Judges OK's Lawsuit to Curb Migration with Environmental Rules

Immigration reformers have won the first round of a lawsuit that could force the government to protect Americans’ natural environment by curbing legal and illegal migration.

“The policies implemented unilaterally by the Biden Administration, which have encouraged more than a million foreign nationals to enter and settle in the United States [since January 2021], are the quintessential type of action” covered by the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act, said a statement from Julie Axelrod, at the Center for Immigration Studies.

The 1970 law was “passed out of a concern for population growth … The Center looks forward to litigating whether the Biden Administration violated NEPA when it took the actions that have created the ongoing border crisis,” she added.

The first round was won on August 16, when CIS got approval to file the lawsuit from Judge Trevor McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The lawsuit is titled Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform (MCIR) v. Department of Homeland Security, and the judge’s decision said:

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires agencies to conduct environmental impact analysis before undertaking “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”

…

For now, the Court accepts the [CIS] Coalition’s factual allegations as true and “presum[es] that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support [a] claim.” At summary judgment, however, the Coalition must offer admissible evidence affirmatively establishing its standing to proceed and entitlement to vindication on the merits.

On the same day, a government body announced it would sharply reduce the flow of water from the Colorado River to the surrounding states whose populations and water use have been inflated by both legal and illegal migration.

BloombergLaw.com reported:

The Bureau of Reclamation called for all seven Colorado River Basin states [California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming] to conserve water over the next four years and said it will withhold 21% of Arizona’s annual allocation of Colorado River water in 2023 as the first-ever water shortage in the Colorado River Basin continues for another year, the agency said.

The establishment, pro-Democrat environmental groups have long ignored the damaging impact of migration. In 2018, the CIS reported;

The Sierra Club, one of America’s largest non-profit environmental organizations, once treated the effects of immigration-driven population growth as among the most serious concerns facing America’s environment.

However, over the past few decades, the organization has continually retreated from that position toward neutrality — and more recently has openly lobbied for higher levels of immigration into the United States. In fact, the club is now starting to launch partisan attacks on the current administration over everything from family separation and detentions along the border to amnesty for illegal aliens to the border wall.

Surveys by Rasmussen Reports show broad public concern about the impact of the government’s immigration policy on the nation’s environment.

For example, a survey of 1,250 likely voters in July 2022 showed that  437 percent of respondents agreed that “immigration-driven population growth [should] be reduced to limit the expansion of cities into U.S. wildlife habitats and farmland.”

Just 23 percent disagreed, and 28 percent said “Not sure.”

Republicans split 57 percent agree,  18 percent disagree.

Democrats split 46 percent agree, 27 percent disagree.

Swing-voting independents split 44 percent to 24 percent.

Extraction Migration

Since at least 1990, the D.C. establishment has extracted tens of millions of legal and illegal migrants — plus temporary visa workers — to serve as workers, managers, consumers, and renters for various U.S. investors and Wall Street.

This Extraction Migration policy tilts the economy against ordinary Americans. It reduces wages, damages career development, reduces family income, and raises the price of homes.

The policy slows innovation and shrinks Americans’ productivity, partly because it rewards investors who build stock values with cheap labor in a consumer economy instead of with high-productivity works in a manufacturing economy.

The policy has shoved at least ten million American men out of the labor force. It undermines employees’ workplace rights, and it widens the regional wealth gaps between the Democrats’ big coastal states and the Republicans’ heartland and southern states.