Thread: Will immigration adversaries ever sit down, and talk

Will immigration adversaries ever sit down, and actually talk?
Posted: Apr 30, 2010 3:55 PM CDT
Updated: May 04, 2010 9:41 PM CDT

Is a "real dialogue" on immigration even possible? And if not, what does that say about our democracy? So far, the signs aren't great. And the situation deteriorated further on Tuesday.

KGUN9 viewers continue to passionately debate Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigration. The vast majority of those e-mailing KGUN9 and posting comments on our website still favor SB 1070, which would criminalize illegal immigration and draw local police and sheriff's deputies into the fray. A smaller but equally passionate group opposes the law. An even smaller percentage of the comments received accuse KGUN9 News of bias. At the moment those accusations are falling along the same percentage lines as support for the law, with the majority feeling KGUN9 favors the left, and a smaller group believing that KGUN9 leans right.

Sherry Circle's comments are typical of that larger group. She writes: "It appears, to me, that KGUN News is very biased in their sensationalism of the new SB1070 that was signed. In watching your news stories, it appears that they are very one sided.... Why is it wrong to ask people coming here to do it legally?"

I would love for Ms. Circle to sit down and have a conversation with one of SB 1070's most vocal opponents, Isabel Garcia of Derechos Humanos. As convinced as Circle is that KGUN9's coverage opposes the law, Garcia is even more certain that KGUN9 News is biased in the opposite direction. Garcia is, in fact, so angry with KGUN9 News that she has decided to boycott us. In declining a KGUN9 interview request Friday morning, Garcia explained that she has "personal animosity against KGUN9" because of our coverage, and because of our ties to radio talk show host Jon Justice.

On Tuesday afternoon Garcia repeated the comments, this time in front of other media who were lining up to speak with her about the Tucson city council's vote to sue over SB 1070. Garcia said, "You guys did everything you could to be on the bandwagon when they were trying to get rid of me." She repeated that she also hates KGUN9 because of our coverage and our ties to Justice.

If Garcia and her organization Derechos Humanos have problems with the way KGUN9 covers the news, they sure have found a curious way to show it. On Tuesday of last week when KGUN9's Steve Nunez broke the news that Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik has decided to defy SB 1070, Derechos Humanos posted our story on its website. The story later went national. Arguably Dupnik's position was a huge statement, and victory, for the left. So if KGUN9 News is biased against the left, why on earth would we so aggressively report a story favorable to the left? Indeed, some of those on the right pointed to that very story as proof that we're biased toward the left.

Here is my response to Ms. Garcia. On Friday she gave a speech in which she called for "real dialogue" on immigration. But now she is taking steps to restrict that dialogue and to cut KGUN9's viewers out of it. Even the most reactionary elements of the far right wing have not attempted to exclude journalists, and their audiences, from the conversation. How do you have a "dialogue" if you cut out those with whom you disagree? Garcia had it right the first time. Real dialogue is exactly what's needed. We urge her to re-examine her own words and to keep the commitment she made on Friday. KGUN9's invitation to her and to Derechos Humanos to participate in our coverage remains open.

I've also addressed the Jon Justice issue. Here it is again. Yes, Justice is a voice of the right. Yes, he does work for 104.1 The Truth, a radio station owned by Journal Broadcast Group, which also owns KGUN9. Yes, Justice sometimes does something newsworthy, or has a newsworthy guest on his show - and when that happens, KGUN9 News may choose to cover it. Justice does not work for KGUN9 News. Justice does not participate in or influence KGUN9 News coverage decisions. Justice does not take orders from KGUN9 News. KGUN9 News does not endorse the views of Jon Justice.

Without a doubt, Garcia has reason to be angry with Justice. He's been hard on her, to say the very least. No doubt he'll continue to be. But Garcia would do well to take a cue from Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik. Dupnik and Justice could not be further apart in their views on SB 1070. But on Friday Dupnik had the courage to appear on Justice's show -- indeed, Dupnik asked to appear -- where he proceeded to go toe to toe, chest to chest and nose to nose with Justice. The kind of courage Dupnik showed is is exactly what's needed here -- and it seems to me, it's precisely the kind of frank and very real dialogue Garcia herself would have had us believe on Friday that she wants.

