Crossing Over

More photos.

I have not seen the movie Crash, but I suspect Crossing Over is very much like it, in terms of its narrative structure. Indeed, many reviews have pointed this similarity out. There are many characters in the story, whose lives intersect at some point. What ties these arcs together? It seems to me that the overall point of the movie, which is to show current immigration policies and the instrument of that policy, the ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), in a bad light. Even the ICE agents themselves (Max Brogan, played by Harrison Ford) do not like the policies.

Is it a liberal movie? Does it advocate an open borders policy? Not quite. I would not be surprised though if "liberal" Catholic websites were to support the movie. Does it offer a balanced portrayal of the ICE? Not really--there are two good agents, both believers in what "America" stands for--Max Brogan and Hamid Baraheri. As for the villains, there is the corrupt ICE adjudicator, played by Ray Liotta (who looks rather creepy in this movie--is it his performance? Or just the effect of age on his face?). And the FBI Special Agent who wrongly (unjustly?) goes after a Muslim teenager as a potential suicide bomber. In general, the ICE is shown to be an impersonal (and even corrupt) bureaucracy that holds the lives of innocent people in their hands. Even the U.S. Border Patrol is shown to be more humane, when it finds the body of someone trying to cross the border but killed by an evil coyote. Is it SOP for the ICE to not check on the welfare of those who have been arrested and detained, and on their family situations? The movie makes it seem that this is so--Max Brogan is depicted as an irritant, constantly check up on various people, despite the objections and complaints of co-workers.

Does Crossing Over, like Brokeback Mountain, undermine its own message? (This does not mean that I think the purpose of the film and the book is to show the destructive aspects of same-sex relationships, like Victor Morton. It is that in choosing to represent reality, the artists are unable to do away with it when it works against the message they are trying to impose upon it.)

1. In its attempt to be PC, it shows one Caucasian illegal and one Jewish illegal who were involved with one another (and both were originally from Australia?). Both are staying here illegally and are trying various forms of fraud in order to be able to stay here longer so that they can break into the entertainment industry. There is the Australian actress who eventually is blackmailed into whoring herself out to Ray Liotta's character, and the Jewish atheist musician. Of course the actress didn't have to prostitute herself for a green card--she could have returned to Australia (voluntary departure) -- but becoming a star was more important to her. Similarly, the atheist feigns being a Jew in order to get a religious worker visa. They are the least sympathetic characters in the movie. (And in the end, it is even hinted that he has a new potential love interest with one of the Jewish teachers at his Jewish school where he is employed. It is interesting how many people in the movie are willing to break the law by helping with fraud, when they have something to benefit from it, like the rabbi who wants the musician to be a cantor at his synagogue, or the school principal, who believes the musician will be successful and either wants some sort of reward, or is doing it for the sake of Jewish nationalism.)

2. Another example: the ghetto culture that is adopted by the Korean American gangsters. (Is this an accurate depiction of Korean gangs in LA?) Is that the best the United States has to offer?


Not all immigrant children feel at home in the United States, and they feel alienated from "white" culture. Why do the Korean teens adopt ghetto culture? Is it because it belongs an "oppressed" minority? Or because the culture is perceived to be cool? Or associated with the gangs? Or is it done out of a rebellious spirit?


What does this say about the ability and desire of immigrants in general to assimilate, that is to not merely enter a different community, but to adopt its customs and culture as well? And why is Anglo-American culture rejected? Because it is the culture of the powerful or the dominant or the oppressor? Some may say that the solution is to create a new "neutral" culture which everyone shares. But maybe it is for Anglo-Americans to be more accepting of those who are not Anglo, and to understand that the maintenance and handing on of a common culture is more important than race or color. (And who says that this solution hadn't been working in the past, in various areas? But what do those in power want to bring about?)

3. Then there was the essay/speech by the Bengali teenager Taslima. Was there a problem with what she said? Ron Paul and others have already said it -- we should understand why terrorists who declare themselves to be our enemies have done so, and what motivates their actions. But the way she said it -- teenage indignation and self-righteousness, was grating and galling, not only to her classmates, but to me. It was not an attempt to persuade but to be provocative, and came off as a way to rub the faces of her classmates in it?

If American culture has its roots in Christianity, should we be admitting Muslims to the country? How can they be assimilated without being converted? The liberal multiculturalist project may try to assimilate them, by reminding them that they must subscribe to liberal values now that they are living in this country. Certainly, in the movie there is a nod to the conflict between 'traditional' Islam and liberal values -- Islamic honor killings are opposed to liberal justice (traditional justice as well?) and strict religious norms are stifling to individualism.


3. The movie also shows that the proposition nation and multiculturalism go together, hand in hand, both being ultimately ordered to economic opportunity and the gospel of wealth, because that is what America is about, is it not? The land of opportunity? (And the freedom to pursue that opportunity?) Why is it great to be American? Because you can make something of yourself, and be someone. What is that even supposed to mean, if not success according to some materialistic standard? Certainly, it is not about virtue, because one can be virtuous anywhere.

The "naturalization" ceremony


Many (such as the illegals working in the factories) come here for the sake of earning money, not because they want to be Americans. The same could be said of the Australian actress and musician in Crossing Over, as well as Alice Braga's character. Yes, the two Australians want fame and celebrity, but it is likely that they would also want the wealth that goes with it...

4. The movie also highlights the problem with giving people citizenship simply because they are born here -- ius soli (as opposed to ius sanguinis or some other criteria). Should Taslima's siblings have been conferred citizenship while the parents were not citizens?

If people do not show sufficient evidence of assimilation (and the naturalization test may be enough for the nation-state centralizers and the proposition nation adherents, it is not for anyone who has a real appreciation of Anglo-American culture), then they should not be given citizenship. They should be content with permanent resident status, and it is just that they have obligations to the community of which they are a part, even if they do not have the benefits of 'full' citizenship.

Further Reflections
What is a people? Is it merely determined by biological descent? That and the history of the people are important components of their identity, but there is also their culture. What do we do when we lose sight of what authentic freedom is? And how it is linked to self-rule? Can those who have no conception of self-rule and past a certain age be made real citizens?
Who should be determining what people should be allowed to live and work in an area? It should not really be the nation-state but the states and local communities. This is more than a question of culture, it is also linked to the issue of sustainability.

Also, we may think that we are free to dispose of money as we please, but for the sake of autarky, should not money be staying in the community as much as possible? The work being done in the community should be for the benefit of the community, and not for outsiders. However, is the money being sent to families living outside of the United States insignificant compared to the destruction of local economies being done by American corporations? We have grown accustomed to imagining a world without limits, and planning accordingly. How can we have a just immigration policy if so many other features of our political economy are unjust and unaddressed?

I don't recommend the movie. S and I ended up watching it because there wasn't anything else really worth watching, except, perhaps The Wrestler, but I had enough to make me feel down. I didn't need a movie to add to it. As far as drama goes--there weren't enough sympathetic characters to keep me interested in their stories. Does the movie persuade us that something needs to be done about immigration policy and its enforcement? Yes. But I do not think that it successfully persuades those who have a critical mind to adopt the stance of the filmmakers, only those who are already sharing the same 'liberal' viewpoint.

Well, at least Sarah Shahi is in the movie in a minor role. And Alice Braga (who is Brazilian) looks good in her imitation of a plain Mexican. (I learned only last week that Sarah Shahi is Persian/Iranian.)

BEVERLY HILLS, CA - MARCH 20: Actor Sarah Shahi arrives at DETAILS magazine "Mavericks 2008" issue cocktail party on March 20, 2008 at a private location in Beverly Hills, California.