Yes, we can continue to ignore the issue at hand by throwing out the term “ad hominem fallacy” and I could then show how you are using a “straw man argument” to avoid the fact that you have chosen to associate with an organization with ties to white nationalists.

At the end of the day I suspect that an educated man as yourself has access to both a library and the internet.

I suspect that an educated man such as yourself has chosen to ignore that CIS distributes materials from the white nationalist website VDARE regularly to its members, for instance.

I suspect that an educated man such as yourself will choose to ignore that CIS was founded by white nationalist John Tanton.

I guess education isn’t everything.

What is at issue is not your arguments on population. What is at issue is your willingness to work alongside organized bigots. If you work to supply drug dealers with the tools of their trade don’t act surprised when you get called out as a drug dealer too.

In this case the drug is bigotry and you seem more than willing to deal it. At least take some personal responsibility for your choices and don’t hide behind your pseudo-research.

No, I don’t know you but I can follow your actions. While not all of our readers have had the privilege of receiving higher education they are fully capable of following your actions as well. They are not hanging out with CIS, you are.

For those looking for a credible voice on immigration and population be sure to take a look at http://popdev.hampshire.edu/home.

The article in question, The Environmental Argument for Reducing Immigration into the United States, was published earlier this year by the journal Environmental Ethics, an independent, peer-reviewed, scholarly journal. It was subsequently picked up and republished by the Center for Immigration Studies, as one of their Backgrounders.

I wrote it with a grad student, because I believe its arguments are true. In philosophy, we call the kind of comments you are making the ad hominem fallacy: attacking a person rather than his ideas or arguments with which you might disagree. The two are logically distinct.

You don’t know anything about me. You, or people reading this website, aren’t in any position to make judgments about me as a person. However, anyone can read the article at CIS.org and judge the strengths or weaknesses of its arguments for themselves.

If people do read the article, they will see that my coauthor and I explicitly and repeatedly state that reducing consumption is essential to creating a sustainable society. However, stabilizing population is also essential.

Finally, there’s the matter of all this talk about white nationalists. In my interactions with the staff at CIS, and in reading their publications, I have seen no evidence of racial bias of any kind.

Philip Cafaro
Associate Professor of Philosophy Colorado State University

I note that the article is also available on the website of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). On their website they lead readers to believe that the report was released by CIS. Can you confirm if this is so?

The reason I ask is that in your response you are leading readers of Imagine2050 to believe that your paper is in no way associated with CIS.

Someone is not telling the truth. Having read continuous streams of false data from CIS it is not hard to believe that the organization is doing so again. However you can clear this matter up easily.

I find it interesting that you are quick to blame immigration and migration for environmental problems when each of us knows that the real problem is not population but consumption. This has been a tactic of the anti-immigrant movement for nearly thirty years and I am saddened to see someone so aware of ethics turn so easily to scapegoating.

I’m curious as to why you are choosing to associate yourself with an organization that has ties to white nationalist. I note that in your response you have chosen to ignore this. At the end of the day one is known by the company they keep. In your case that would be a company of bigots.

CIS is not the face of mainstream environmentalism but of extremism. I would have hoped someone of your intelligence would know the difference. Perhaps you do and that is the saddest thought of all.

1. Immigration levels are at a historic high and immigration is now the main driver of U.S. population growth.

2. Population growth contributes significantly to a host of environmental problems within our borders.

3. A growing population increases America’s large environmental footprint beyond our borders and our disproportionate role in stressing global environmental systems.

4. In order to seriously address environmental problems at home and become good global environmental citizens,we must stop U.S. population growth.

5. We are morally obligated to address our environmental problems and become good global environmental citizens.

Therefore, we should limit immigration to the United States to the extent needed to stop U.S. population
growth.

This conclusion rests on a straightforward commitment to mainstream environmentalism, easily confirmed empirical premises, and logic.

You can find the complete article on my website: http://www.philipcafaro.com. Any comments on the substantial issues raised are welcome!