In a stray from previous policy, US immigration officials announced that Haitians who found refuge in the United States after the earthquake last year will be allowed to stay in the US legally for a fixed amount of time.

Those who fled after the disaster can apply for temporary protected status from the US government, which will allow them to live and work legally until January 22, 2013.

Previously, the US government only allowed Haitians who were in the United States before the earthquake to apply for temporary protected status. The new policy also grants them an 18-month extension, as the previous grant had been set to expire in July.

An estimated 10,000 fled to the US after Haiti was destroyed and were granted visitor visas, however many found themselves homeless or living in motels or family members’ homes, according to the Boston Globe.

“Providing a temporary refuge for Haitian nationals who are currently in the United States and whose personal safety would be endangered by returning to Haiti is part of this administration’s continuing efforts to support Haiti’s recovery,” Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said in a statement.

Haitian immigrants and advocates were overjoyed with the shift in policy.

“We are all ecstatic,” said Marjean A. Perhot, director of refugee and immigration services of Catholic Charities Archdiocese of Boston. “I ran down the hall I was so excited. We are so thrilled, so thankful. Today has made the lives of thousands of Haitians hundreds of times better.”

People must apply for temporary protected status, and if granted, they must pay fees in order to live and work in the United States.

The Homeland Security secretary grants this special status to people who have suffered a natural disaster or war in their home country until the US decides it is safe for them to return.

SAN DIEGO — The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that illegal immigrants are still eligible to pay in-state tuition for public college.

The court ruled on a suit originally filed in 2005 but a group of students and parents from 19 states outside of California. The plaintiffs claimed that a 2001 state law improperly circumvented a federal law intended to prevent in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.

According to the Los Angeles Times, 25,000 illegal aliens get in-state tuition rates.

Monday’s ruling guarantees lower tuition to students who attended high school for at least three years in the state of California. This includes students who live in other states but attended boarding school in California.

The law was carefully drawn to avoid conflict with the federal statute, according to Ethan Schulman, a San Francisco attorney who represented the University of California system.

“We’re really pleased with this judgment,” said Constance Carroll, chancellor of the San Diego Community College District, which advocated for that outcome. “As we said in our brief, this is really a matter of California law and California decision making. We feel that these young immigrants, who have bright futures, are being treated fairly.”

Nine other states have already adopted similar tuition laws. Similar legislation is pending in 12 additional states, including Massachusetts, according to www.finaid.org.

MIAMI — Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agents on Wednesday arrested Pedro Antonio Martinez Escobar a.k.a. Pedro A. Martinez, 37, who is wanted in Honduras for murder.

Martinez Escobar was taken into custody without incident in Miami, where he was living in the country illegally. He had been previously deported, but ICE said he made his way back to the country four times after getting continually kicked out.

“Criminals who think that they can use the United States as a safe haven are sorely mistaken,” said Anthony V. Mangione, special agent in charge of ICE in Miami. “ICE is committed to ensuring the integrity of our nation’s immigration system. As such, it is one of our top priorities to locate foreign fugitives hiding in the United States and turn them over to our foreign law enforcement partners to face justice in their native countries.”

Martinez Escobar was born in Olancho, Honduras. He entered the US illegally in 1994 and was deported after being caught in San Antonio, Texas by the federal agency then called Immigration and Naturalization Service on December 14, 1997. He was removed a second time in 1999 after he was captured in Laredo, Texas. We was captured again on August 17, 2003 and May 1, 2008.

First, watch this video from The Boston Globe.

Then read Andrew Ryan’s story about the station.

Do we really need to say anything else here?

Well, we will.

This is ridiculous. The City of Boston, The Hub, the birthplace of the American Revolution — a place that prides itself so much on history, should forget the need to save every nickel and dime in this economy for one second and take a bold step toward preservation within the city limits.

The East Boston immigration station should be declared a historic landmark. It should be preserved. The city (and the federal government) should restore it and re-open it as a museum.

With all this talk floating around the city about the future of East Boston, the rebirth of East Boston, the safety of East Boston, what could be better for Boston and East Boston than to create our own touristy version of Ellis Island?

It is unfathomable that this city would not do everything in its collective power to step in and work on the side of history. The social and economic benefit of having this waterfront location modernized is unmeasurable. But if we must quantify it: restaurants, stores, gift shops, tourist dollars, and safer homes all add up simply to good things for the city and for the East Boston neighborhood.

Dear EarthTalk: How can I measure-and then improve-my overall “carbon footprint?” What are the major areas of one’s daily life that one measures? -- Andy Fusco, Passaic, NJ

With global warming dominating so many headlines today, it’s no surprise that many of us are looking to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases our activities produce.

