SAVAGES--Movie Review

by David Schmidt

“I have seen much of the rest of the world. It is brutal and cruel and dark. Rome is the light.”
-Maximus Aurelius, Gladiator

 North American drug dealers are noble, altruistic men with chiseled abs and beautiful hair. They develop personal relationships with the ill people who need their medical marijuana. They spend their free time setting up water purification systems in sub-Saharan Africa. They are sensitive souls, pained by the violence implicit in their trade.

Mexican drug dealers are brutal sadists who torture people, rape women, set men on fire, and chop civilians’ heads off.

At least, this is what Oliver Stone’s film Savages would have us believe.

Savages centers on a love triangle between two southern California weed dealers, Ben (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Chon (Taylor Kitsch), and their shared girlfriend, Ophelia (Blake Lively). Chon is a hardened war veteran; while rough around the edges, he has a steely sense of duty to the people who are close to him. His partner Ben is a dreadlock-wearing Buddhist who, when not working in the hydroponics lab, conducts development projects in the Developing World. Ben and Chon have managed to produce a highly potent strain of marijuana with THC levels of 30 percent and higher. When the Baja Cartel catches wind of their success, the Mexican narcos makes a business proposition to the boys. The gringos reject it and, in order to urge them to reconsider, the cartel kidnaps their girlfriend Ophelia.

Savages is narrated by the blasé character Ophelia, a shapely So Cal girl who has all the personality of a bag of sawdust. After she is kidnapped, viewers are left to wonder why on earth two able-bodied young men would risk their lives to save Ophelia, when she could be easily replaced with a cardboard cutout of Kathy Ireland. The story of Savages jerks along haltingly and uncertainly, featuring long stretches of insufferable dialogue punctuated by horrific violence. Conversations between Ben and Chon flow with the forced, disingenuous tone of a high school play; you can practically see the actors’ eyes scanning the cue cards.

The moral of Savages, as the film’s name implies, is that violence makes savages of us all; by participating in violence we lose the moral grounding from which to criticize it. If this were the film’s sole focus, it would be a largely innocuous morality tale. This ostensibly primary message is overpowered, however, by a much stronger subtext: that of violence as a foreign [read: Mexican] phenomenon. The lovable North American drug dealers are dragged into the world of murder, torture and kidnapping, but only out of loyalty to their curvaceous blonde lover. The film implies, with all the subtlety of a flaming school bus, that brutality is second nature for Mexican (not North American) drug dealers. When the Mexican narcos commit horrific atrocities, they do so because it is “in their nature”. When gringos do the same thing, it is because the poor, tortured souls have been forced to take drastic measures for a higher cause.

While both sides refer to each other as “savages” in the film, this assessment is lopsided. Ben and Chon call the Baja Cartel “savages” for chopping off heads and maiming other humans; the Mexicans call the gringos “savages” for sharing the same girlfriend. It’s clear who we, the viewers, are meant to side with.

In addition to being blatantly xenophobic and ethnocentric, the mentality present in this film goes hand-in-hand with much of the anti-immigrant discourse that has been tossed around for centuries. Immigration is described as being bad for the country receiving immigrants because, according to the conventional wisdom, “those people” are savage, brutal, backwards, etc. Arizona State Senator Steve Smith expressed it well when he said:

“If…you wanna bring your language with you, your gangfare with you, stay where you were! Or face the consequences.”[1]

(Feel free to read my open letter to Steve Smith on this subject.)

The myth of “violence as a foreign phenomenon” is a powerful one. It is also blatantly false. It is a lie that has backed up two contradictory, yet intricately linked, policies throughout history—(1) Invasion and intervention in other countries, and (2) rejection of immigrants from those countries. We invade their lands because “they are savage, and must be taught how to live”. Then when they come here because we’ve bled their nations of their wealth, we reject them at the gate, “because they’ll negatively affect our society with their savagery”. 

The same belief in the “inherently violent nature” of other nations and cultures leads us to pass the buck when it comes to the reasons people migrate. When the talking heads discuss the causes of immigration, it is often to suggest that “they should fix their own countries”. Or that “they” don’t know how to run their own countries to begin with. There is no consideration of the possibility that our own economic, trade, military, and political policies could have a hand in forcing people to leave their own homelands in the first place. This—along with a whole host of other myths—lets us continue to comfortably blame immigrants for their own problems.

