The most important thing to say about the filmmaking & immigration controversy amplified in today’s article by Paloma Esquivel of the Los Angeles Times is that this video is great! My Asian Americana serves as an outstanding companion to the 2006 PBS/Independent Lens documentary Sentenced Home by David Grabias and Nicole Newnham.  Both films focus on the tragedy of Cambodian Americans who were deported due to knee-jerk changes to immigration laws in the wake of the September 11th attacks.

Although I have concerns about the authenticity of the marketing approach the filmmakers have chosen in recent weeks — they accuse the White House of a “lack of transparency” and dishonor with respect to a web video contest for which they were selected as finalists but not winners —  I do sympathize with them.  When you put your heart and soul into something, and when it is about a cause you care about deeply, there will be emotions flowing inside you that can sometimes be misdirected.

With the record number of deportations we’ve seen during the Obama administration, there is some truth to the fact that many in the immigrant community aren’t really sure that the President is on their side. While White House officials will be quick to remind us that President Obama has advanced a number of administrative measures on immigration, including detention reforms, and a case-by-case review of all deportations, you can count me among the many who are disappointed that the White House was not able or willing to embolden Congress to take on the anti-immigrant lobby in the first 100 days of the administration (before the Tea Party narrative took root on cable news, making any issue involving race terrifying for leaders on both sides of the aisle).

But let’s get down to the truth of the matter.

The contest rules did NOT explicitly say that the number of views received by the finalists would determine the winners.  It was clearly stated that not all the finalists would be invited to the White House.  As with any contest, not all finalists are guaranteed to be declared winners.

This quote from a White House email sent to the finalists puts a lot of focus on the number of views:  “As you know, the voting period of the challenge has now concluded. We will be getting an assessment of the vote count by next week and making a determination of how to proceed. We will send you an update as soon as this is ready.”

But if you read it carefully, and in context, it’s clear that the number of views is not the only criteria.  So, what we have here is a case where a film was not selected, and someone on the production team decided that framing the story of their disappointment in an aggressive and politically-charged way would essentially compensate for the publicity that they WOULD HAVE gotten had they been selected.  Also, taking a swipe at the administration probably provided a measure of emotional release.

It seems rather ludicrous to claim that the White House is seeking to suppress the issues raised by the film when indeed it was chosen out of 200 to be presented to the public on their website as a finalist.  It’s understandable, for reasons I stated above, that the filmmakers would choose this line of attack (that the administration does not want to deal with our broken immigration system) because (a) it assumes that the film could not have been excluded from the winners on the merits and (b) it offers the best chance of getting publicity.

If the filmmakers have been deliberately dishonest in expressing their disappointment and ambition through pushing this story, then what we have is a crime of passion.  It is the sort of passion that comes about when you pour your heart into a work of art in which you are deeply proud, and this passion is compounded, justifiably, because it is inspired by an important cause that needs to be addressed.

In my view, the best solution for all parties would be one that focuses on justice for the subjects of the piece, rather than for the makers of it.  For those of us who care about this cause, building up controversy over a contest, and the question of whether all finalists were entitled to be declared winners, will simply call more attention to the filmmakers’ aggressive attempts to gain publicity. This makes the filmmakers look bad, and undermines journalists and advocates who decide to run with a story that, at its heart, is simply not accurate. Meanwhile, I hope that the administration will choose not to respond to the filmmakers’ tactics and instead respond to the important cause that inspired this film in the first place.

The filmmakers may have stretched the truth in order to raise awareness for this cause, but let’s remember the subjects of the film have done nothing wrong at all.  They are people who have been victimized by a post-9/11 hysteria — and political opportunism — that fouled up our immigration system in countless ways, many of which can never be made right.  But the injustice brought upon these young Americans arbitrarily deported to a country they barely know can be made right. All we have to do is bring them home.

