George Mason University and Unity in the Community (www.unityitc.org) concludes its Immigration & Human Rights Cinema series with a screening of “Frozen River,” a 2008 Sundance Festival Grand Jury award-winning film at 7:30 p.m., on Saturday, May 16 in the Verizon Auditorium at GMU’s Prince William Campus, 10900 University Boulevard, Manassas. Admission is free, and a facilitated discussion follows the film.
“Frozen River” is a drama focusing on an upstate New York trailer mom who is lured into illegal immigrant smuggling. The desperate woman teams up with Lila, a Mohawk Indian from the reservation that straddles the US-Canadian border. Together they begin carrying illegal immigrants across the frozen St. Lawrence River. Actress Melissa Leo earned an Academy Award nomination for this performance.
Free parking in the Occoquan Parking lot.
Moon, I did not have a chance to address this previously: You said,
Ok, Michael. I am going to attempt to be very polite. I might fail. How dare you say I am for amnesty. You have no idea what my political beliefs are because you come on here and in your arrogance, think you can enlighten all of us.
You can think whatever you want about Alanna, Elena or me. We are three different people so I doubt even you, in your infinite wisdom, can categorize us correctly. No one is forcing you here. Perhaps it would be better to find a blog more to your liking and where the people are more your kind of people.
Actually, I am not for amnesty. I am for seeking a solution where some people will be able pay fines and meet the requirements of our government in order to be able to stay in the United States legally. I also support a guest worker program that meet the business needs of our country.
I hope there will be no more people misrepresenting my point of view.”
Thank you for being polite, and if I mischaracterized your support for “illegal” immigrants and tendency to look for and publish information that only “supports of garners sympathy for “illegal” immigrants such as the above GM film, them I am sorry. However it looks to me like you cannot and will not present a balanced viewpoint on the “costs” and “negative impact” of “illegal” immigration.
I too realize that we will probably never get “amnesty” passed as a result of the past damage caused the last time it was passed in 1984. I certainly do not want complete amnesty and no consequences for illegal behavior. So many of the existing problems we have in overpopulation, social up-rising, additional poverty and political disruption is directly linked to the conqequences to giving “amnesty” the first time.
So what is the alternative? Unlike you I do not believe that “fineing” people will be adequate motivation or adequate punishment to discourage future illegal immigration in the future of the same magnitude it is now.
If we cannot come up with a legal punishment for breaking the law that discourages further law-breaking and un-controlled populations of great poverty that continue to drag the country into financial ruin and social decay, then we will NEVER be able to prevent future problems even greater than the ones we have now.
I am not heartless on this issue, in fact just today I read an article about young boys in Zacateces, Mx who were smiling and every bit as adorable and loving as my own sons, who a few of the boys reminded me of. I do not wish ill will on any of them. What I have an issue with is the unlawful behavior, not the lawful behavior that is representative of arrogance of “illegal” immigrants and the total disregard for the standards of living for the people who are living in this nation that they impact negatively. I don’t like the concept of “taking” something you want, that has a consequence of hurting significant numbers of existing US citizens.
This is why you need to post more balanced views of the harm and damage that “illegal” immigration causes and promote following our laws, and promote “legal” immigration only.
When you can do this, I will stop being upset with your “advocacy” efforts.
It may surprise you that I too support a guest worker program (Called a work visa today) as long as when the “Guest” period is over, people return to their original countries and wait like everyone else for admission legally into the US based on OUR needs, not theirs. If it becomes a mechanism for people to slip into the “darkness” and remain as a new form of “illegal” immigrant then I am all for trsacking them down and punishing them, but as you can see groups like the ones you support make “tracking and identifying people” who have broken the law, impossible. This is also why I believe yours and the actions of others are undermining democratic principles (majority needs and majority voted), and underming our law enforcement rights and right to our own preservation of lifestyle and pursuit of “happiness”. When you support “illegal” immigrants, you damage my family and my families welfare by giving that welfaqre to people who have not earned it.
This is why I oppose your viewpoints on this blog. I believe they are wrong. A fine is not a big enough deterrant.
This is a very interesting movie. You also learn a lot about the hard life on an Indian reservation in upstate New York, a community I certainly wasn’t aware of.
I know you did not post the above, but I would encourage you to find and post the negative effects on US citizens caused by “illegal” immigration and more articles that support reasons why we should follow our own majority voted laws if we are to remain a democracy and not sink into “autocracy” or control of the government by minority factions. Such minority faction political power is how “hitler” and “stalin” came to power, even though the “majority” opposed both of them. This is when democract failed in Europe, and it can fail in the same way here in the US with any factional minority group rise to political power.