In spite of its half-hearted overtures towards a progressive critique of violence, Oliver Stone’s film Savages essentially toes the line of most of Western discourse: the “savages” are “those people out there”.

 

David Schmidt is a freelance writer and multi-lingual translator in San Diego, CA. He is a volunteer at World Relief Garden Grove, proponent of immigrants' rights and fair trade, and works with worker-owned coops in Mexico to help them develop alternative, fair sources of income. He can be contacted at davidschmidt2003@hotmail.com

 

---

[1] SOURCE: http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/jul/28/freshman-senator-takes-enduring-immigation-issues/

We append the following disclaimer on all posts: “Please note that the views expressed by guest bloggers represent their own personal views, and not necessarily those of everyone associated with Loving the Stranger or any institutions with which the blogger may be affiliated.”

Evangelical Statement of Principles for Immigration Reform

Our national immigration laws have created a moral, economic and political crisis in America. Initiatives to remedy this crisis have led to polarization and name calling in which opponents have misrepresented each other’s positions as open borders and amnesty versus deportations of millions. This false choice has led to an unacceptable political stalemate at the federal level at a tragic human cost.
As evangelical Christian leaders, we call for a bipartisan solution on immigration that:

• Respects the God-given dignity of every person
• Protects the unity of the immediate family
• Respects the rule of law
• Guarantees secure national borders
• Ensures fairness to taxpayers
• Establishes a path toward legal status and/or citizenship for those who qualify and who wish to become permanent residents

We urge our nation’s leaders to work together with the American people to pass immigration reform that embodies these key principles and that will make our nation proud.

The list of signators, the statement, and more information are available here. 


We append the following disclaimer on all posts: “Please note that the views expressed by guest bloggers represent their own personal views, and not necessarily those of everyone associated with Loving the Stranger or any institutions with which the blogger may be affiliated.”

What’s So Unfair about How We Do Trade?

A discussion on Trade and Migration: Some Myths

By David Schmidt

Not long ago, I was talking with a friend about the living conditions of migrant farm workers in Maneadero, Mexico. I had just made a trip to the Baja California town, and described people living in tin shacks, packed ten to a room. Some folks sleep on the ground, in the dirt, under shanties made from plastic tarps. Children walk around naked, bellies distended from parasites, hair bleached blond by malnutrition. Mothers cradle babies who were born with birth defects and deformities, because of the chemicals that were sprayed on the field while the pregnant women were working. 

As I described this scene to my friend, she looked at me with suspicious indifference. “That’s too bad, David,” she said. “But we can’t spend all our time worrying about the plight of people who have it rough in life. I mean, if we sit around thinking about all the people suffering in the world, we’ll go crazy. And what can I do about it, anyway? And why should I do anything about it? I mean, what do these poor migrant farm workers in Mexico have to do with me?”

What, indeed?

* * * *

This will be the first in a series of discussions about two intricately related issues: 

(1) The people who immigrate to this country, and 

(2) The ways our companies, our economy, our government’s trade policies, and our consumer lifestyle force people to migrate.

You don’t hear many people talk about the causes of immigration. When the topic of immigration comes up in the United States, Australia, Canada, the European Union, or other countries with high populations of recent migrants, the debate is typically centered on how immigrants affect the country that receives them. Progressive voices defend the immigrants’ rights, arguing for the benefits they bring to the receiving country; reactionary voices claim that immigration is a threat to their nation. 

But you don’t hear a lot of talk about the reasons why people migrate to begin with. Immigrants are treated as if they had materialized out of nowhere. Indeed, the dehumanizing term “alien” may be strangely appropriate for the way many native-born citizens view people who come from other countries—immigrants are discussed as if the dropped out of the sky. All that’s missing is the flying saucer. 

Pro-immigrant folks argue that immigrants are good for the United States; anti-immigrant folks say immigration harms our country. Both sides, however, subscribe to what I call the Myth of the American Biosphere. Our country is treated as if it were some sort of independent, closed off habitat which immigrants have “entered”. 

But when a person crosses the borders of the United States, is this the first contact they have ever had with this country? Is this their first interaction with the economic and political systems in which we live, breathe and work?