By assessing how much pollution each of your individual actions generates-be it setting your thermostat, shopping for groceries, commuting to work or flying somewhere for vacation-you can begin to see how changing a few habits here and there can significantly reduce your overall carbon footprint. Luckily for those of us who want to see how we measure up, there are a number of free online carbon footprint calculators to help figure out just where to start changing.

One of the best is the University of California at Berkeley’s Cool Climate Calculator. The free web-based tool takes into account daily driving mileage and grocery and electricity expenses, among other factors, to assign a carbon score, which users can compare to similar households across the 28 largest urban areas in the U.S. Some of the results are surprising. For example, residents of eco-aware San Francisco tend to have bigger carbon footprints than those in more conservative Tampa, Florida. The reason: San Francisco has a higher cost of living and colder, wetter winters (requiring more fossil-fuel derived heat).

Another great carbon footprint calculator is available at EarthLab.com, an online “climate crisis community” that has partnered with Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection and other high-profile groups, companies and celebrities to spread the word that individual actions can make a difference in the fight against global warming. Users just take a three-minute survey and get back a carbon footprint score, which they can save and update as they work to reduce their impact. The site provides some 150 lifestyle change suggestions that will cut carbon emissions-from hanging your clothes to dry to sending postcards instead of letters to taking the bike instead of the car to work a few days a week.

“Our calculator is an important first step in educating people about where they are, then raising their awareness about what they can do to make easy, simple changes that will lower their score and positively impact the planet,” says Anna Rising, EarthLab’s executive director. “Our goal isn’t about convincing you to buy a hybrid or retrofit your house with solar panels; our goal is to introduce you to easy, simple ways that you as an individual can reduce your carbon footprint.”

Other websites, green groups and corporations, including CarbonFootprint.com, CarbonCounter.org, Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy and British Oil Giant BP, among others, also offer carbon calculators on their websites. And CarbonFund.org even allows you to assess your carbon footprint-and then offers you the ability to offset such emissions by investing in clean energy initiatives.

CONTACTS: Cool Climate Calculator, www.berkeley.edu/calculator.html; EarthLab, www.earthlab.com; CarbonFootprint.com, www.carbonfootprint.com; CarbonCounter.org, www.carboncounter.org; Conservation International, www.conservation.org; The Nature Conservancy, www.nature.org; BP, www.bp.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Why are some environmental groups jumping on the immigration issue? What does immigration have to do with the environment?‚ ‚ – Ginna Jones, Darien, CT

What to do about booming legal and illegal immigration rates is one of the most controversial topics on Americans’ political agenda these days. More than a million immigrants achieve permanent resident status in the U.S. every year. Another 700,000 become full-fledged American citizens. The non-profit Pew Research Center reports that 82 percent of U.S. population growth is attributable to immigration.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that U.S. population will grow from 303 million people today to 400 million as early as 2040. While many industrialized nations, including Japan and most of Western Europe, are experiencing population growth slowdowns due to below replacement birth levels and little immigration, the U.S. is growing so fast that it trails only India and China in total numbers.

Advocates for U.S. population stabilization, including some environmental organizations and leaders, fear that this ongoing influx of new arrivals is forcing the nation to exceed its “carrying capacity,” stressing an already overburdened physical infrastructure. David Durham of Population-Environment Balance says that Americans who care about the environment should insist on reducing immigration, to recognize “ecological realities such as limited potable water, topsoil and infrastructure.” He also cites studies showing that a permissive U.S. immigration policy drives up fertility rates in the sending countries “which is the last thing these sending countries need.”

To others the problem is larger than immigration itself. “People don’t just materialize at our border, or at any border,” says John Seager of Population Connection. “When you talk about immigration, you’re talking about the second half of a process that begins when people decide to leave their homes.” And they are usually leaving their homes because of hunger, lack of work, oppression, or any number of other often-desperate reasons. Seager and many others argue that by helping poor nations better address the economic and family planning needs of their citizens, Americans can not only help improve the lot of millions of people living in dire poverty, but also slow down the tide of immigration.

Groups focusing on the immigration-environment nexus are keen to get their voices heard, but many mainstream green groups shun the highly divisive topic, preferring instead to encourage Americans, who are infamous around the world for their huge homes, gas-guzzling cars and extravagant consumption habits, to curb their unsustainable lifestyles, which they see as more fundamental to U.S. environmental problems than population pressures. With just five percent of the world’s people, Americans use a quarter of the world’s fossil fuels, own more private cars than drivers with licenses, and live in homes that are on average 38 percent larger today than they were in 1975. By scaling back, Americans can take a big bite out of pollution, sprawl and other environmental problems, while also setting a good example for those who land in the U.S. every year, lowering the nation’s collective carbon footprint significantly in the process.