Michael, I believe this blog was created to oppose bvbl, thus its name, anti-bvbl. Bvbl more than adequately blasts illegal immigration and points out every danger, cost, and inconvenience, both real and imaginary.
Hopefully this blog has moved somewhat beyond ONLY discussing immigration. I think most people here have other interests. Obviously most people here are not for open borders and they also feel that illegal immigration is not a good thing for all involved. I think it is very safe to assume that most of us favor reforming our existing laws.
The question is, are we compelled to try and reform our existing laws because we feel they are unjust, or is it because we don’t know how to address the fact that millions have already broken the existing laws?
CNN reports that the nation’s population is over one third minority members. Every law and rule brought about to help minorities now discriminates against two thirds of the people in this country. At what point do we need to stop making rules to aid only those considered in the minority? At what point does the ‘majority’ become the ‘minority’ and the rules must be reversed, but then I don’t think that kind of compassion will ever be shown by the new ‘majority’ to those of the new ‘minority’! I heard a discussion the other day stating that some people have been oppressed for 400 years. A hundred years from now that statement will read some people have been oppressed for 500 years, and that from the same race as the president of this country. So when is all this ‘oppression’ talk ever going to end, as if those in the present ‘majority’ have never had to struggle in life! By the way, how is Africa doing now that it is has kicked out the white rule? Was it a change that made an improvement, or a study in being careful what you wish for? Anyone know for sure?
THanks MH for trying to move this blog to other things and just not immigration. It is fine for its primary focus to be immigration, but I appreciate you posting other topics (cyber-bullying) is an example, as well as others you have posted. Understand its primary focus will continue to be immigration, but good to have a few other things thrown into mix occaisionally.
I made the post about the movie, not Moon Howler, Alanna or Elena. It is a chance for face-to-face facilitated discussion and it takes place in Prince William County in a university setting. I appreciate the blog administrators allowing me to start threads from time to time. I don’t do it to inflame anybody here, but to let you know of opportunities for face-to-face discussions in the community. This is the last film in the series. You might be surprised at the depth and range of the views expressed at these events. Please consider attending.
@Second-Alamo
“The question is, are we compelled to try and reform our existing laws because we feel they are unjust, or is it because we don’t know how to address the fact that millions have already broken the existing laws?”
I’d say more or less the second case, SA. There probably are some unjust factors in the current system, but nothing so unjust as what is happening now because the U.S. has failed to follow its own laws. It’s too late for that now. It’s immoral to treat people poorly when you’ve allowed them to stay.
Actually, it’s immoral to treat people poorly in general. But to do it on a large scale equals persecution and worse.
Cindy, some people will be inflamed just from hearing the word “immigration.” 🙂
Incidentally, SA, even “criminals” are allowed to perform community service to pay back their communities. Entering the country illegally (once) isn’t a criminal offense.
Community service, then, or some form of restitution, should be an option to help people restore their lives and improve everyone’s quality of life without encouraging the “deport them all” or “if they’re here, let’s treat them like crap so they will leave” mentalities.
Pin ko, I think the point of this discussion, it that films like the above are done by advocacy groups, specifically minority advocacy groups in most cases to gain sympathy for their cause, by presenting only one view of the issue, i.e. the plight trials and tribulations of an “illegal” immigrant coming across our border with the help of sympathertic “insiders”. The goal of sucu movies is to show the “illegal” immigrant as the only one harmed by the laws we have enforcing “legal” immigration, and for the audience to somehow find sympathy for the individual, and anger at the existing law, enough to reform it (I.e. remove it or make it easier to bring even larger numbers into the country). In almost every case, especially at George Mason sponsorship done by liberal sympathizers and academics who in many cases are members of the same “minority” group, do not ever show the dame caused by illegal immigration, or the negative impact of illegal immigration enough to sway your emotions to SUPPORT existing law, or to decrease the numbers of illegal immigrants in the nation.
People tend to go to these movies only if it supports their political point of view.
The counter to such “advocacy” is to present a balanced view of both sides of the problem with the rights of the “majority” needs considered as the majority, and because they are the majority are the more deserving of rules and law-enforcement that protect their “individual rights” the same and with the larger group sufferring the lessor harm. That is how democracy works.