Pundits in the U.S. rarely touch on the causes of immigration—and when they do, it’s usually folks on the anti-immigrant side of the aisle. Most of them get it pitifully wrong—I typically hear people claim that there is something endemically wrong about the countries that people migrate from. That their countries are “corrupt”, or “dysfunctional”, or “backwards”. These sorts of ethnocentric accusations imply that the causes of immigration have nothing to do with us. That our country is “suffering” from the effects of immigration, and that immigration happens because “those countries just can’t get their act together”. Let’s call this Myth #2: The ‘Their Country Sucks’ Myth.

As long as we hold to these two above-mentioned myths, we can allow ourselves to believe in a third myth: what I call simply Myth #3: The Myth of Amnesty. If we view the U.S. economy as a closed system, disconnected from the rest of the world, and believe that people come into the U.S. because they “do not want to fix their own countries”, then we will probably assume that they have committed a crime by coming here. And if we treat immigration as a crime, then we will choose to be in favor of or against some sort of “amnesty”. 

As the dictionary definition of the term implies, “amnesty” is forgiveness for a crime that has been committed.  And as long as the discussion centers around the idea of “amnesty”, both approaches—the pro-amnesty or anti-amnesty crowds—imply that a crime has been committed. That a “wrong” has been done. 

The anti-amnesty crowd supports statements like the one I saw on a t-shirt at a gun show: “HELLO, 911—I’D LIKE TO REPORT 6 MILLION BREAK INS!”

Pro-amnesty folks will say, “It was wrong to come here without papers, you shouldn’t have done it, but we forgive you.” Even in current debates surrounding Obama’s partial implementation of the DREAM Act, many progressive arguments center around the idea that “young people shouldn’t have to pay for the wrong [sic] that their parents committed by coming here illegally”. 

However, in order to view immigration as a crime, we must also hold to the Myth of the American Biosphere and the ‘Their Country Sucks’ Myth (along with a whole slew of other myths which we haven’t time to go into here: the Myth of European Exceptionism, the ‘My Ancestors Can Come Here But You Can’t’ Myth, the ‘These Immigrants Are Different from Past Immigrants’ Myth, etc.)

It is my assertion that these myths are fundamentally false. 

The inequalities, poverty and misery that fuel immigration are intricately tied to our economy. To the products we consume. To our country’s trade policy. The inequality that has increased worldwide, the increase of poverty worldwide, is intricately connected with the prosperity enjoyed by the residents of countries that receive immigrants. As Chilean author Eduardo Galeano once said:

“Nuestra derrota estuvo siempre implícita en la victoria ajena; nuestra riqueza ha generado siempre nuestra pobreza para alimentar la prosperidad de otros...”

[TRANSLATION: “Our defeat has always been implicit in the victories of others; our wealth has always been used to produce our own poverty and feed into the prosperity of others…” From Las Venas Abiertas de América Latina. Translation mine.]

Poverty and prosperity. First World and Third World. Immigrant sending countries and immigrant receiving countries. They are two sides to the same coin. 

And it is this dual, two-sided world—a world of haves and have-nots, immigrants and native-borns—which we will explore in this series.

* * * *

So what about the farm workers of Maneadero? What about the poverty, misery, illness, birth defects, malnutrition…is this all just some lamentable (but uncontrollable) situation that has nothing to do with us?

No.

See, most of the vegetables grown in Maneadero are grown to be consumed, not in Mexico, but in the United States. In spite of the fact that Maneadero is located in northern Mexico, the agricultural fields are a part of the U.S. economy. The products are harvested and immediately shipped northward, across the border, to distributers in Los Angeles and Oakland.

These people are harvesting the tomatoes, cucumbers, zucchinis, jalapeños and strawberries that we consume. The enormous factory farms they work on employ them for their cheap labor. Which makes it easier to grow lots of vegetables and ship them north, across the border, into California. The vast majority of these vegetables picked by their hands come into our supermarkets. Our fast food restaurants. It’s the lettuce on our Taco Bell taco, the tomato on our Burger King whopper. 

Why don’t these supermarkets and restaurants just source locally, using vegetables grown in community gardens and bought at farmer’s markets?

Because it’s cheaper to exploit people in Maneadero and spray chemicals on them. As we’ll see in upcoming installments, this situation is the norm rather than the exception…and it applies to many of the products that we consume. 

There is a hidden cost behind cheap products. 