CONTACTS: Pew Research Center, www.pewresearch.org; Population-Environment Balance, www.balance.org; Population Connection, www.populationconnection.org.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

Immigration has become a “hot button” issue, but often for the wrong reasons, reports the May/June 2008 issue of E – The Environmental Magazine (now posted at: www.emagazine.com). What’s missing is frank discussion of its impact on overall population growth and on the environment -­ and on how to address its fundamental causes.

Largely because of immigration, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that from 303 million today we’ll grow to 400 million people as early as 2040, and 420 million by 2050. While some parts of the world, including western Europe and Japan, are experiencing below-replacement-level fertility, the U.S. is growing so fast it now has the third largest population in the world, after only India and China.

There are strong and compelling voices on both sides of the immigration debate, and few definitive answers. America is, as we’re frequently reminded, a nation of immigrants. We absorbed 25 million people between 1860 and 1920, and most observers believe we are a stronger nation because of it.

So why is immigration an environmental concern? The fact is that America’s rapid population growth makes it nearly impossible to achieve sustainability. According to Population-Environment Balance, 93 percent of U.S. increases in energy use since 1970 can be attributed to population growth. To house our growing numbers we pave over an area the size of Delaware every year, the group says. And every day we remove 3.2 billion gallons of water from aquifers that are not replenished by natural processes.

Although increased population has many other environmental effects (urban sprawl and the loss of open space, to name two), energy and climate effects are central and little understood. Any efficiency gains we make are being swamped by rapid population increases and their attendant increased energy demand.

Of course, the wasteful American lifestyle is one major culprit. With just five percent of the world’s population, the U.S. is the top consumer of 11 of the world’s top 20 traded commodities. We use a quarter of the world’s fossil fuel. We have more private cars than drivers with licenses. Between 1975 and 2002, the average American home grew 38 percent, even though household size declined.

The increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., which rose 13 percent between 1990 and 2000, closely mirrors the just-over-13-percent population increase. A huge percentage of climate emissions can be attributed simply to population growth.

It’s hardly surprising that so many people want to come to America from the overpopulated developing world, and the “push factors” that cause them to seek a new life in the U.S. are compelling. Who can blame a family mired in poverty for wanting a better future for themselves? According to Population Connection, the swelling numbers abroad create pressures leading to “increased poverty, hunger, land degradation, a lack of health services and limited social and economic mobility.”

How do we address these emigration pressures without calling for the mandatory caps on U.S. immigration that are a taboo subject to many? Population Connection wants to combine action at home (reducing teen pregnancy, ensuring contraceptive availability, defending reproductive rights) with foreign aid. If people see real hope for better lives at home, the group says, they will feel much less pressure to emigrate.

Such views have many supporters. “What would stop the illegal migration?” asks G. Jefferson Price, III, a former Baltimore Sun foreign correspondent, now with Catholic Relief Services. “A reversal in the trends that have devastated the economies of the countries whose people feel they have no alternative but to leave. We are spending a lot of energy and wealth to keep immigrants out of the U.S. If we and the governments of the countries they are coming from were to devote as much to improving their standard of living at home, they might not feel the need to come to America.”

The obstacle is to get countries around the world to focus on eradicating hunger, infant mortality and poverty, and limiting births through universal access to family planning and maternal health programs. In 1994, 179 countries met in Cairo, Egypt for the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), which issued a 20-year plan to address these issues. Unfortunately, for the most part, this agenda has languished as donor countries -­ including the U.S., despite having spent more than $500 million on the Iraq War -­ have fallen short of meeting their financial commitments.

In addition, the reinstatement by George W. Bush of the “Global Gag Rule” (which mandates that no U.S. family planning assistance be provided to foreign organizations that use funding from any other source to perform abortions or lobby to make abortion legal or more available in their country) has had a severe impact, denying much-needed services and contraceptives to agencies on the front lines.  Cultural and religious opposition have also combined to thwart efforts.

Nevertheless, Thoraya Ahmed, executive director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), says that the ICPD process offers the best hope for reducing migration pressures. “Today it is clear that the growing inequity between and within countries affects migration patterns. To address migration, the growing poverty and demographic divide between rich and poor countries must be addressed.”

———————————–

E – The Environmental Magazine distributes 50,000 copies six times per year to subscribers and bookstores. It’s website, www.emagazine.com, enjoys 600,000 monthly visitors. E also publishes EarthTalk, a nationally syndicated environmental Q&A column distributed free to 1,700 newspapers, magazines and websites throughout the U.S. and Canada ( www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek). Single copies of E‘s May/June 2008 issue are available for $5 postpaid from: E Magazine, P.O. Box 50032, Boulder, CO 80322. Subscriptions are $29.95 per year, available at the same address.