When the smaller group (like the socialists of Stalin’s party), suffer the least harm, and can inflict the greater harm on the “majority”, because they control the party politics as a “minority” class, then you no longer have a Democracy, and what you have is a dictatorship run by a minority class ELITE or PARTY.
Here is an example of what is so wrong about “elite” minority classes, or protected classes that I heard today.
They start to think that only thier class deserves political representation, and that diversity is required for thier rights to be upheld by the law. Another form of the same argument is that only specific racial, ethnicm gender or religious groups can understand what is best for them, and that their viewpoint is necessary to have their group treated specially, or their beliefs will be left out of political decisions, and resource allocation.
The problem with this is that for every group “included”, the “individuals” that make up the larger “majority class” are left with UNEQUAL representation based on their larger numbers.
The only solution to present ALL views fairly, and to take care of ALL individuals fairly, is to appoint people to decision positions that can represent only “individual” rights and views from an individual perspective, not from a “social class” perspective. For every individual that belongs to a group you privilge and “include” as a group, you discrimminate and take away from individuals in the groups you do not represent as a minority”.
When this is done minorities gain enormous and unequal power over the majority of individuals in the nation
interesting that my last line will not go through the moderation filter
anyway… here is an example I heard today at work on this destructive principle..
On C-span today, the guest was giving rationale about the choice of the next supreme court justice.
She said” there is no way Obama will appoint a White man”.
When asked why, she said, “women are not represented” and only women are qualified to represent women’s views. She made a mental slip and further said, “Only a woman can represent the rights of individuals, minorities”
See, she mentally has been hashing that women are minorities so long in her head, and that the only “individuals” that deserve special consideration on the Supreme court for nomination” is a woman.
If I were the man that she identified as not deserving to be considered, because he was a “white man” even though he has superior qualifications to all of the available female apellate judges they have to choose from, I would “sue” OBAMA for gender job discrimmination, and he would be entitled to legal damages for such views and impediments to his obtaining the highest court in the land.
This is the kind of crap the majority white male puts up with every day now, because no-one thinks that white males are “individuals” deserving equal treatment under the law, because they are not a minority and theor rights do not need to be protected.
THis is why we have ignored the constitution and given minorities power to oppress majority indivudual rights.
What is also surprising is that the woman did not realize that women are a majority in this nation, and men are the “minority class” who according to her logic, deserve greater class protection rights.
You avoid the injustice of such discriminatory and oppressive views by refusing to associate in terms of “classes”, make it “illegal”, and consider all laws and opportunities only as “individual” rights, regardless of race, gender, religion, ethnicity or disability, and protect all of those individuals, and treat all of those individuals the same under common law. This is the “Equal protection” clause of the US constitution that is being ignored politically in order to give minority groups more power over majority groups, and it undermines DEMOCRACY in favor of minority CLASS rule.
For this reason I want you all to know…I am offended if you call me a “white male”. I am simply an individual, from multi-racial backgrounds, and an “idividual” that deserves to be treated the same way you would treat any “minority class” or majority “class”. This is why I oppose “class” concepts and segregation into “social classes” for political and legal purposes.
My fathcer was English, My mother was Irish, my grandfather was English and my other Grandfather was Irish, my Grandmother was Irish and my other grandmother was Cherokee Indian.
All that does not mean that I should only advocate for “individual” rights and minority rights that benefit only “Irish Classes” and only “English classes” or only “cherokee” classes.
It also does not mean that I am English-America, or Irish-American, or Cherokee American deserving of equal rights to have my “diversity” or “inclusion” represented on the supreme court (By insisting a Cherokee be appointed).
It should mean, and only means to me that I have a colorful history to be proud of, a recreational culture to be proud of, but I am only an “individual” according to the LAW, and I am simply an American who speaks a common language and ideology of Democracy with other Americans.
This is the reason som many of you unset me when you advocate only for your own racial, gender, religious, ethnic group rights to have your “group” represented in social issuses, in special law, in special government 8A set asides, and represented by your “group” minority on the supreme court.
Cindy, Thank you for posting this information. I think we are going to have to be more vigilant about threads being hi-jacked and taken completely off topic.
