Last week we discussed some of the South Asian participation in the immigration rallies that took place across the country. An SM tipster informs me that director Joseph Matthew, originally from Kerala, has a new documentary out called Crossing Arizona which highlights the tensions between various factions down at the U.S.-Mexico border.
CROSSING ARIZONA is an up-to-the-moment look at the hotly debated issues of illegal immigration and border security on the U.S./Mexico border.
Heightened security along the Texas and California borders funnels an estimated 4,500 illegal migrants, most traveling on foot, into remote sectors of the Arizona desert on a daily basis. The perilous journey, which can take up to four days, has led to the deaths of thousands of migrants.
The influx of migrants and rising death toll has elicited impassioned responses and complicated feelings about human rights, culture, class and national security. Through the eyes of frustrated ranchers, local activists, desperate migrants, and the Minutemen who’ve become darlings of the national media, CROSSING ARIZONA reveals the surprising political stances people take when immigration and border policy fails everyone. [Link]
<
p>I checked out the filmmaker’s blog as well (everyone has a blog now). Here was one audience member’s reaction to the film:
The Premiere [at Sundance] was a blast. The Q&A afterwards focused soley on the issues. And it was great to have three characters from the film there to shape the debate. Some Minutemen even showed up and we made sure they were able to get tickets to see the film. After the screening, a Minuteman wrote me: “It is, in fact, an utter disappointment that any honorable U.S. citizen would make such a film.”
He was concerned that the film was off-balance. Simcox himself said that he thought he was portrayed fairly and that the filmmakers allowed him to say everything he wanted to say. May I point out that, during the film, the audience meets multiple characters who have different takes on the situation: landowning ranchers who deal with the consequences of migrants crossing over their land, immigrant rights’ activists who feel that immigrants are being blamed for problems for which they are not responsible, undocumented (but tax-paying) migrant farmworkers, “samaritans,” “vigilantes,” migrants attempting to cross. [Link]
Roger Ebert chimed in after the film’s screening at Sundance as well:
But at Sundance you switch gears quickly. On the last day or two you hurry between screenings, trying to catch films everybody tells you not to miss. One I especially admired was “Crossing Arizona,” the story of how changes in the U.S. border patrol strategy has funneled illegal immigration toward the Sonoma Desert. More than 1,000 Mexicans have died of thirst in recent years, and we meet Native Americans who distribute bottles of water along immigration pathways. They also advise the immigrants to turn themselves in to the Border Patrol to save their lives.
The movie observes that illegal immigrant farm workers are crucial to the Arizona economy, and an American farmer says that without them the state’s agriculture would fail. We meet right-wing “Minute Men” who appoint themselves as unofficial border guards, fanned on by TV commentators like Bill O’Reilly, who says the North Koreans line their border with Red Army troops, and says he agrees with that approach. Meanwhile, Border Patrol agents consider the Minute Men dangerous bozos, and an Indian pastor finds that someone has slashed open the plastic bottles of water he leaves in the desert. [Link]
Here is a trailer for the film which is playing in the SF Bay Area this week.
and an American farmer says that without them the stateÂ’s agriculture would fail
read cadillac desert, and you might not think this was such a bad thing….
I saw this film last night, and it is truly remarkable. A must see for all people who would like to be critically engaged in the issues presented. Probably should be seen by all lawmakers. I spoke to the filmmaker afterwards, and he informed me that in order to secure a distributor for theatrical release, they need to bring in a large number of viewers this week at the exclusive engagement with Roxie Cinema at 16th and Mission in San Francisco. So….please support an increased understanding of the complexities of the issues involved with migration and the border by going to watch the film. You will also be supporting independent film.
Growers have been whining about crops rotting in the fields for decades, and similar quotes were made concerning attempts to stop child labor. Click that link to see a whole series of recent propaganda articles from growers complaining about the lack of illegal workers, including one from the Guardian.
If there were more Minutemen on the border, wouldn’t fewer illegal aliens try to cross?
And, wouldn’t that result in fewer crosser deaths?
On the other hand, dont’t those who try to “help” illegal aliens encourage illegal immigration and the resulting crosser deaths?
I don’t know which Indians pass out water, but the O’odham reservation near Tucson has been hit hard by illegal aliens using hospital services, leaving trash behind, etc.
I also wonder which BP agents consider the MMP members “bozos”. Is that the feeling of the front-line agents, or of their supervisors, who may be following Bush’s open border policies?
If there were more Minutemen on the border, wouldn’t fewer illegal aliens try to cross?…On the other hand, dont’t those who try to “help” illegal aliens encourage illegal immigration and the resulting crosser deaths?
That’s what I find interesting about the immigration debate. At the least, we should be able to agree that illegal immigration is negative (at the very least, so that the concept of national borders doesn’t become a total sham). And given that our laws work via a system of incentives or disincentives for a given behavior, we should also be able to agree that if illegal immigration is negative, we should be piling on the disincentives like a mother. No?
@gjh – You assume that everyone takes your position that the specific issue of illegal immigration from Mexico into the US is negative; and then build an argument based on that unilaterally enforced agreement. Yes, if we believed that something was negative, we could make a case for laws that act as disincentives – but the issue at hand contains both positives and negatives, so you’re claim is bogus.