David Schmidt is a freelance writer and multi-lingual translator in San Diego, CA. He is a volunteer at World Relief Garden Grove, proponent of immigrants' rights and fair trade, and works with worker-owned coops in Mexico to help them develop alternative, fair sources of income. He can be contacted at davidschmidt2003@hotmail.com

We append the following disclaimer on all posts: “Please note that the views expressed by guest bloggers represent their own personal views, and not necessarily those of everyone associated with Loving the Stranger or any institutions with which the blogger may be affiliated.”

Arizona, Immigration and Historical Amnesia

“NOAH CUM-PRENN-DOE” 

The elderly white man sat across the booth from his wife in the chicken joint where I was eating too. They were discussing the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to rescind elements of Arizona’s controversial SB 1070 law.

“So you see,” he told her, “I think it’s a terrible shame that Obama’s getting rid of this Arizona law. Why won’t they let the police just do their job?”

His wife nodded her head. I paused mid-bite and looked up over my chicken sandwich. I could sense a xenophobic rant brewing, could smell it like the cheap coffee that was brewing behind the counter. I felt my appetite slowly drain out of me. Other customers pretended not to hear the man.  

He continued, his face growing noticeably redder. “It’s like, if an officer stops someone and tells them, ‘I need to see your license and registration’, and the person just sits there and goes, ‘uh, no comprendo, no comprendo,’ then the officer knows he’s got a problem on his hands.”

As the elderly customer repeated the Spanish phrase—which he pronounced more like, “noah cum-prenn-doe”—he waved his hands in cartoonish fashion and raised his eyebrows comically. The man’s wife giggled at his impersonation, fiddling with her box of chicken nuggets.

“I mean, if they can’t speak English,” he continued, “they have no business being in this country. So if a police officer is trying to talk to the person, and they just keep saying, ‘noah cum-prenn-doe’, well then you know they’re not supposed to be here. It’s time to call up I.C.E. and have them come deport the person. What’s so complicated about that?”

I leaned back against the hard plastic seat and looked up at the ceiling. I considered saying something. But where to start?

I wasn’t surprised that he seemed ignorant of the details of the Supreme Court’s decision. After all, while they did shoot down three of the law’s provisions, they upheld the most controversial one—the “show me your papers” clause, which allows police to stop “suspected immigrants” [read: Latinos] and demand their documents. The clause which makes Latinos in Arizona, de facto, “guilty until proven innocent” of being undocumented immigrants. Even though Latino U.S. citizens greatly outnumber undocumented immigrants in Arizona, and many of the state’s Latino families have lived there for several generations. 

But it didn’t surprise me that the man would take a “glass-is-half-empty” approach to the Supreme Court’s ruling. After all, I would venture to guess that even if the “Arizona Law” had been upheld in its entirety, not even that would be enough to make the old fellow happy.

I wasn’t surprised, either, by his comment about the “police not being able to do their job”—that he was ignorant of what the police’s job is in the first place. Many people, after all, seem to assume that the police are supposed to act as immigration agents—but this isn’t the case. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a completely different government agency from the police. I.C.E. prosecutes violations of immigration law (a civil, not criminal, offense); the municipal, state and federal police prosecute violations of criminal law.

This is the way law enforcement works in any nation on earth. Nobody is trying to keep the police from doing their job. In fact, in areas like Joe Arpaio’s Maricopa County where police have been pushed into enforcing immigration law, the rates of rape, murder and other violent crimes have gone up—precisely because the police aren’t able to do their job as effectively. It is not the police’s job to check people’s immigration status in the first place—any more than it is their job to put out fires, deliver people’s mail, process tax returns, or make Social Security payments to people like the elderly man at the chicken sandwich joint.

But it didn’t surprise me that this man was ignorant of the way his government works.

What surprised me was that he was so ignorant of himself. Of his own roots. Of the roots of all Americans of European descent. Being a white American myself, I was surprised that this man seemed completely unaware of where his own ancestors came from. The fact is, nearly all first generation immigrants have come here knowing little to no English. Just like my own great-grandparents who gave me the Schmidt name, this man’s ancestors likely didn’t know English when they came here. If a police officer had stopped them, they would have responded with some other version of “no comprendo”:

“Ich kann nicht verstehen.”

“Ní thuigim.”

“Я не понимаю.”

“Nie rozumiem.”

“Ikh farshtey nisht.”

To equate ignorance of English with undocumented status is ludicrous. It makes little sense, if you really are speaking in terms of “legal versus illegal immigration”.

But it makes much more sense if you’re speaking in terms of what demographics, what sorts of people, you believe “have no business being here”.

