Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Draconian Measures to Solve the Immigration Problem


The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan highlights this lovely quote from Pat Bertroche, Republican Congressional Candidate in the Iowa 3rd:
I think we should catch ’em, we should document ’em, make sure we know where they are and where they are going,” said Pat Bertroche, an Urbandale physician. “I actually support microchipping them. I can microchip my dog so I can find it. Why can’t I microchip an illegal?
Jesus Christ! Can he not even mask his view of illegal immigrants as sub-human? This is only a small step removed from the loons on the right who believe that allowing same-sex marriage will open the doors to allowing people to marry their pets, their children, their siblings.

You know the Nazis had a really great way of tracking people in custody - numerical tattoos! There are still quite a few Jews alive with those numbers on their arms. The only reason the Nazis didn't use microchips was because they hadn't been invented yet. Does this guy not realize what he's proposing?

Sullivan links back to this piece in the Iowa Independent gets into what the other Republican primary candidates said at the same event. For example, State Senator Brad Zaun claims that illegals use up government services such as education while not paying for any of those services. The Independent article helpfully breaks down the numbers to reveal that an undocumented family typically winds up paying about 80% of the total tax contribution of a documented family of comparable income. This comes in the form of sales tax and property tax. Not to mention the cost of not allowing illegal immigrants' children access to public education will simply perpetuate their existence as menial labor. If their children have access to education (as they should because every child has the right to a free education in our country) then maybe they'll grow up to contribute more to the economy than their parents.

Anyway, does Iowa really have such a huge population of illegal immigrants? Not really. According a report by the Pew Hispanic Center, estimates put it somewhere between 2 and 3 percent of the total population which is in the bottom half of all 50 states. Compare that to California's 5%, 5.6% in Texas, 4.5% in FL, 3.33% in NY and a whopping 7.5% in Arizona (but not for long after their new immigration law).

Monday, April 26, 2010

New Arizona Immigration Law a Disgrace to the Constitution (Part II)

The commentary on the new Arizona anti-brown people law is starting to come in. The New York Times has an article highlighting the divided opinions on the measures which includes this choice bit, which, incredibly enough, doesn't come from The Onion:
In a nearby neighborhood, Ron White, 52, said he felt a sense of relief that something was finally being done about “the illegals” — whom he blames for ills like congregating on the streets, breaking into homes in his neighborhood, draining tax dollars and taking jobs from Americans.

“I sure hope it does have an effect,” Mr. White said of the new law as he packed his car with groceries. “I wouldn’t want to show proof of citizenship, but I also don’t feel it is racial profiling. You are going to look different if you are an alien, and cops know.”
Yes, that's true. If you're an alien, you might look something like this and the cops will definitely know who you are. Doesn't the opinion of this Ron White seem to underscore the fact that it's really not about wanting illegal immigrants out, but basically everyone who came from south of the border?

Meanwhile, John Judis in The New Republic points out some interesting facts and statistics indicating that during The Great Depression many states began arresting and deporting Mexicans despite a near stand-still in Mexican immigration to the US. Furthermore, the Arizona bill arrives at a point when immigration is at a low most likely due to the recession:
The recession has sharply curtailed illegal immigration to the United States. According to Princeton political scientist Douglas Massey, the number of undocumented residents in the United States peaked at 12.6 million in 2008 and fell to 10.8 million in 2009. Nowhere did it fall more sharply than in Arizona, where the number of illegal immigrants dropped by 100,000 over the last year. But Republicans in Arizona are acting as if illegal immigrants are pouring across the border and must be stopped by any means necessary.
Finally there's The Atlantic's James Fallows who likens the situation to Communist China, where he lived and where it is also a requirement for all people to carry documentation. He notes, as a small sign of hope, that he rarely encountered officials asking for ID on a whim. But he provides nothing short of a stinging ironic indictment of how the Arizona law enforcement will have to learn the proper techniques:
With some notable and serious exceptions, I typically did not see Chinese police asking for papers on a whim. Usually something had to happen first. Maybe soon the Chinese State Security apparatus can travel to Arizona and give lectures to local police and sheriffs. They can explain how to avoid going crazy with a new power that so invites abuse. "Civil Liberties: Learning from China" can be the name of the course.
I have spent four years living as an illegal immigrant in a foreign country. This happens to be a country where it is required to always carry identification documents. I accepted long ago that if I were ever caught and deported then that's my tough luck for being here illegally. I wouldn't want anyone to feel I was wronged. However, it's important to recognize the main reason I've never been caught, including when leaving and re-entering the country. I've been incredibly lucky not because I've never been stopped, but because I'm a white man whom the police are unlikely to ever find reason to stop.