As for KGUN9 -- we strive very hard not to favor any one side, and to create an environment where all sides can be heard. This is a basic tenet of our Viewers' Bill of Rights. There are far more than two sides to most important issues, and we want to hear from all of them. The fact that we help give voice to a given side does not mean we support that side's viewpoint, but it does mean we support everyone's right to be heard.

In pouring over viewer e-mails over the past few days, one thing is strikingly obvious: although a lot of people are speaking, not a lot of people are talking. In fact, it's clear that most on the two major sides simply aren't attempting to communicate across the various lines that have been drawn in the sand. That is a mistake. If the combatants don't communicate with each other, there is no possibility of working together to solve problems. Isn't such cooperation a basic part of a healthy democracy?

In hopes of taking at least a small step in that direction, last week I tried something a bit different. Instead of featuring more commentary from viewers as this blog normally does, I invited the combatants on all sides of the immigration debate to talk to one another. E-mails and postings are coming in. I'd like to ask viewers to continue. Below are a set of questions KGUN9 News has been trying to ask of those we interview for our news coverage. Please look them over and weigh in. You can send your responses to comments@kgun9.com. Or, you can post your commentary below, as many of you have already done. As you're responding, please try to address your comments not to those who agree with you, but to those who don't. And ask yourself this question: is it possible, or even advisable, for the various factions to work together for a solution?

Ms. Garcia, you are invited, too.



http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=12406896

No, it is not healthy for a democracy or even what we have which is a Republic, for psycho-babble about the civil rights or needs or wants of illegal aliens and their advocates. If you want go to our prisons and take your TV cameras and have some sit downs and chat with criminals, have at it.

But out here, we have a rule of law, immigration law among it, and we don't babble for decades about whether or not we should arrest murderers or thieves or batterers or cheats ... we arrest them, we prosecute them and then we punish them.

US immigration law is actually one of the fairest most comprehensive set of law we have. It's fair, it includes due process, it provides for appeals, it encourages voluntary deportation, and when a deportation is ordered, it's done so in accordance with every sense of humanity, safety and reasonable judgment based on this beautiful set of laws called US immigration law.

There is nothing more to talk about. Our country is 30 million jobs short to provide for our own people, 1/3 of our population under the age of 65 is on some sort of public assistance, our federal government is $14 trillion in debt primarily because of these public assistance programs for those under 65 and the reason for that is in a word: immigration.

Yes, it's not just illegal immigration. Our immigration numbers are too large for the economic capacity of our country. We have more people than we have jobs and incomes to sustain our standard of living and we not only need to turn the states loose with their state and local law enforcement manpower and resources to enforce US immigration law, we also need to demand that Congress reduce immigration levels to the 1970 replacement levels.

There are 800,000 law enforcement officers in the United States. The entire agencies of ICE and Border Patrol only number 40,000 and I expect that 50% of that are managers and office workers who process and maintain records and supervise the field officers.

We have 20 x the manpower and resources of the federal government's immigration control agencies already trained and ready to enforce US immigration law at the state and local levels. Cut it loose. Because every time we arrest, detain and deport 100 illegal aliens, you've created 100 jobs for Americans, and saved numerous citizens from a serious crime.


2 birds. 1 stone. It's the American Way. Stop Chatting, and Just do it.

it's clear that most on the two major sides simply aren't attempting to communicate across the various lines that have been drawn in the sand. That is a mistake. If the combatants don't communicate with each other, there is no possibility of working together to solve problems. Isn't such cooperation a basic part of a healthy democracy?

The "two major sides" communicated in the early 80's. They struck a deal then, one side got the amnesty it desired for conceding to their opposition that future enforcement would be strict. Hmm, which side didn't uphold that bargain?