If the filmmakers are indeed, as I expect, doing all this for the right reasons, justice for the subjects of their film will mean more to them than an apology or an award or whatever it is that might address their grievances as competitors in a contest that they nearly won but didn’t.  It’s time for a beer summit for the Sentenced Home community, their advocates, and people inside the government who want to enforce our existing laws in a way that is just, and, fix our existing laws so that they serve the cause of justice and the cause of our nation.

In the coming years, we have an opportunity to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform that would address the Sentenced Home issue, and many other injustices that hurt immigrant families, hurt our economy, and hurt our country.  As Mitt Romney courts Marco Rubio for the Vice Presidential nod, and as Rubio and others formulate a GOP version of the DREAM Act, it’s clear that Republicans are feeling some buyer’s remorse with regard to the anti-Hispanic electioneering we saw during each of the past two presidential primaries, and for the embracing of policies manufactured by extremist lobbying syndicates such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) such as Arizona’s SB 1070 and Alabama’s HB 56.  More and more each day, Americans are realizing that on the immigration issue and on many others, Republicans and Democrats have more in common with each other than either party has with extremists.

NOTE: When I was a young filmmaker I wrote a press release in promotion of the film Charlotte Sometimes.  I’m ashamed of it to this day.  The situation was that we were premiering the film at the South by Southwest Film Festival (SXSW), working up until the last minute to finish it, and the Executive Producer of the film, John Manulis, decided not to pay for postcards to hand out as a way of promoting our three screenings.  When I arrived with the cast of the film in Austin, TX, we saw that all the other films, even the short films, had posters plastered everywhere, and post cards to hand out in order to invite people to their screenings.  The initial shock of getting out of the gate so slowly ended up working in our favor.  We created some makeshift flyers, busted our butts to fill those theaters, and we did it with a lot of heart.  To make up for our sorry-looking flyers, we spent extra time getting to know people and asking them to support us by coming to our film.  Our audiences were on the small side, but they were filled with people we’d met and made friends with.  I’m sure this is a big reason why we won the Audience Award (we tied with another film actually) and this helped lift Charlotte Sometimes to the kind of dream-come-true success that can launch a career.

But, one thing blots my otherwise fond memory of the premiere of my first feature film.  It’s that darn press release I wrote to announce the award.  The final paragraph took a shot at our Executive Producer, implying that he was cheap and/or didn’t think enough of our film to pay for our post cards.  At the time I thought he was a really tough producer for a director to work with, but over the years, after making many more films, I realized he was actually the best producer I ever worked with.  I was just too young to realize it then, and, too caught up in the moment to see that I never would have had the opportunity to show my film at SXSW because John believed in me enough to produce it!  I never apologized for that press release.  But I have told him that I appreciate him as a producer and as a person.  I saw him about three weeks ago and it was warm and cordial.

It was a mistake for me to assume it would be good publicity to unfairly criticize someone who had done so much to help me.  In writing that press release, I should have been celebrating the fact that I’d made a good film and that people were starting to recognize it.

Sometimes, artists and advocates can let our passion and ambition blind us to our own principles, and the larger landscape of causes and issues for which we toil.

Arizona’s SB 1070, Alabama’s “reasonable suspicion mandate” for immigration status checks, and the short-lived “probable cause mandate” at the heart of “9500 Liberty” are radical shifts in police policy — not because what they “allow” local law enforcement to focus on immigration status instead of public safety — but because they REQUIRE them to do so.  Both provisions were written by an anti-immigration lobbying firm in Washington with no expertise in law enforcement.  And both REQUIRE — not allow — local law enforcement to act based on a standard that is difficult to distinguish from racial profiling.  This is only one of the reasons why law enforcement leaders across the country are against such mandates.

Both laws require police to attempt to determine the legal status of a person they have detained in a lawful stop, if, in their judgment, the person meets a standard of suspicion.  The standard is called “reasonable suspicion” in SB 1070.  In Prince William County, VA’s “Immigration Resolution,” the standard (removed after 8 weeks of implementation) was called “probable cause.”

