Dear HCN,
Phil
Cafaro’s letter “Real environmentalists don’t
support immigration” and Ed Marston’s column on a
similar topic (HCN, 2/3/03: The son of immigrants has a change of
heart) strike me as a tad myopic. Are the lands in the West more
worthy of preservation than those in Mexico; does not putting up
barriers to protect our resources contribute to depletion
elsewhere?
Increased wealth and education lead to
increased concern for the environment. We know this. At the same
time, it’s those of us with a standard of living that allows
for environmental consciousness who generally use the most
resources. Hmmm. Perhaps it is we who need to stand at the shore of
a Rio Grande and imagine another life. Or, at least, there needs to
be a little mixing here — mixing of our wealth and education
with their way of living in a truly (in my experience)
conservationist way.
Yes, population control is
essential (news flash for the Bush administration). And yes, Mexico
needs to cope with its population and economy. But by isolating
ourselves and adopting a NIMBY attitude, we fall far short of what
we could do.
Consider this: A man sends money to his
family in rural Mexico, his son is therefore able to attend
college, the son has expertise to implement programs to prevent
soil erosion, the boy also helps his sister to become a nurse, a
nurse who will soon be educating the village on birth control. I
don’t know, but it sounds pretty good to me.
Marston suggests that on this topic, we use our emotions,
tempered by hearts and minds. I remember a small boy, without shoes
or shirt (or, I’m sure, a single plastic toy) crouching and
drawing pictures in the dirt while he waits for the mail, mail that
will bring a money order from his father, money which will someday
send him to college — this image tells my heart all it needs
to know on the matter.
Laura Pritchett
Fort Collins, Colorado
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Anti-immigration myopia.