The Senate’s amnesty-on-steroids bill, a recipe for population explosion, is a source of gloom for us old-fashioned environmentalists who regard America as overcrowded now. Earth Day is Saturday, and nothing will be said about America’s immigration-fueled population growth.

Instead, we will see the diversity-embracing shop-green extravaganza that the day has become.

Sadly, environmental giants like Gaylord Nelson and David Brower are gone.

Both men warned against immigration-driven overpopulation while they resisted environmentalism’s devolution from bipartisan integrity to leftism in hiking boots.

These days, we hear about the Senate’s scheme for a stunning population explosion from conservative Republicans like Sen. Jeff Sessions [McCain/Kennedy leads to 30 million new illegal immigrants].

“This bill would add 30 million people to our nation in the next ten years. We ought to be spending some time talking about that. It’s a big, big deal.”

Newt Gingrich said on O’Reilly this Monday that 30-36 million persons would be eligible for amnesty under the McKennedy bill — that’s a California-size population! Plus Rep. Sensenbrenner recently stated, “I have seen demographic projections that it means that we’ll get 20 million more illegal immigrants in the next 10 years,” apparently to take advantage of the employment opportunities the current amnesty will present.

Here are just a few areas which will be affected by the overpopulation assault…

• Environmental issues: water supply, air quality, pollution levels, species protection, loss of open space, loss of biodiversity and increased consumption of natural resources.
• Quality-of-life concerns: additional social regimentation, worsening traffic, SRO public transportation, deteriorating education, increased crime (from a rubber-stamp approval process), skyrocketing taxes to pay for infrastructure costs and crowding everywhere.

It’s like the depressingly accurate bumper sticker, Population Forecast: Increasing Crowdiness.

The Media Research Center has done surprising little over the years on pro-immigration bias in the media. However, the marches of the past few days have produced such a massive flood of bias that nobody could overlook it, so here’s Brent Bozell’s latest column Wave Flags For Illegal Aliens [April 19, 2006]

For all of the swooning news coverage, it’s not at all certain that Congress will agree to change anything about immigration policy this year. But the media have made their political preferences clear: They disagree with the majority of Americans that illegal immigration is a serious national problem. They see thousands of illegal aliens demanding the right to change our politics – and the right to vote in our elections – and smile and tingle and throw bouquets of praise. They are there, arm in arm, with that ten percent fringe.

Read the whole thing, as they say, but remember that it’s Vdare.com where you’ve been getting your coverage of pro-immigration media bias over the past five years.

• Forget The President! What did The Press Know - And Why Didn’t They Know It?
• Discoloring the News
• Read Webzines, Not Mainstream Treezines, For The Truth On Immigration

Just in case you were thinking of showing your appreciation. I don’t know if anyone has mentioned it, but we’re having a fundraising drive.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course. After demolishing Fred Barnes’s latest effusion, (“I’ll believe it when I read an article whose main source isn’t ‘Jeffrey Bell, a Republican consultant working for La Raza.’ “) he writes

P.S.: Steve Sailer takes somewhat more vigorous exception to Barnes’ article–I wouldn’t use the phrase “bootlicking Bush acolyte,” for example!–but has some plausible objections to the wording of the recent LAT poll questions, which seemed to show support for Bush’s position. … It’s also worth reading Sailer to see what intelligent yet off-puttingly intense full-bore anti-illegal rhetoric sounds like. … As so often happens, kf occupies the moderate middle ground in this debate!

Part of our role as a webzine is to be the immigration “bad cop” so that we can shift the “Moderate Middle Ground” over in our direction.

It’s possible Kaus has been taking a certain amount of heat for his recent excellent work on the politics of immigration.

As far as “off-puttingly intense full-bore anti-illegal rhetoric” is concerned, Vdare.com follows the Thick End of the wedge Theory, (Yes, Thick End is correct) As Peter Brimelow wrote years ago:

THERE are basically two views about how you can influence public debate. The Thin End of the Wedge Theory, favored by gentle souls like James W. Michaels and John O’Sullivan, respectively my editors at Forbes and NATIONAL REVIEW, is that while emphasizing how much agreement there is between you and everyone else, you politely but firmly insinuate modifications into the discussion, all of such an eminently sensible character that no one can possibly (or, at least, reasonably) object. Over time, you turn people around.

In contrast, there’s the Thick End Theory. You pick up the wedge by its thin end and pound the opposition with the thick end, as hard as possible. Then you stand back and see what happens.
VDARE - Alien Nation: Round 2