Here is why I have such a problem with “ALLOW.” First of all, police officers are “allowed” to ask anything they want to ask to identify a person, and they always have been.  (We also have a right not to answer.) Over the years, best practices studies have shown that mixing public safety duties with immigration status checks has a negative impact on public safety, because it erodes trust between law enforcement and communities with which they need to cooperate and communicate in order to do their job.  So, most local law enforcement agencies do not require immigration status checks based on a standard of suspicion or anything else.

My other problem with “allow” instead of “require” is that it implies that law enforcement officials are eager to abuse our Constitutional rights, and are just waiting for permission.  My experience with local law enforcement has taught me the opposite.  I have met few who are comfortable with such mandates, and none who are eager to risk implementing them.  It puts them in tremendous legal jeopardy.  Law enforcement officials are risking their lives to protect our Constitutional rights; not abuse them.

Despite all the immigration hysteria/electioneering we’ve seen in recent years, Prince William County, VA is the only jurisdiction in American history to implement this measure, and for good reason.  We repealed it for good reason too.  15 years of falling crime rates were reversed during the year of Prince William County’s immigration controversy — this despite severe under-reporting in categories like domestic violence and aggravated assault (a fact that is disingenuously trumpeted as a victory by apologists for the policy).   As any good law enforcement official will tell you: it’s very hard to solve a crime if it’s never reported.

The “probable cause mandate” and the culture war surrounding it caused many people to leave the county, destroying property values, deepening the county’s home foreclosure crisis, and compounding the global economic meltdown that was only beginning at that time (July 2007).  Business owners and developers, meanwhile, were hesitant invest money in a county that was constantly in the headlines for political instability and racial upheaval.  All of this added up to plummeting revenues, and a tax rate increase of more than 25% percent.

Arizona lawmakers are aiming for a similar fate, but fortunately for Arizona residents, the law is currently halted under a Constitutional challenge citing the Supremacy Clause, which states that immigration is a federal responsibility.  This will give the people of Arizona, and their elected officials if they are willing, enough time to do their homework, look at best practices studies, and find a more practical, less costly, and less damaging response to anxieties caused by immigration.  They might be wise to contact elected leaders in Prince William County, VA to learn what happened when the “probable cause mandate” was put in place — and why it was so quickly repealed.

I’d be happy to introduce them.

The fact is the crime rate went up slightly that year, even though it had been falling for 15 years before the controversy began.   Crime statistics provide an incomplete picture of public safety (they reflect only those crimes that are reported, for instance, even though unreported crimes impact public safety just as much if not more), but let’s walk through the numbers and try to make some sense of them.

1st, please download the Prince William County Police Department’s 2008 and 2009 Crimes Statistics reports.

• 2008 Crime Statistics
• 2009 Crime Statistics

2nd, after taking a look at the reports, see if you share my analysis:

• The 2008 crime report, which reflects the year of Prince William County’s political and racial unrest, shows that the OVERALL crime rate INCREASED, with murder, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft all going up (p. 3, 2008 official crime report).
• The 2008 official crime report shows that “violent crime” decreased by 21.8% (p. 3, 2008 report).  However, this can almost entirely attributed to a 36.5% drop in a single category: “aggravated assault.”
• Why was “aggravated assault” reporting so much lower during a year when reported crimes in most other categories went up?  Prince William County Police Chief Charlie Deane, and other law enforcement leaders with knowledge in this field, theorize that the decrease in “aggravated assault” reporting had a lot to do with the success of the county’s Robbery Suppression Initiative which was put in place a few years before the controversy began.  It should be noted, also, that law enforcement experts believe that immigrants and undocumented immigrants in the United States are more likely to be victims than perpetrators when it comes to robbery and other serious crimes.  This is likely because criminals know that immigrants are vulnerable, that they often carry cash, and, that they are less likely to report crimes than the average person.  Meanwhile, immigrants and especially undocumented immigrants go to great lengths to abide by the law and avoid encounters with the authorities.
• Oddly enough, “domestic violence” reporting fell from 1,358 to 1,256 in 2008, despite the fact that the population increased by more than 7,000 (p. 4, 2008 report).  This suggests there may have been a trust issue that year, with residents less likely to report crimes due to a widespread perception that the police may not be administering the law fairly.  Another indication of a trust issue can be found on page 26 of the Prince William County Citizen Satisfaction Survey where you will see significant decrease in trust among African Americans and Latinos with regard to law enforcement, in the wake of our county’s immigration controversy.  Thus, OVERALL crime went up during a year when there may have been under-reporting.

