In class this week we learned about how immigration policy in the United States has made life hell for many of those attempting to cross the border into our nation.  Most of the border is protected by security, while one stretch in the harsh and unforgiving Arizona desert is left unprotected as a “natural deterrent”.  Thousands of immigrants have

A group of immigrants attempting the trek across the US-Mexican border. As you can see, they are carrying plastic jugs of water to stay hydrated, although the water likely is not enough.

died in that harsh environment just trying to make it across (lots due to lack of water), and many made it here just to get deported back to their home countries.  That might change soon, thanks to some recent activity at the White House.

Just this past Thursday, President Obama signed an executive order aimed at giving more protection to undocumented immigrants.  According to the order, undocumented migrants who have been in the

President Obama discussing the details of his executive order, prior to its release on Thursday.

United States for at least five years will be able to apply for a government program that protects them from being deported and allows them to work legally in the US without facing potential criminal prosecution.  In addition, more migrants will be protected from deportation through reforms to the United States’ immigration enforcement system.

What does this mean for immigration into the United States, and how do we apply archaeology to this question?  Well, archaeological researchers have found that immigrants are perfectly willing to undergo the trek through the desert rather than immigrate through parts of the border a with less dangerous climate but more heavily guarded by the United States border patrol.  Moreover, these immigrants often depart without the supplies they need to keep a lower profile.  Examples of this are the imitation Nike sneakers worn instead of hiking boots (which are not as good at protecting the feet but make them look more like Americans) and the black plastic water jugs used by some (which heat up their water but are supposedly “less visible”).  An executive order making it easier for immigrants who make it across the border to stay in the country will undoubtedly make immigration to the United States more enticing for those living in Latin American nations.  In addition, since this order was not accompanied by a loosening of security on the parts of the border that do not lie along the Arizona desert, the increased number of immigrants trying to cross over will undoubtedly funnel through the Arizona/Mexico border and many will die.  So, Obama’s new policy will lead to not only more immigrants (who might not have before wanted to cross over into the US due to fear of deportation but now feel that they will be safe) but to more deaths in the desert.  A potential solution to this problem would be to set up water stations on the border.

Sources:

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/immigration/uploads/TestPagecrossingborder.jpg

Additional reading:

http://www.fronterasdesk.org/content/9772/movie-examines-illegal-immigration-arizona-border

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/arizona-residents-protest-arrival-undocumented-immigrant-children-n155941

http://undocumentedmigrationproject.com

Link to original post in Reall Archaeology

Shored Up is a documentary that delves into the impact that climate change is having on sea levels and therefore beachfront property that is close to the shoreline.  Included in the documentary are interviews with scientists, activists, lobbyists, and others with opinions on beach erosion and its effect on homes.  The focus of the documentary is on Long Beach Island, an island off the coast of New Jersey that is 18 miles long and about 400 meters (around a quarter of a mile) wide.

On the island in question, beaches are being eroded by rising sea levels and by general ocean activity (the movement of waves and such).  Owners of expensive waterfront property are having the beaches in front of their property “replenished”, which means essentially that extra sand is being dumped in front of their houses to replace that lost to erosion.  This is all being done at the expense of taxpayers through the federal, state, and local governments (although most of the funds are being raised federally).  This “beach replenishment” has sparked a wide-ranging debate concerning whether it is a good idea or not.  Some feel that it is, some feel that federal funds are being squandered, and some feel that “beach replenishment” is not an effective long-term solution due to the fact that rising sea levels projected by scientists over the next century (over a meter) will flood over the houses that are being temporarily protected anyways.

I agreed with the overall argument of the movie that rising sea levels will eventually destroy any economic or residential development close to the shoreline and that we should therefore think more carefully about where we build.  However, I noticed that mentions of “global warming” were scarce and that talk of greenhouse gases generated by human activity was lacking altogether, although this would be a logical explanation to give for the rising sea levels.  I believe that this was done to avoid alienating those who deny the existence of “global warming” and still appeal to them.  Mention of recent temperature increase was given, but this was not attributed to “global warming”.  I personally believe that deniers of global warming would much more easily object to “global warming” itself than an abject statement of temperature change, meaning that the film would still be able to appeal to those non-believers.  I don’t believe in the use of these tactics and I think that the full scientific argument should have been presented, not parts of it.  After all, making one’s argument more “presentable” is not going to have a real impact on our nation’s anti-scientific political climate, which is at the heart of the problem.

The relation between the climate change described in the documentary to archaeology was implicit yet relatively simple.  As long as this erosion of the beaches due to sea level rise continues, archaeological sites that formerly existed under those beaches will be destroyed.  In addition, the “beach replenishment” itself may be destroying archaeological remains, as heavy plows which could damage those records are being used to spread the new sand.  In other words, the only way to save archaeological sites on the coast is to find a long-term solution to the erosion problem that would most likely involve combating rising sea levels and global warming.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shored_Up#mediaviewer/File:Shored_Up_poster.jpg

One of the release posters for the Shored Up film. The image of waves flooding a construction plow and coastal houses perfectly conveys the film’s anti coastal development message.

Link to original post in Reall Archaeology