Political activities of Sierra Club

A long-term goal of the Sierra Club is to oppose the construction of dams that it considers inappropriate. At the beginning of the 20th century, the organization opposed the construction of a dam in Yosemite National Park, so as to flood the Hutch Hutch Valley. Despite lobbying, Congress approved the construction of the O'Shaughnessy Dam on the Tuolumne River. The Sierra Club continued to lobby for the demolition of the dam and strongly advocated the reconstruction of the downstream Don Pedro Reservoir to provide space for the water body in San Francisco.

The Sierra Club advocated retiring the Glen Canyon Dam, which made Lake Powell disappear gradually. The Sierra Club also supports the demolition, dam failure or decommissioning of many other dams, including four high-cost large dams in the lower reaches of the Snake River in eastern Washington. In the 1990s, some Sierra Club members wanted to introduce the club to a controversial place about emigrating to the United States. The position of Sierra Club is that overpopulation is an important factor for the deterioration of ecological environment. Therefore, the Sierra Club is in favor of stabilizing and reducing the population of the United States and the world. Some members believe that, in fact, at the level of immigration at that time, the population of the United States could not be stable, let alone reduced. They urged Sierra Club to support immigration restrictions. The club had previously raised the issue of "mass migration" [20]. 1988, the organization's Population Committee and Conservation Coordination Committee said that immigration to the United States should be restricted to achieve population stability. [2 1]

However, other Sierra Club members believe that immigration is far from the central task of Sierra Club, and worry that being involved will weaken the organization's political ability to devote itself to other goals. The Council accepted the latter view, and voted 1996 that the Sierra Club should remain neutral on the issue of immigration.

Those who are in favor of reducing immigration try to cancel the resolution by using the clause of the Sierra Club's constitution about the referendum of members. They formed their own "SUSPS", and the name came from "Sierra Club for U.S. Population Stabilization" (although the name was no longer used after Sierra Club objected that the word "Sierra" infringed the community trademark). Sasps and his allies collected the necessary signatures and raised the issue of voting in the community election in the spring of 1998. Support the Council's resolution that the Sierra Club does not take any position on immigrants with three or two members, although Seuss expressed dissatisfaction with the biased voting and chaotic organization.

When three supporters of reducing immigration participated in the steering committee election in 2004, hoping to change the Sierra Club's neutral position on immigration, the debate became public again. The conflict is becoming more and more fierce, and the two factions accuse each other of immoral behavior, which may be illegal [3][4]. Supporters of reducing immigration filed a lawsuit, but it was later terminated. Groups outside the Sierra Club have also been affected, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and Move on. In the end, supporters of reducing immigration won the vote with a paltry 3% of the vote, and the debate subsided.