• Crime rates HAD BEEN GOING DOWN during the past 15 years when the county’s immigrant population had been growing (p. 8, 2008 report).  In 2007, when hysteria was being fomented over a supposed crime wave sweeping the county, crime was actually at an all time low.  This makes the subsequent increase in our crime rate all the more significant.  If crime statistics — that is, those crimes that are actually reported — are an accurate barometer of public safety, it would seem that generating mistrust between the community and law enforcement hurts public safety, rather than helping it.  In order to keep a community safe, law enforcement needs to have a relationship of trust and open communication with the people they protect and serve — that would include everyone, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation.
• In 2009, after the repeal of the “Probable Cause Mandate” and the end of the controversy, the African American and Latino opinions of law enforcement bounced back to previous levels — see page 26 of the Prince William County Citizen Satisfaction Survey.  This suggests that trust and communication between communities of color and law enforcement improved.  Not surprisingly, the crime rate resumed its downward trend, setting a new record low (page 7 of the 2009 crime report).

Finally, on a personal note, I want to share that I was prompted to write this blog when a Latino college student asked me if recent claims being made by my county chairman, Corey Stewart, were true.  I sensed that he feared they might be true, and I wondered how this fear might affect him.  When a politician repeatedly claims that immigrants left and crime went down, the implication, of course, is that immigrants and undocumented immigrants are more likely to commit crimes than native born Americans (statistics indicate the opposite is true).  And, to be perfectly honest, the implication is that Latinos are more likely to commit crimes, because the focus of the racial anxiety that fuels the anti-immigrant movement is almost entirely focused on Latinos.   In my view, this is irresponsible thing to say.  Directly or indirectly, for political gain, or just to save face, making generalizations such as these based on a selective misreading of crime statistics is not only irresponsible, it’s immoral.   It does more than mislead the public, it also creates unnecessary stereotypes and divisions, and causes young people who are part of the targeted group to question their sense of pride in their identity, and their right to consider themselves a part of American society — a right we all share equally regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Video featuring Annabel Park, addresses crime statistics and the need to “look at the facts first.”

A surprising ruling by U.S. District Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn, which upholds most of Alabama’s controversial immigration law HB 56, calls into question the meaning of the words inscribed on the face of the U.S. Supreme Court building: “Equal Justice Under Law.” The 11th Circuit Court will now hear an appeal.  But while our nation waits for the courts to decide whether it is legal to require the police to check immigration status based on a subjective standard of suspicion, let’s consider also whether it is sound policy.

I happen to live in the only jurisdiction in America that has ever implemented such a law.  Here in Prince William County, VA, the “Probable Cause Mandate” was on the books for eight weeks in March and April of 2008.  I didn’t just watch it happen.  I filmed it.  The story of how the law came to be, and the surprising grassroots coalition that arose to help repeal it, is captured in a film I co-directed with Annabel Park called 9500 Liberty.

The most radical provisions in Arizona’s SB 1070 were blocked by federal courts in July of 2010, meaning that any further attempts to pass this law would first require millions of dollars in legal fees.  In part for this reason, only Alabama and Georgia followed Arizona’s lead after zeal for the law erupted all over the U.S.  But there were a host of other reasons why the only jurisdiction in America to actually TRY this law ended up repealing it after only 8 weeks.