I have, on occasion, seen Latin Americans presenting ID to police. Granted, I have no way of knowing the circumstances in those instances. Although the last time involved a line of about 7 or 8 young men in a park presenting papers one by one. Nothing about the scene struck me as if there'd been any crime committed other than perhaps drinking in public (which is done by virtually everyone here, especially in parks).

My very strong feeling is that you can't maintain a free society in which citizens are required to carry proof of identification. The Arizona law runs deeper than the wrongs that will likely be perpetrated against people with dark skin. A human being is not some object in need of being catalogued and tracked by the government. This is a freedom the people should not be so willing to give up.


Friday, April 23, 2010

New Arizona Immigration Law a Disgrace to the Constitution

This has been expected for some time now, but Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona has just signed into law an immigration bill that, among other things, will make it a legal requirement for all immigrants to carry their documentation and give law enforcement broad power to enforce it.

The crux of the bill relates to employment, trafficking and transportation of illegal immigrants. But the provision (the first section of the bill) that has a lot of people in a tizzy (including President Obama) is the new power bestowed upon the police.

Not to worry, however. Governor Brewer is aware of the potential for abuse of power:
She said that racial profiling would not be tolerated, adding, “We have to trust our law enforcement.”
She completely misses the point of how authoritarianism is born. The idea of a free society is that the people have inalienable rights that are neither granted them nor controlled by the government. These rights belong to the people. We trust law enforcement because we the people have the power. When you give too much power to the police, the door to distrust is thrust open and somewhere the power will be abused.

Here's another bit that caught my attention:
It requires police officers “when practicable” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.
This is giving way too much wiggle room to law enforcement, it seems to me. What is a reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally? How many legal and documented immigrants (not to mention both naturalized AND natural born citizens) do you think will be asked for "zeir papuhz pleaz"? I'm no friend to the Catholic Church at the moment, so you know something's amiss when I'm in perfect agreement with the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

I know what people like my Dad would say: "If you're not doing anything wrong you've got nothing to hide." A very easy thing for a white man to say when he'll never have to put up with the kind of police harassment that is sure to be reported when this law takes effect later this year. What happens to citizens who aren't required to carry ID, yet "look like" immigrants? Will those people, unable to cough up a birth certificate or US passport on demand be detained and held in county jail until such documents can be produced?

Surely it's no accident that this piece of legislation was signed into law on Trash Day, a day when unpopular news gets dumped so fewer people will pay attention.

I'm not hyperventilating about this law. I have full confidence that it will be swiftly challenged and struck down in court. But I do think it's worth paying attention to and recognizing that the kind of thinking that completely misunderstands the Constitution and would seek to undermine it for personal gain continues to pervade. Don't travel to Arizona as long as this law is on the books. Don't give them the satisfaction of your tourist dollars.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Sin Nombre Movie Review: A Crossing of Two Very Different Lives


Many of the iconic American films have been those stories that focus on the aspects that have defined the history of our country: immigrant stories such as The Godfather; the taming of wild country as depicted in the entire Western genre; and stories of expansionism and manifest destiny as seen in Chinatown. It’s easier for us, as Americans, to recognize these themes and how they fit into our understanding of the American story. But what about the national histories of other countries? It’s quite difficult to translate a film steeped in history from one country to another. Without a reference point we can only watch the film unfold as entertainment, missing out on the possibility for a deeper resonance.

Mexico and the United States share a great deal of history. Although we may not be as well informed as to the particulars of life below the border and their own history, we may reflect on our knowledge of immigrant stories, especially those involving Hispanics, when we watch Sin Nombre, last year’s feature debut from director Cary Fukunaga. Being raised in southern California surely made Fukunaga sensitive to the issues surrounding Central American immigrants, but what a bold choice of subject matter for a recent graduate of the NYU film school to tell a story in a foreign language (and rife with slang unknown even to most native Spanish speakers) of immigrants and gangs crossing paths in the slums of Mexico.

The film opens with a harrowing scene in which a young boy nicknamed Smiley (Kristian Ferrer) is initiated into the Marero gang by receiving a beating that lasts until the leader, L’il Mago (Tenoch Huerta), counts to thirteen. It seems Smiley’s introduction to the gang has been made by Casper (Edgar Flores) who whisks him away from his protesting grandmother.

After this brief introduction to Casper and the Marero, which takes place near the Guatemalan border, we abruptly shift to the teenage Sayra (Paulina Gaitan) in Honduras as she meets her father for the first time. Her father has already been deported from the United States where he has a family in New Jersey, but now that he has access to his eldest daughter, he intends to bring her and his brother with him on his next attempt to return.

