furious activist and the leader of Earth Day, championed reducing overall immigration to the United States to defend America’s animals temples, land, and quality of life.
On April 22, 1970, Nelson founded Earth Day to support the restoration of the culture in the United States while serving as a senator. Now, Earth Day is celebrated across the globe.
Before becoming a senator, Nelson, a left-wing Democrat, fought for legal immigration to be reduced as well as illegitimate immigration to the United States.
According to the Census Bureau, the existing federal immigration scheme, which adds a million legal immigrants to the population each year and adds hundreds of thousands of thousands, possibly millions, of illegal creatures, accounts for about 80 % of population growth.
Without immigration decreases, according to the most recent Census Bureau projections, the population of the United States will reach nearly 400 million by 2060, an exceptional amount in British history.
“With half the population, will there be any jungle left? Any silent area? Any wildlife for birds? Waterfalls? Another wild animals? Not many, ” Nelson said at least two decades ago.
In his 2002 autobiography, Nelson, in Beyond Earth Day: Fulfilling the Promise, warned that large emigration to the US would stifle quality of life for Americans and cause the death of wildlife refuges.
Nelson wrote:
In 2000 the US people topped 280 million. Not surprisingly, adding community has n’t improved American culture, the business, or the environment. At the moment, we are on the verge of having well over 500 million people living on the same area tool in the next 75 years and 1 billion people in the next century. May we grow that way without having such a negative impact on the environment and quality of life? [Emphasis added]
…
The number of legitimate refugees entering this nation would have to match the number of migrants leaving it, which is roughly 220,000 people per year, to stop exponential growth. However, even though national actions have substantially increased the rate of emigration over the past four decades, any suggestion that the rate should be decreased was met with accusations of “nativism,” “racism,” and other such things. However, such criticism has silenced much-needed discussion of the issue – recalling the slander strategies of the later Senator Joseph McCarthy. The first time around it was “soft on socialism. Because a sizable number of immigrants are of Spanish origin, this time the demand is “racism.” Demagogic language of this kind has succeeded in stifling the educational and economic communities and has tarnished any conversation of emigration and population issues as being politically incorrect. It is nothing short of amazing to see the great British free press, with its boat of syndicated columnists, scared into silence by social correctness, when grating as it is to see the president and members of Congress running for cover on such a huge issue. [Emphasis added]
The issue is not racism, nativism, or any other “ism, ” however. The real problem is people’s statistics, as well as the effects that having more freedom of choice and sustainability will have as our population grows. Our prospect, how we live, and under what circumstances will be heavily influenced by people stabilization. It should not be moaned by McCarthyism or any other bellicose ployness. Instead, the matter needs to be brought up and discussed in public hearings and conversations because it has a significant impact.
[Emphasis added]
In a 2001 In an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Nelson reportedly attacked left-leaning officials for claiming to care about the environment while ignoring the effects large emigration has on conservation problems.
“ … in this country, it ’s phony to say ‘I’m for the environment but not for limiting immigration. ’ It’s simply a fact that we can’t taking all the people who want to come here, ” Nelson said. “… Everyone is scared of being called sexist if they claim there are restrictions on immigration, so the topic has been pulled out of public discourse. ”
In fact, the topic of sky-high emigration levels has been largely withdrawn from the federal climate debate. Instead, campaigners have embraced size immigration.
For example, the Sierra Club when advocated for slower immigration to bring down the country’s population growth. As left-wing, high-dollar contributors to the economic group became extremely beneficial to mass emigration, so did the Sierra Club, which switched its place in the late 1990s.
John Binder is a writer for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart. org. Following him on Twitter below.