I’m sure the man at the chicken sandwich joint would have insisted, if I’d asked him, that he “was only against illegal immigration”. But his own words betrayed him. Through the comments he made, he stepped in line with past generations of xenophobes and immigrant bashers throughout American history. The sort of “native born” folk who, in centuries past, would have overheard his ancestors speaking a European language and said:

“They have no business being here.”

“This country’s not for people like them.”

“This is an invasion.”

As I heard the man rail against today’s immigrants, I also lamented my own ignorance of my great-grandparents’ lives. I regretted having never had the chance to meet them as an adult and talk with them about their own immigrant experience. Had they ever had a negative encounter with an “English only” American? I doubt it—after all, they spent most of their lives in an ethnic enclave, living among other German-speaking folks from Russia. By the time my grandfather and his siblings were grown, they had learned English in the public school system. (This puts the Schmidts well behind the curve, in comparison with today’s immigrants. Modern-day immigrants from Latin America and elsewhere are learning English at rates much faster than past generations.)

I had finally geared up to say something to the man—but someone else beat me to it. As I started to rise from my seat, a young customer had already approached the elderly man. “Listen, sir,” he told the nativist. “If you don’t want to sympathize with people who come from a different background, if you want to look down on them because they weren’t born here like you, that’s your problem. But keep your voice down. I don’t need to hear your intolerant rant while I’m eating. Nobody should have to.”

Short. Precise. To the point.

The old man sheepishly looked down at his waffle fries.

I thanked this young interloper for speaking up, and told the old man, “He’s absolutely right. You should be ashamed of yourself.”

* * * *

I don’t think either of us changed the xenophobe’s opinion. If anything, he probably became more entrenched in his views. As he and his wife left, murmuring under his breath, he was likely complaining to her about how “intolerant” today’s young people are, because we don’t tolerate intolerance.

I don’t think we made him think about his roots, or his own European ancestors, or the mistreatment that some of them doubtless suffered. I don’t think he pondered the fact that past generations of Americans probably thought some of his ancestors “had no business being here” because of their language and customs.

But that’s not why you speak up in a Chic-Fil-A when someone is going on a “noah-cum-prenn-doe” rant. You speak up because this is the present day. You speak up because now, in the 21^st century, this should not be a nation where someone is intimidated and treated like a lesser person because of how they look and talk. You speak up because that’s not the kind of country we want to live in.

And you speak up—I spoke up—because while I may be powerless to keep police from racially profiling someone in Arizona, I can at least stop one man from publicly mocking people of another culture.

It’s a start. 

David Schmidt is a freelance writer and multi-lingual translator in San Diego, CA. He is a volunteer at World Relief Garden Grove, proponent of immigrants' rights and fair trade, and works with worker-owned coops in Mexico to help them develop alternative, fair sources of income. He can be contacted at davidschmidt2003@hotmail.com

We append the following disclaimer on all posts: “Please note that the views expressed by guest bloggers represent their own personal views, and not necessarily those of everyone associated with Loving the Stranger or any institutions with which the blogger may be affiliated.”

Update on Latest National Immigration News

From Wendy at CLUE-OC:

 

Over the last couple of weeks, there has been quite a bit of movement around Immigration in our nation. Here is a brief timeline of the major events:

Tuesday, June 5th: DREAM Students began occupying President Obama's campaign offices in key states asking the President to offer Administrative Relief to the thousands of youth known as "DREAMers" Read More

-Tuesday, June 12th: Over 150 prominent Evangelical leaders release a Statement of Principals for Immigration Reform. Some key leaders of this statement held a high powered press conference in Washington DC with all major news media outlets covering the story. Read More 

-Thursday, June 14th: Time Magazine releases the cover of it's latest issue featuring 36 Undocumented Immigrants stating, "We are Americans, Just not legally." (On stands June 25th) Read More

-Friday, June 15th: President Obama announces a new memorandum, effective Immediately, offering deferred action against deportations and the opportunity for work authorization for DREAM eligible young people meeting a list of specific qualifications. Read More 

-Monday, June 25th: 

