The Sierra Club, one of the largest and oldest environmental organizations in the nation, announced last month its support for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. It was a unanimous decision among the group\u2019s board of directors and marks a definitive break with the group\u2019s troubled history on immigration\u2014a history that has also plagued the environmental movement broadly.<\/p>\n
The arc of Sierra Club\u2019s evolution starts with a dubious if not hostile perspective on immigration that the Club carried in the 1960s. The theory was that immigration drives unsustainable population growth, which then drains resources and harms the environment. That perspective shifted to a hard line against immigration in the 1980s, then to a neutral position in the \u201990s, before finally coming around in the 21st century to advocating on behalf of immigrants.<\/p>\n
The announcement was mostly a codification of work Sierra Club had already been doing lately, such as fighting against building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border to block migration to the United States. But by officially adopting a stance that endorses a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, Sierra\u2014like the Republican Party\u2014is recognizing that shifting demographics matter.<\/p>\n
Sierra has more than two million members, many of them white and elderly. In order for their numbers to grow, recruitment will have to reflect what America looks like today and in the future, which is younger and more racially diverse. For Sierra to do that, though, they have to reconcile their history, which didn\u2019t always endorse open pathways to U.S. citizenship, or even its own membership.<\/p>\n
Racists in the Ranks<\/p>\n
Catherine Tactaquin, executive director of the California-based National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, sat on Sierra\u2019s eight-member committee on population growth in 1994. The organization\u2019s general membership was roughly 93 percent white at the time, says Tactaquin, and many wanted Sierra to take controversial positions on immigration and reproduction to advocate for reduced population growth. The population committee had equal numbers, women and men. Tactaquin says that all of the women were pro-immigration and championed reproductive rights, while the men were steadfastly anti-immigration.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe tried to have Sierra do things that would educate and raise awareness within the Club about the forces of migration [like] trade policy impacts, and to have them support the [United Nation\u2019s] Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women,\u201d Tactaquin says. \u201cWe did that to make the connection that, from a population-growth perspective, we are interested in supporting the rights of women, including better education and healthcare access.\u201d<\/p>\n
But many Sierra members at the time were more interested in controlling how women reproduced, even urging the club to address teen pregnancy. That interest was more prevalent in the \u201990s and the decades before, but some of it still exists today. Immediately after Sierra made its pro-immigrant citizenship announcement, commenters reacted.<\/p>\n