The scheduled April 25 elections to the Board of Directors of Sierra Club, one of the largest environmental groups in this country and the world, has been battling with questions of population growth and environmental degradation, voting on a ballot initiative that requires the Club to work toward limiting immigration to the U.S.

Though the membership is, according to reports, split on whether immigration to the U.S. be limited, the Board that ushered in the elections to replace it, called on members to refrain from taking a position on immigration.

That was also the position of most of the 15 candidates in the fray for three-year terms on the 15-member Board. However, the environmental group has in the past few years faced a progressively bigger divide in its membership regarding the ideological position on the issue of immigration.

The most contentious Population Ballot Question asks members: “Shall the Sierra Club policy on immigration, adopted by the Board of Directors in 1999 and revised in 2003, be changed to recognize the need to adopt lower limits on migration to the U.S.?” The Club board of directors recommended a “no” vote on this question.

The Sierra Club has over the last several decades, addressed the issue of population growth, though always as it affects resources and the environment.

Back in 1978, the Club asked Congress to address the issue of immigration and how it affects the environment, noting that only the U.S., Canada, and Australia among all countries accepted more than a handful of permanent immigrants and urging other nations to balance their population growth and improve their economies implying that this might help stem emigration. In 1997 and until 2003, the Club began calling for a reduction in U.S. birth rates, and finally in 2003, it decided not to take a position on immigration policies here, but rather to work to improve economies and environments worldwide.

But the rancorous debate has pitted one side, Sierrans United for Population Stability, which calls for reduced immigration levels, against others like Groundswell Sierra, which opposes the initiative and the divide will remain regardless of who wins the elections to the Board.