This morning, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-3 decision striking down three key provisions of Arizona's SB 1070 law. They upheld, but limited, the scope the law's "show me your papers" provision requiring law enforcement officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they have "reasonable suspicion" to believe is in the country illegally. Read More  Federal Officials also said Immigration and Customs Enforcement will be selective in responding to the expected increase in calls from Arizona and other police agencies about immigration status of people they pull over. Officials said ICE will not respond to the scene unless the person in question meets certain criteria -- such as being wanted for a felony. Read More President Obama Regarding Arizona's SB 1070

Important Information for DREAMers We are eager and excited to see how Obama's policy will tangibly impact the lives of young DREAMers from across the nation. We also know that with big news like this, a lot of misleading information and confusion is easily spread. So in an effort to share the latest and most accurate information, we have provided a breakdown for your convenience. Important terms and definitions: Deferred Action - basically a postponement and protection against deportation Work Authorization - essentially, a piece of paper that allows you to work legally in this country Removal Proceedings - The process of being deported NTA - Notice to Appear, basically a demand to appear in front of an Immigration judge to determine your status in the country USCIS - United States Citizenship and Immigration services, they process all requests for visas and Immigrant benefits ICE - Immigration and Customs Enforcement, they enforce Immigration law President Obama Speaks on Department of Homeland Security Immigration Announcement All of the following Criteria must be met to qualify for Obama's new protection: 1. Individual must have come to the United States under the age of sixteen 2. Individual must have continuously resided in the United States for at least five years preceding June 15, 2012 and are present in the United States on June 15, 2012 3. Individual must currently be in shcool, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are honorably discharge veterans of the Coast Guard of Armed Forces of the United States 4. Individual must have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety 5. Individual must not be above the age of thirty What it isn't: -Amnesty, a path to Legal Permanent Residency or Citizenship -The Dream Act -A change in the Law -Comprehensive Immigration Reform -An Executive Order What it is: -Protection for a vulnerable and important group within our country from deportation -A way for many eligible and deserving youth to come out of the shadows, continue their education, and contribute to the economy more fully by allowing them to work legally without the threat of deportation -Prosecutorial Discretion, basically changing the way the Law is enforced, which is within the authority of the President What we know: -This memo will be implemented within 60 days of when it was announced, so sometime around August 16th -Those in removal proceedings or with a final order to be removed who qualify, should request deferred action with ICE immediately -Those NOT in removal proceedings who believe they qualify SHOULD NOT turn themselves into ICE, but rather wait for USCIS to release the implementation plan and apply directly with them once the application process is available -Those who believe they qualify should begin gathering documentation proving they meet the criteria listed above -Applying for Deferred Action and Work Authorization will not trigger an Immigration investigation into the applicants relatives -Those who apply and are denied will be given an NTA, but not necessarily be placed directly in removal proceedings What we still don't know: -How those who qualify will apply -The intricacies of the exact meaning of each of the qualifications -If those who receive this form of temporary relief will be able to travel outside of the country -What would happen to this policy if a new president were to be elected to office.

We append the following disclaimer on all posts: “Please note that the views expressed by guest bloggers represent their own personal views, and not necessarily those of everyone associated with Loving the Stranger or any institutions with which the blogger may be affiliated.”

Evangelicals Unite On Principles for Immigration Reform at Capitol Hill Press Conference

Several years ago, World Relief joined with other evangelical organizations in order to multiply our efforts to educate and mobilize the evangelical community for immigration reform.  This effort, known as the Evangelical Immigration Table, has been working to gather some of the country’s most recognized evangelical leaders to support immigration reform.

Tomorrow, the Table will be releasing a statement to call on Democrats and Republicans to lead our nation to a bipartisan solution for immigrants in America.  This “Evangelical Statement of Principles for Immigration Reform” has been signed by over 140 high-level evangelical leaders, many of whom are speaking out for the first time in support of immigration reform.  Signatories include bestselling Christian authors, denominational executives from almost every major evangelical denomination, presidents of Christian colleges and seminaries, and pastors of large and influential churches throughout the country.  

Tuesday, June 12, 2012 at 11:30am, you will be able to see the list of signatories on www.evangelicalimmigrationtable.com and watch live on the website the press conference in Washington, DC releasing the statement.

More information and a live feed of the news conference on Tuesday, 9:30 am PDT here. 

**This information is from World Relief's Director of Advocacy and Policy, Jenny Yang.

We append the following disclaimer on all posts: “Please note that the views expressed by guest bloggers represent their own personal views, and not necessarily those of everyone associated with Loving the Stranger or any institutions with which the blogger may be affiliated.”