From talking to numerous elected and appointed officials in Prince William County government (including many who had originally voted for the law), the “Probable Cause Mandate” was repealed because it was damaging to the county’s economy, its housing market, and its reputation, all of which made it more difficult to attract new home owners, new investors, and new business owners.  At the height of the controversy, Prince William County’s home foreclosure rate was 5 to 7 times the average for the region, so high in fact that George Mason’s Center for Regional Analysis had to redesign their charts.

But the biggest reason for the policy’s repeal was that the Bush Justice Department had put the county on notice that the federal government planned to join the first law suit filed by a county resident who could prove that his or her Constitutional right to equal protection under the law had been violated, not by the misconduct of a police officer, but by an unprecedented legislative mandate being dutifully followed.   This would have meant county taxpayers would have to foot the bill for court challenges that would have likely have gone all the way up the Supreme Court.  That’s millions of taxpayer dollars down the tubes, and we haven’t even gotten into the cost of implementing the law.

As seen in the film, the Chief of Police was forthright with the Board of Supervisors.  Although he never publicly opposed the law, he explained to the Board from the beginning that if his officers were going to be pulled off of public safety duty in order to do immigration enforcement, he would need to hire additional officers in order to maintain the level of public safety the county then enjoyed (crime had been falling for 15 years — the same years, by the way, during which the immigrant community had quadrupled).

For this and many other reasons — such as renting additional jail space from neighboring jurisdictions — the law was very expensive to implement.  Original estimates topped $14,000,000 over five years, and as those estimates began to climb, the Republican Board of Supervisors began to have second thoughts about the tax increases that would be necessary to pay for them (as it was, the tax rate increased by 25%).  Thus, the law was repealed on April 29, 2008 with only County Chairman Corey Stewart protesting.  The film documents how he refused to come out from the back chamber for two hours once he realized he’d lost the support of the 5 Republicans and 2 Democrats who sat with him on the Board.  (By the way, Stewart’s opponent for County Chairman in this November’s election is Babur Lateef, whose family immigrated from Pakistan).

Considering the negative economic impact, and the costly legal challenges that the law made likely, the only argument in favor of it was the misconception that immigrants and undocumented immigrants are more likely to commit crimes.  Based on national statistics, many suggested at the time that this claim was false.  And, during a hearing of the United States Commission on Civil Rights (in which I testified), the Chief of Police showed that the crime wave being described by the Chairman and his supporters on political blogs was a fiction.  But more importantly, it was proven later when county crime statistics came out, not only showing that undocumented immigrants were committing crime at a lower rate than legal residents in the county — it also showed that the controversy and social unrest caused by the short-lived and very costly policy may have been a factor in reversing the 15-year trend of falling crime rates.  That’s right.  They passed and implemented this law and crime went up.  After the law’s repeal, crime continued it’s downward trend.

Statistics show a slight uptick in crime during the period of controversy, despite under-reporting in categories like domestic violence and aggravated assault.   The Prince William County Citizen Satisfaction Survey showed a steep drop in trust in law enforcement, especially in the Latino and African American communities during this period.  Law enforcement experts have since explained to me that victims of such crimes, often people of color, feel less comfortable contacting the police in general, and that political controversies that undermine best practices such as “community policing” only make matters worse.  As any good law enforcement official will tell you: it’s very hard to solve a crime if it’s never reported.  And if it is reported, it’s harder to solve if witnesses refuse to come forward.  Thus, everyone is less safe in communities where trust in law enforcement has been compromised.

The “probable cause mandate” and the culture war surrounding it caused many people to leave the county, destroying property values, deepening the county’s home foreclosure crisis, and compounding the global economic meltdown that was only beginning at that time (July 2007).  Business owners and developers, meanwhile, were hesitant invest money in a county that was constantly in the headlines for political instability and racial upheaval.  All of this added up to plummeting revenues, and the aforementioned tax rate increase of more than 25% percent.

Alabama lawmakers are aiming for a similar fate.  I hope that their elected officials will be willing to look at best practices studies, and find a more practical, less costly, and less damaging response to anxieties caused by immigration.  They might be wise to contact elected leaders in Prince William County, VA to learn what happened when the a very similar law was put in place.

