DISSERTATION AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTALISM, SOVEREIGNTY AND THE “IMMIGRATION PROBLEM” Submitted by John Hultgren Department of Political Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Summer 2012 Doctoral Committee: Advisor: Dimitris Stevis Bradley MacDonald William Chaloupka Eric Ishiwata Kate Browne ABSTRACT AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTALISM, SOVEREIGNTY AND THE “IMMIGRATION PROBLEM” Theorizing the relationship between sovereignty and nature has posed challenges to both scholars and activists. Some believe that sovereignty is a problematic institutional constraint that hampers the formulation of holistic solutions to ecological problems, while others contend that the norms, practices and institutions of sovereignty can be stretched in pursuit of ecological and social sustainability. Complicating this picture is the fact that the empirical contours of sovereignty have shifted of late, as the authority and control of the nation-state has been challenged by neoliberal globalization and the transboundary realities of many environmental challenges, creating a crisis of legitimacy that societal actors attempt to ameliorate in various ways. This dissertation begins from the observation that “nature” – the socially constructed ideal employed to capture the vast multiplicity of the non-human realm – is increasingly central to the process through which individuals, interest groups and social movements attempt to create more democratic, sustainable or ethical political communities and forms of governance. As environmental politics continue to gain traction within mainstream political discourses, environmentalists and non-environmentalists alike are inserting nature into struggles to reconfigure sovereignty toward a particular ecological and/or social ethos. In exploring this interaction, I ask: how do societal groups conceptualize and work to reconfigure the relationship between nature and sovereignty? And what are the social and ecological implications of the normative ideals that they attempt to institutionalize? In order to gain insight into these ii questions, I examine contemporary American debates over the environmental impacts of immigration. Discussions of the so-called "immigration problem" have been contentious for American greens, leading to significant division within environmentalist organizations, and surprising alliances with a variety of other societal interests. The individuals and organizations involved all attempt to challenge the status quo, but deploy vastly different conceptions of nature, political community and governance to do so. Turning to individuals and organizations who have taken public stances within this debate, I employ (1) textual analysis of websites and publications; (2) semi-structured interviews; and (3) content analysis, in considering the various discursive pathways through which environmental restrictionists and their opponents attempt to reconfigure sovereignty. Through this empirical analysis, I make the case that the discursive terrain on which the relationship between nature and sovereignty resides remains poorly understood – to the detriment of efforts to promote socially and ecologically inclusive polities. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I had always felt that including an acknowledgement section like this in a dissertation was kind of self-aggrandizing (“it’s not like you’ve published a book,” I thought). Then I wrote a dissertation. Suffice to say that after accumulating many, many personal debts throughout the course of this project, I’ve changed my mind. The real question is not whether or not I ought to include an acknowledgements section, but whether or not I can possibly remember everyone who I need to thank. To begin, despite our differences in opinion, I want to thank the individuals who graciously took the time to talk or exchange emails with me about their belief that immigration is a major contributor to American environmental degradation: Phil Cafaro, William Rees, William Ryerson, Don Weeden, Yeh Ling Ling, Marilyn Brant Chandler DeYoung, Frosty Wooldridge, and Dick Lamm. I have no doubt that these individuals and the organizations they represent will disagree with my analysis, but I hope they view it as it is intended – in the spirit of dialogue. While my research on the immigration/environment linkages has not changed my overall position on the issue, it nonetheless reflects a deep engagement with the debate and the various logics being advanced. I have focused on outlining the logics these individuals and organizations put forth (rather than assuming that I have any insight into their personal motivations), and my findings recognize more variability amongst restrictionists than extant analyses. Although my research was primarily geared toward understanding environmental restrictionism, I was also fortunate to speak with several individuals who have been actively involved in combating immigration-reduction logics. Cheryl Distaso, of the Fort Collins Community Action Network (formerly the Center for Justice, Peace and Environment), gave me a sense of the history of anti-immigrant movements in Northern Colorado and put me in touch iv with several immigrants’ rights activists and environmental justice organizations. Rebecca Poswolsky of the Center for New Community (CNC) was nice enough to talk with me on multiple occasions. Rebecca helped me connect with several other activists and organizations, and gave me a sense of the breadth and interconnection of the contemporary American immigration-restrictionist network. No organization has done more to combat environmental restrictionism than the CNC, and their research and publications were invaluable resources. Others I interviewed included: former Sierra Club director Michael Dorsey (who provided excellent insight into Sierra Club debates), Dan Millis (who shared with me the current efforts of the Sierra Club Borderlands Campaign), and immigration attorney Kim Medina (who filled me in on the struggles immigrants face in Northern Colorado). In addition to these individuals who I spoke with directly, my research was greatly assisted by the work of the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Committee on Women, Population and Environment, and the Political Ecology Group. The efforts of these individuals and organizations to advance social and environmental justice are inspirational. While working on a PhD, it is common to hear horror stories about dissertation committees. I’m happy to say that my experiences with my committee were nothing but positive. Much of the credit for this goes to my advisor, Dimitris Stevis. From first talking over this topic with me, to helping me structure it into a viable project, to ushering me through the editing process, Dimitris has been incredibly kind, patient, and always constructive in his criticism. Dimitris’ refusal to accept simplistic explanations and his careful attention to the world in all its complexity is a rare quality, even amongst academics. It’s one that I hope to develop through time. Without his efforts to get me to really engage with the empirics of this case, I would not v have uncovered many of the most interesting facets of the debate. I cannot thank him enough for everything. And while most graduate students are lucky to find one mentor-like figure, my research and thinking has been influenced in significant ways by all of my committee members. Brad MacDonald’s passion for political theory is truly contagious, and his efforts to fuse Marxist and post-structural theories led me down incredibly productive theoretical pathways that I would not have otherwise encountered. Along the same lines, Bill Chaloupka’s application of Foucault and Nietzsche to environmental politics challenged me to think reflexively about a movement that, coming into graduate school, I had uncritically praised. His critique of naturalism seeps throughout the dissertation. I’m sure Bill’s idea of retiring to Las Vegas did not involve reading through 250 page dissertations, but I’m very thankful that he was willing to do so. Eric Ishiwata encouraged me to think critically about issues of positionality and the violence that lies in attempting to speak for others. This is one of the most valuable lessons I took from my graduate studies. Where I engage with “the migrant” in the dissertation, I have tried to keep this in mind in recognizing a “right to opacity.” Kate Browne broadened my academic horizons by introducing me to a fascinating body of anthropological research on globalization, neoliberalism and nationalism. Kate also lent her ethnographic expertise in helping me formulate my interview questions. Finally, Jared Orsi, though he is not formally on the committee, was kind enough to read over my historical chapter and offer incredibly helpful feedback. In addition to faculty, numerous fellow students helped me stay motivated and sane through the seemingly never-ending process that is grad school. I owe many people thanks for their friendship and collegiality, especially: Derek Meyers, Tim Ehresman, Davin Dearth, Ian Strachan, Caroline Pakenham, Chris Nucci, Theresa Jedd, Colter Kinner, Courtney Hunter, Greg vi DiCerbo, Jamie Way, Jean Crissien, Greg Boyle, Andy Kear, George Stetson and Nikki Detraz. I owe Keith Lindner, in particular, an enormous debt of gratitude. Keith introduced me to many of the scholars, theories and concepts that I draw upon in the dissertation, and it is out of our mutual dialogue – though I have no doubt taken