Hi-jacked in your opinion..I think everything said is RELEVANT to a politically slanted film supporting “illegal” immigrants. But hey its your blog, ban freedom of choice to say what you want about a topic or about something said on the thread…that is why they call it a thread after all… you have to follow the flow of the conversation if you want to understand the context of what people are trying to say…and what they should or should not say is really a matter of difference of opinion whether it is right or wrong…
No, it is not my blog, Michael. It is Alanna’s blog. I just help her out. Cindy’s post is about an upcoming film. Many people, including me, have posted about topics other than what she posted. We all need to be mindful. It is just good blog manners. I am as guilty as the next guy. Take it to the deportation blog. That is sort of open season. I posted the thread, and I don’t mind. Perhaps Cindy would like to keep this thread free for discussion about the movie.
M-H is a tyrant.
That must be it. Sucks to be you, Mackie.
Sounds like an interesting movie. A lot of people like Greg Leticq forget that we have a much larger Canadian border that is also quite open, and manned by fewer border patrol agents. The 9/11 hijackers came through Canada. This is why Greg Leticq is a fool and idiot.
Hey Mackie, any comment on post #6 above? That one ought to get you revving.
The movie sounds interesting and thanks for letting us know. There isn’t much more to say about it though since most of us haven’t seen it.
I haven barely skimmed most of these off-topic posts. I’ve checked the blog for the past few days hoping there would be a new topic, and then left immediately. I wanted to share that because it seems to me that in the absence of a new thread that has a more critical issue than a film screening, we will have hi-jackers come on here to fill the void by using this blog to express very extreme positions.
I do like the idea of allowing people to vent. It is a public service that can help those members of our community who have psychological issues to “get it all out,” almost like an anonymous therapy session, and get some feed back on whatever is preoccupying them. But I don’t know if this is the most important service this blog has to offer our community.
I would suggest that when someone comes to this blog for anonymous therapy, and types something very extreme either because they have extreme views or they are just hoping to engage in a fight, that the other posters respond briefly with an “I don’t agree” and then move on to subjects that apply to the average person in mainstream society and the average member of our community.
I’m not saying to ignore them. We can just say “I don’t agree” and acknowledge them that way. They still get to let it all out, but there is no need to hi-jack threads by indulging them with a serious discussion of a subject that is not really a question for most people who visit here.
Michael and all: the point of the movie is to get a discussion going. The discussion is meant to present–and have people think about–all sides of the issue. I’ve been to one of these movies, and let me tell you–they aren’t attended by people of like minds.
The University structures these so open, respectful dialog can take place.
Find out yourself and attend! I’m sure you would have a lot to add to the live conversation.
Witness Too, you hit the nail on the head!
Witness,
Or you could engage in a balanced debate that does not express “veiled” accusations rooted in self-righteous arrogance.
Or is debate on the issues of majority and minority rights, democracy, the effects of illegal immigration and individual rights, “beneath you”?
I agree with you Pinko, thanks for the “invitation”, I may show up.
Michael, I’m afraid that you and I are on separate wavelengths. If you can find someone to argue with you about whatever it is that is so distracting you, more power to you. I will not be participating.
No problem witness, we all have the right to choose who we wish to debate with and who we do not.
Excellent strategy, Witness.
Witness Too – I also think you made a good point in your post #28. Well said.
I will be there…lurking in the back.
I have seen the movie and it’s not about supporting illegal immigrants. It’s about single mothers eeking out a living under tough economic circumstances, who happen to earn money by ferrying people sneaking in. The immigrant part is not the central point…of great concern is the poverty on Indian reservations, and blue collar white folks in dying small towns. I hope the people who are outraged by illegal immigration will also be outraged about what our European ancestors wrought on the native population.
As part Cherokee, I am outraged by the consequences of “illegal” immigration by Europeans (both English, French and Spanish) and the impact of guns, steel, and smallpox disease on KILLING 95% of all North American Indians.
In today’s numbers that is equivalent to killing 290 Million people out of an existing 306 million population.
I contend that 500 American Indian Nations were destroyed by illegal immigration, that completly changed the legal, financial, political, social and cultural framework of the society in the same way that modern “illegal” immigration is changing the legal, financial, political, social and cultural framework of the current society.
If I was a North American Indian then I would have fought against “illegal” immigration then, just like I am fighting against it now.
Illegal immigrants took Indian children from their parents, and forced them to change to the customs and laws of the “illegal” immigrants, rather than the customs and laws of the existing North American Indian federations. If it were not for guns, steel and disease, these 500 nations would still have economic prosperity today and would likely be under the equivalent of the EU in national construct.
That said, history is history, and the real issue is protecting my individual rights today to maintain my existing government, existing laws and existing concept of democracy against all factions foreign and domestic that would do it harm.
The primary faction doing the harm are the political factions that support “illegal” immigration.