L&T Publisher Earl Watt
In the past few weeks, Liberal has seen an increase in discussions about immigration. It’s good to have these conversations. Only by having a dialogue can we truly understand the challenges and the solutions.
Kathleen Alonso and her organization called New Frontiers has visited at the last two USD No. 480 School Board meetings.
I researched New Frontiers and found on its web site that it advocates to elect people who “look” like “our community.
Alonso responded to my column on the issue and felt I should have reached out to her.
Fair enough. That wouldn’t have stopped me from sharing what I did, but dialogue is important.
I offered Alonso multiple times to come visit with me about a proposal for immigration reform, and she never made an attempt to do so until I had a public meeting. She participated in the discussion, and some of her recommendations were added to the final proposal.
Perhaps missed opportunities on both sides.
For questioning the organization, the typical hate crowd jumped on to their opportunity to hop on social media and start spouting the same worn-out rhetoric. “Racist.” “You have your good ol’ boys on the right with your Trump Train. We have New Frontiers.” “The only thing that keeps this page alive is controversial and divisive articles hand picked by Earl.”
Who wants to engage in conversation when these are the responses you get?
Several of you have come up to me at the grocery store, at the fair, or even stopped by the office, and you want to share your point of view, but you are afraid.
One gentleman came to my office and wanted to share his thoughts, but he was afraid of attacks on his family. Attacks on his business. Of being called racist.
That’s exactly the goal — to intimidate and silence.
I disagree with Alonso’s organization. To me, electing someone based on appearance is racist or at the very least discriminatory.
If I had ever told the voters they should only elect people “who looked like them,” I would have been accused of racism.
And it would be true. If it is true for me to tell voters to elect someone who looked like them, why wouldn’t that same standard exist for everyone?
Here is what the gentleman who came to my office wanted to say — “Obviously, long time existing federal laws should not be respected, in your opinion. How about from now on, you leave your front door open, let anyone who desires walk in, and then you must feed, doctor and educate them. Because they really haven’t broken any laws, as you believe. You can’t pick and choose which laws you enforce. All laws should be respected and obeyed.”
It’s a fair statement, and many will agree, and many will disagree with it.
But should someone be afraid to speak up?
You are. And I get it. Look at what is said about me.
But I write a regular column in a newspaper. Criticism comes with the territory.
Criticism is fine. It’s healthy. It makes us revisit an idea when someone shares an unintended consequence or brings a new perspective to the conversation.
Believing that questioning anything is “controversial and divisive” and therefore not worthy of sharing or reading is an attempt to chill dissent.
The efforts have worked.
The problem is so many of you have approached me and shown support. I have no doubt many have approached Alonso and also shared support.
That’s the whole challenge with discussing the issue of immigration. It’s controversial. It’s divisive. Most of us have our views and there is very little that can be said or done to change it.
But we should still be willing to listen to one another, even when we don’t agree.
Mutual respect is the cornerstone of public discourse. Respecting the right of everyone to share their thoughts is paramount to a free society.
While I believe in the phrase, “No More Kings,” I didn’t support the anti-Trump protests. But that doesn’t mean those who participated should be vilified. They were exercising the same freedom I have to express themselves.
Was it divisive? Maybe even controversial? Absolutely. Those are the issues that lead to public discourse. And that’s fine.
It took many rallies and protests before the American Revolution, the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement.
We have to make the case for our views, and we have to make them public.
The Declaration of Independence, perhaps the most controversial piece of literature for its day, ended with the statement, “solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States ...”
They made their case public.
We will disagree about policy, about process, even about the direction our community should go.
But everyone has a voice in the discussion, those that agree and those who do not agree.
When we stop listening to one another, when we believe our own ideas to be superior to all others, we not only devalue others but we also lose sight of a core value of being American, every person was born with the same rights as everyone else.
When we listen to each other we are willing to seek common ground, to compromise, and the give and take of a diverse society can begin to see each other as respected brothers and sisters rather than bitter enemies.
It’s not about always agreeing.
To the contrary, its about recognizing that half of this country has a different priority than the other half and how do we find a way forward?
The hardest thing to do is to allow someone else to make a decision. But it’s the best way to insure that everyone had a seat at the table, that all ideas were shared, and even if we can’t bridge the entire gap, how far are we willing to go to meet in the middle?
It all starts by listening, by respecting a different view, and sharing concerns without attacking integrity.
