Who is telling them they have to stop having babies? Would their be quotas and forced abortions?
References :

Regardless of the cause of the warming, we’ve already overfished the oceans, over-cut the forests, and the planet’s carrying capacity will be dramatically reduced as additioanl warming further challenges its already-taxed ecosystems.

Consider also that human carrying capacity is now fully dependent upon the artificial construct of the global financial system. That was on the brink of collapse not long ago and due to massive bribery buying off politicians (excuse me, it’s politely called "lobbying", and "contributing to campaigns"), nothing whatsoever was done to prevent the same sort of collapse in the future. If or when the next collapse comes, if it’s complete, anyone who lives within a tank of gas drive plus a week’s walk (say 500 miles) of a major metropolitan center will be vulnerable to having their resoures taken from them forcefully in any state of anarchy that might result.

Consider this: what will be the impact on the global fiancial system if global cities are innundated with storm surges as sea level rises a meter or two? Most of that real estate is financed, so essentially all financial organizations of any size will collapse. There’s nothing built into our financial systems to accomodate that sort of scenario. The subprime mortgage loan bubble was tiny by comparison.

To the extent that fossil fuels accelerate the warming, every person added to the plantet has an additional impact. That only serves to create additional challenges to the ecosystems that we need to support us. We need to reserve some excess food production capacity for insurance. We can’t expand right up to the carrying capacity limit, whatever that might be, or glitches such as climate change or financial system collapse (which might be triggered by the symptoms of climate change)can have devastating consequences.

Even the likely climate change and financial collapse issues aside, we still haven’t solved poverty, hunger or disease after decades of trying, so why allow population to increase in those areas where the added population only exponentially magnifies those problems? The "save everybody" approach promoted by vain, ego-driven self-righteous nuts has dramaticaly failed, and the famines, plagues and wars that have resulted have been a despicable thing to do to coming generations in developing nations. Develop a conscience, and make affordable birth control a top priority.
References :

Plenty of people want to conserve wilderness. I see NOTHING in that quote advocating population control, just that we need to protect wilderness from existing population growth.

Much less immigration. Note that the award was given to her by the conservative Bush administration.

This is totally "spin", with no intellectual content.
References :

I disagree totally with her statements. There are adequate resources to feed the entire population but the distribution of these resources is back-to-front. Regarding population control; that sounds all well and good- in theory- but Germany and Japan have started a campaign for people to have more children (preferably within the context of the family) to be able to cope with their aging population. What means does she envision to effect this?
I haven’t heard Mother Earth crying, and I work the land…
References :

First off, reduce incentives for more than one baby, improve access to family planning in developing nations and help them develop. It appears that developed nations don’t grow as fast (or, even, decline).

As an example of why this is required: world population looks to be heading for 9bn people. If each of those 9bn people wanted to use as much oil as Americans do per capita then annual oil demand would be 230bn barrels/year.

230bn bbl/yr would exhaust proven world reserves in under 6yrs. Or to get the same energy content from ethanol would require over 80bn tons/year of corn – about 40 times the total world cereal production in 1996.
References :

as we get to peak oil current global industrial agricultural systems will become prohibitively expensive; water and fertilisers are about to peak too.

Whilst we may not be able to calculate the planets carrying capacity to any accuracy it was clear in the 1970s Club of Rome report that there is a limit;
the question is do you want civilisation carry on regardless until the inevitable crash or plan for a "soft" landing, accepting that 6bn humans aspiring to Hollywood lifestyles is not a realistic position to find ourselves.

Immigration is not an issue, as there is only one planet, and we are not being swamped by aliens.
We are all on a Single spaceship, even if most of the resources are being consumed by less than 10% and the same people are causing the most damage to our shared life support systems
References :
last hours of ancient sunlight.

1900 – 1.5 Billion
1960 – 3.0 Billion
2000 – 6.0 Billion
2010 – 7.0 Billion

Roughly speaking doubling every 50 years, with no sign of it slowing down.

In the study of population dynamics there are three recognised factors which control animal populations which are density dependant

I. Starvation

2. disease

3. predation (war and crime of the human equivalent)

If we do not find some equitable political solution to population control, nature will do it for us, and that won’t be pretty
References :
Figures from http://www.optimumpopulation.org