The other day while linking to a piece by Nicholas von Hoffman, I mentioned that I could do without the “immigrants are bad for the environment” argument. I figured I could leave it there, but I keep getting dyspeptic email from readers complaining, for example, that as a conservative I should care more about the environment. “What do you think ‘conservation’ means!?” they ask. More conventionally, folks simply assert that immigrants are bad for the environment, so why should I object to the argument?

Well, simply put, I object to the argument because I basically reject it. It’s a vestigial bugaboo from worries about over-population. It’s a form of Malthusian reductionism, and it’s wrong. Moreover, I particularly don’t like it when conservatives, who otherwise disagree with the assumptions behind such claims, are eager to grab this argument for short term gain.

If immigration is bad for the environment, how come America’s environment has gotten better over the last forty, fifty, sixty or even hundred years? Our air is cleaner, our water is safer and cleaner, the East Coast — where plenty of immigrants end up — has become more forested. Obviously, there are exceptions to this story, but I can’t think of any that really have much to do with immigration one way or the other.

Now, if by “the environment” you mean traffic and suburban sprawl, you might have an argument. But you’d have a different one than the one offered by Hoffman or my angry readers.