Before someone points this out, I know that I misspelled “your” as “you’re”
sorry, i should have been more clear
i’m surprised at 2 things:
first, that there is an argument that illegal immigration is not a negative
second, that there is an argument, where crossing the borders w/o proper documentation is considered illegal, that you should do anything other than provide disincentives (ex: providing any sort of aid/assistance to illegal immigrants)
The issue here isn’t illegal immigration in general. The fallacy of the general rule
For a multitude of reasons, illegal immigration is always a bad thing. We have very “liberal” laws for those fleeing political persecution and exceptions can be made for unique cases, and they should take care of every case where someone needs to illegally enter for some objectively pressing need.
There are also plenty of laws on the books forbidding aiding and hiring and such illegal aliens. The problem is that they aren’t enforced. The main reason why they aren’t enforced illustrates one of the main problems with illegal immigration: it breeds corruption. Those banks, growers, retail chains, restaurants, contractors, etc. that profit off illegal immigration directly or indirectly donate to politicians who then do what they want: keep the cheap labor flowing by refusing to enforce our laws. A certain company that makes a lot of money off illegal aliens sending money home to Mexico even supported the opponent of a congressman who opposes illegal immigration.
what i don’t understand are the liberals who seem to be confusing illegal immigration w/ immigration in general – as if an attack on one is necessarily an attack on the other; considering that the Dems have always portrayed themselves, at least, as pro-lower/middle class, it is interesting and confusing that they align themselves w/ the illegal immigrant bloc when it is precisely lower/middle class families who are most adversely affected by illegal immigration
Of course, i suppose they are simply counting the votes. As a general rule, Spanish-americans, regardless of immigration status, are decidedly on the side of illegal immigrants for one obvious reason. Since this is potentially the deciding bloc of votes in the future, and since the movement is (rather disingenuously) declared to be the civil rights movement of our day (!), I guess the Dems are just thinking ahead….
Sorry GJH, You don’t really sound like you know what you are talking about if you are going to cite “Spanish-Americans” (who are from Spain).
fair enough replace w/: latin-americans
The trailer looks really interesting. I look forward to its wider release. I also found out today that the film-maker is my third-cousin: so I’m sure it’s a great film :).
considering that the Dems have always portrayed themselves, at least, as pro-lower/middle class, it is interesting and confusing that they align themselves w/ the illegal immigrant bloc when it is precisely lower/middle class families who are most adversely affected by illegal immigration
I would be careful with an electorally focused analysis and also the preconception that Democrats are not fundamentally supporting business interests–they’re the leftwing of the elite, but still part of the elite. Most of the confusion, I think comes from the fact that there are three main components to it what’s going on now: To broadly generalize, the major agendas here come from American business classes (want immigrants, but for cheap labor); Immigrants (want rights and decent treatment); Xenophobes (want the borders shut down, people deported, etc.). American native-born workers seem to tend to side with either the first group (see an organization like Drum Major Policy Institute, for example) or the second (see Lou Dobbs). There are obviously issues of race and language and nationality involved as well. So a lot of the Senate legislation is about the alliance of the business classes with immigrant groups for limited gains; the House legislation is driven by purely xenophobia. There isn’t really a bill that represents immigrants’ interests substantially.
Now when you add to all this a burgeoning Mexicano/Latino power movement that’s intersecting with but not identical to the immigrant rights movement, you get a sense for how complicated things are.
what i don’t understand are the liberals who seem to be confusing illegal immigration w/ immigration in general – as if an attack on one is necessarily an attack on the other;
That’s because both are part of an extensive regime that criminalizes all immigrants. This is not to say that class and race and other things don’t play a role in which immigrants may be mistreated and won’t. But, basically, if you look at the trends in immigration law over the past 10 years (dating back to 1996), they are about vastly expanded the grounds for deportation for all immigrants (including green card holders and everyone down the line). This is down by increasing the number of crimes that constitute an “aggravated felony” for immigration purposes–so that something as minor as shoplifting or a nonviolent drug-related offense can get you deported–as well as stepped up enforcement of immigration laws, expansion of jailing and imprisonment of immigrants, etc.
Additionally, many immigrant communities, as you know, are mixes of undocumented and documented persons (and in some cases people in between) economically and socially and even on a very basic personal level. For example, a recent Pew Hispanic Center report argued that about 3.1 million children live in families of mixed authorized/unauthorized status (unauthorized includes undocumented people as well as some people in “quasi-legal status). Read more here. (pdf)
Perhaps some filmmaker should go south of the border and chronicle the subject of the “illegal immigrants” in Mexico and their treatment by Mexican authorities for a change:
Though I guess this subject will not have our Latino political activists out in the streets demanding better treatment for illegals in Mexico…
Vikram,
There is no doubt that there the government of Mexico must also be pressured to ameliorate conditions for Central American migrants on its soil. But that does not make the fight that is occurring here any less important. Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because two governments have both failed in their respective duties to protect migrants does not absolve either government. This issue is about protecting all migrants coming to the US from Mexico, Central America, and other countries. And so, of course, it makes sense that people in the US would pressure the US government to ameliorate conditions in the US.
oaklandgirl:
Just to clarify the situation as it appears to me: I am all for the amelioration of the conditions for legal immigrants to the US, from where ever they come from. I just find it irritating to see this conflation between illegal and legal immigrants. Sorry, but I think this situation needs to dealt with differently for each case. It is interesting that the Mexican government considers illegal immigrants on their soil as felons, liable for a 2 year jail sentence, and yet illegal Mexican citizens in the US, while “proudly” waving Mexican flags proclaim “We are not criminals”. Now isn’t that just a little bit hypocritical ?