The journey undertaken by Sayra and her family is the typical dangerous route used by the majority of Central American migrants headed for the US. After crossing from Guatemala into Mexico they have to be on the lookout not only for Mexican border guards, but also marauding bands of pirates and gangs such as the Marero who either steal what money they have or kidnap them in order to extort money from their families in America. They travel on top of a freight train, which carries enough perils of its own. And as if that weren’t enough, there are corrupt police and border guards willing to sell them to gang members and extortion artists.

The train ride takes them through the seediest parts of Mexico along a mostly defunct rail line. The virtual ghost towns and abandoned rail yards they pass through call forth images of the wild and untamed west we hold dear. But these places are often fraught with danger and there’s no John Wayne or Gary Cooper to watch over the less fortunate. My mistaken belief about the immigrants who cross the border into California and Texas has always been that the most dangerous part is avoiding the US border patrol. On the contrary, once they reach the American border, they’re basically home free. The migrants traveling on the train encounter both farm laborers who toss fruit to them as well as youths who throw rocks at them shouting epithets and telling them to go home to their own country.

At one point, the migrants are stopped in a rail yard that we recognize from a scene involving Casper and Smiley and we know that eventually Sayra and Casper will cross paths. The reasons for this convergence I shall not reveal except to say that Casper is done a great injustice by someone in his own gang. Later, while robbing the migrants atop the train, he has the opportunity to save Sayra and exact his own vengeance simultaneously. This, of course, sets him on the lam from his own gang as well as the different branches located throughout the country. He is doggedly pursued by Smiley (anxious to prove his mettle to the gang leader) and El Sol.

So far I’ve provided a lot of exposition, but I haven’t even gotten to the heart of the story which is the bond that develops between Sayra and Casper. In some ways it’s a tired convention, but Fukunaga’s screenplay allows it to happen organically. His attraction (and I don’t necessarily mean romantic attraction) to her takes some time to show. He feels responsible for her, but she may also remind him of his girlfriend, who he may not have realized he truly loved until he lost her. She is drawn to him primarily because she recognizes what he’s gotten himself into by saving her life, but I think there’s more to the attraction. She’s dazzled by the mystery of the young man before her and the tattoos he wears marking him as a killer. There’s an element of danger, but also a level of protection she sees from him that her father has never provided during his absence. It is one of the great strengths of the film that neither of these attractions is explicitly discussed. The actors use body language and eye contact, Fukunaga allows us to watch Casper as he replays video of his girlfriend on his camera.

The attraction of Sayra to Casper is similar to what we see in the character of Smiley who seems to want nothing more from life than to be a Marero. There’s a key scene between Smiley and some other boys his own age where he gets to show off his newly acquired gun. The boys are impressed and want details about his experiences. This is a culture of admiration. They see the gang as something to belong to. It gives them purpose and protection. There is also an element of magical mysticism surrounding the Marero which we see reflected in the nicknames they give themselves: the leader L’il Mago (Little Wizard); the second in command El Sol (The Sun); and Casper, whose name recalls images of a friendly ghost.

This brings me to the larger point I think Fukunaga is trying to make which is the idea that the abject poverty these characters and a great deal of people from that part of the world find themselves in is likely to drive them to a choice between two lives: be part of a gang or be an illegal immigrant in the US.

The writing is truly the film’s strong point, but Fukunaga shows his technical skill as a director in shooting several scenes on top of a moving train. It is seamlessly edited, including the cutting of action sequences and the joining together of two plot lines, by Luis Carballar, who brings with him the experience of working on another film with multiple storylines – Amores Perros – and Hollywood veteran Craig McKay, whose work has included both action and drama, most notably Reds and The Silence of the Lambs.

The title of the film, which means “Without Name” in English seems at first to refer to Casper, who has given up his given name to be part of a gang. However, I’d say it has more to do with the fact that the principal characters’ (Casper, Sayra and Smiley) stories could potentially be anyone’s story. The film may be focused on these people at this time and place, but ultimately there are millions of people who struggle daily with the same kinds of things that these characters struggle with. Any of the three could be the protagonist in his own film. I’d be most interested in seeing how Smiley’s story continues. Tell me you don’t agree.


Everything I Saw in the 2nd Half of 2025

30 Dec. Hamnet (2025) [cinema]* 28 Dec. #4133 Song Sung Blue (2025) [cinema] 25 Dec. #4132 Marty Supreme (2025) [cinema] 16 Dec. #4131...