####

CLICK HERE to see Annabel Park and me on a panel discussion about Arizona’s SB 1070,

filmed on the night before SB 1070 was due to be implemented (but was blocked by a federal judge).

Below is a scene from 9500 Liberty that anticipates the Coffee Party notion “information activism.”

9500 Liberty on Netflix

Why we are non-partisan from Coffee Party YouTube channel:

And to bridge the two, from 9500 Liberty to Coffee Party:

CLICK HERE to see Annabel Park and Eric Byler together on a panel discussion about 9500 Liberty and Arizona’s SB 1070, filmed on the night before SB 1070 was due to be implemented (but was blocked by a federal judge).

We would love to have you show 9500 Liberty in your community.  Successful events have already taken place in 35 states and at more than 40 campuses.

As you can see from the trailer, the implementation of the “Probable Cause” mandate for immigration status checks based on a subjective standard of suspicion directly impacted everyone in Prince William County; not just immigrants and those who lived among them.  The unfortunate political, economic, and social upheaval led to the building of a trans-partisan movement to repeal the mandate (after only 8 weeks of implementation) thanks to a coalition that included:

* Republicans
* Democrats
* Independents
* Libertarians
* law enforcement leaders
* the faith community
* the law enforcement community
* the business community
* the Latino community
* the African American community
* the Muslim community
* the Asian American community

When you plan your screening, please try to include as many of the above communities as possible, either as panelists or sponsors/presenting organizations or both.  Religious, business, and law enforcement leaders are especially valuable, and the importance of a trans-partisan participation cannot be overemphasized.  Please shape the discussion after the screening to look at how a civil, fact-based, solutions-oriented approach to this issue can lead to a more informed collective decision on how to address the issue of illegal immigration without damaging public safety, the local economy, or the fiscal solvency of your state or local government.

In a broader sense, you should use the film to consider the social conditions that were needed to allow the community to look at the facts first before making policy decisions.  This included courage and leadership from elected officials, community leaders, and ordinary citizens alike.  It included some new media and social media innovation.  And, it included all “sides” of the issue toning down the sort of divisive, distracting, violent, and dehumanizing rhetoric that blinds people to the facts, and alienates the silent majority, robbing the deliberative process of the more composed and forward-thinking community members, and making democracy look like an angry and uninviting circus.  What is needed when discussing immigration-related issues is a problem-solving approach that puts more emphasis on good policy than on electioneering strategies.  We often say that what happened in Prince William County can happen anywhere — and over the past year, this is proving to be true — but the good news is that in the only jurisdiction in America where this law was actually implemented, the people pulled together across partisan and cultural lines to restore civility and fact-based deliberation.

9500 LIBERTY
Total RUNNING TIME:
80 minutes (1 hr, 20m)

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

Byler, who co-directed the film with Coffee Party founder Annabel Park, is an Independent Spirit Award nominee for his first feature film, Charlotte Sometimes, and has won 16 film festival awards.

#####

Contact:
Anna Walton: waltonal@email.sc.edu
Eric Byler:  Eric@CoffeePartyUSA.com

SB 1070 de Arizona ya ha sido juzgada. Y falló. En el condado Prince William, Virginia, una ley que requiere la policía para verificar el estatus migratorio de personas a las que había “causa probable” para sospechar que eran inmigrantes indocumentados entró en vigor en Marzo de 2008. Los ciudadanos se unieron para exigir que la ley fuera rechazada en el enfrentamiento de costosas demandas legales y un impacto económico devastador.

Thousands from Across Texas will convene here in Austin
to Reject Anti-immigrant Agenda in the Legislature

Statewide press conferences be held tomorrow by RITA partners across Texas

Austin TX — The Austin Immigrant Rights Coalition (AIRC), as a part of the Reform Immigration for Texas Alliance (RITA), will be joining by thousands of Texans on Tuesday, February 22 at 1 PM at the State Capitol in Austin to march and rally for the dignity, security and rights of immigrant families.  Marchers will gather starting at 11 AM at Waterloo Park, 403 East 15th Street.   Buses will bring in Texans from San Antonio, Dallas, Ft. Worth, El Paso, Houston, Rio Grande Valley, Movimiento del Valle, and Hildalgo County.

To date, more than 60 anti-immigrant, anti-family proposals have being filed by extremist Texas legislators. Proposed legislation includes, among others, the criminalization of immigrant families and workers in Texas, mandating local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws, requiring school officials to report undocumented students, and denying birth certificates to children born in Texas to undocumented parents.

As part of the “Texas Can Do Better” campaign, the Austin Immigrant Rights Coalition is convening a press conference to announce its plan to participate in the historic mobilization of thousands on February 22nd in Austin to convey to Texas legislators our disappointment and rejection of those proposals that will undermine our families, our economy and our security.

###

Contact:
Dianna Tavera
Austin Immigrant Rights Coalition
(512) 476-2472
info@austinirc.org

More information on the Austin Immigrant Right Coalition:
This organization, founded in 2006, is one of the leading immigration reform and human rights advocacy organization in the United States. Based in Austin, Texas.

The post-screening discussion will be moderated by Stan Straughter (Chair the Mayor’s Commission for African and Caribbean Immigrant Affairs), featuring State Senator Daylin Leach (D-Montgomery/Delaware), Anne O’Callaghan (Welcoming Center for New Pennsylvanians), Cherylle Corpuz (Temple University), and Domenic Vitiello (University of Pennsylvania).

Byler, who co-directed the film with Coffee Party founder Annabel Park, is an Independent Spirit Award nominee for his first feature film, Charlotte Sometimes, and has won 16 film festival awards.

#####

The following questions are designed for post-screening discussions.  You may also respond by commenting below.

1)  In Prince William County, Virginia, a compelling outlet for expressing public sentiment is Citizens’ Time, a period usually lasting about 30 minutes, where citizens are limited to 3 minutes to express their views to the Board of County Supervisors.  If you had three minutes to express your views on laws like the Immigration Resolution and Arizona’s S.B. 1070, what would you say?  Please consider the moral, legal, political, public safety, economic, and social arguments that caused Prince William County to implement the Probable Cause mandate, and then quickly repeal it.

2)  So often those who advocate for harsh immigration laws claim that an immigration “crack down” will result in less crime, and restore the “rule of law.”  And yet law enforcement professionals, with few exceptions, oppose the enforcement of federal immigration law at the local level, and they also make an argument based on public safety.  Can you summarize the opposing arguments?  Which is more easily substantiated by crime statistics and law enforcement best practices studies?

3)  Some viewers of 9500 Liberty express regret that it was the unintended consequences of the Probable Cause mandate — such as the 25% tax rate increase, skyrocketing legal fees, and negative impact on the local economy — that caused the citizens and the Board of Supervisors to repeal the policy, rather than a sense of racial justice or equality.  Do you sympathize with this sentiment?  Would you have preferred that opponents of the policy limit themselves to equal justice and divided family arguments only?

4)  When the honorable Police Chief was attacked, the silent majority rose up to oppose the vocal minority, and, it wasn’t long before elected officials in both parties began to show the leadership Prince William County had been waiting for.  Who’s responsibility is it to stand up for ordinary citizens during a period of intense conflict between polarized segments of society?  The people, or elected leaders?

5)  In the first half of the film, collective decisions seem to be based, not on what is accurate or verifiable, but rather based on what people can be made to believe.  What is the relationship between information and politics?  Who is responsible for informing the public?  Does this change during election season, and should it?

6)  In the film’s climactic scene, boisterous conservatives line up to demand a tax increase.  Earlier in the film, the same segment of the population demands a radical, expensive program that makes a tax increase inevitable.  In all probability, their attitudes today about the notion of taxation are very different.  Do your attitudes toward taxation shift when there are shifts in policy initiatives, or in leadership?   What does that say about the notion of “taxes” as a political issue?