Texan of the Year: Illegal Immigrant

[no name 1]

Ask the Editor: Editorial Page Editor Keven Ann Willey

12:01 PM CST on Saturday, January 5, 2008

A radio host asked me at the top of his show whether it was true that I'd asked to be put into a witness protection program.

He was joking – and so was I when I retorted something along the lines of, "Not yet, but that might be a good idea" – but his comment pretty well captured the intensity of the reaction we've received since last weekend, when we designated the illegal immigrant as The Dallas Morning News 2007 Texan of the Year.

Yes, it's true, we actually did that. We devoted some 3,000 words in last Sunday's Points section to explaining the "why" behind this most un-PC of choices. And, yes, we expected a great deal of pushback against the idea.

Still, the intensity of that pushback did surprise us. Now that a week has gone by, it seems like good time to reflect a bit on what happened and why.

Frankly, the volume of reaction is evidence a good choice. People care about this. By midday Friday, some 700 reader comments had been posted on the Editorial Board's blog, DallasMorningViews. We received roughly 200 letters to the editor. (You've read some of these on our Editorial pages over the last few days, and we published a centerpiece package of them in this Sunday's Points section.)

We've engaged with readers individually via e-mail and telephone and in groups on the Web and over the airwaves. But let's be candid: 95 percent of all that reaction to our choice was negative. Readers we heard from were angry, insulted, in disbelief that we'd do such a thing. Some cancelled their newspaper subscriptions.

It was never our intent to anger readers – at least not gratuitously. Our goal was to provoke, yes, but in a way designed to elevate the issue of illegal immigration to the prominence it deserves and to increase the pressure on Congress to enact meaningful reforms to a system we called "a joke" in our essay.

Nevertheless, the vast majority of readers we've heard from didn't see our effort that way. The opposition seemed to focus around three main points. One we heard over and over was, "How in the world could you designate people who are here illegally as 'Texans'?"

A fair point, and one worthy of discussion. We've chosen to interpret "Texan" rather generically, colloquially. To us, it means somebody who lives here, or who has lived here, or who has spent considerable time here - somebody who's affected Texas in some major way.

To many people, "Texan" requires a much more elevated definition. Some argue one cannot be a Texan if not born in this great state. Others argue that, at the very least, a Texan of the Year ought to be a legal resident of the state.

Those are fine definitions. But look at our past designees – President Bush in 2003, Karl Rove in 2004, the city of Houston in 2005 and Roy Velez in 2006. Neither of the first two lived in Texas at the time of their designation. Neither of them and only a segment of the third designee (Houston) was born in Texas.

Another major point of contention was whether being named as Texan of the Year was an honor. Most of our detractors felt we intended this designation as way to "reward" or "glorify" people who are here illegally. And if you stop at the words "Texan of the Year: Illegal Immigrant" that interpretation is understandable. If that really were the case, I'd be outraged, too.

But the essay – all three pages of it – and our previous designees should make clear that this wasn't our intent, either.

We described the illegal immigrant in that Points essay as somebody whose champions see as "decent, hard-working" and whose "strong back and willing heart help form the cornerstone of our daily lives" and as somebody whose detractors see as "lawbreakers who … use public resources to which they aren't entitled and expect to be served in a foreign language."

It wasn't that we were ducking the issue of illegal immigration, good or bad. We've opined on that topic many times before (more on that in a moment); condemning or glorifying wasn't the point of this essay or this designation. The point was to describe the person – or, in this case, the group – that has roiled this state and nation economically and emotionally more than anyone else. It was to describe a social phenomenon unmatched in recent memory and to draw attention to the urgent need for change.

A couple of our previous Texans of the Year bear this out. If you read our essay on President Bush in 2003, it's clear that we weren't recognizing him because we agreed with all that he stood for. We recognized him because his decision to take this country to war had a larger impact on the state – and the world – than any other Texan (generic definition) we could come up with.

An excerpt: "This is not universally popular, nor is it popular with many Americans, and not even with all Texans. As should be clear, in naming Mr. Bush as Texan of the Year we don't necessarily endorse all his policies, nor his governing style. We do, however, recognize that there was in the past 12 months no more important Texan, and that the principles informing his fateful decisions over the course of a fateful year came from the mind of a man with roots deep in the heart of Texas."

And here's an excerpt from our 2004 essay designating Karl Rove as Texan of the Year: "If his advocates are right, Mr. Rove is one of the most creative political minds in history. If his critics are right, his unrelenting partisanship will only exacerbate the polarization that divides the country. Either way, his impact and influence on Americans in 2004 – and beyond – are unmistakable."

Which brings me to concerns about the definition of Texan of the Year.

When we first launched this feature, we created a definition very similar to what we've used in the last three years, except that it included reference to "leadership" and "vision." In 2005 – largely in reaction to the criticism from readers who claimed that our naming President Bush and Mr. Rove as TOYs connoted our endorsement of their policies and actions – we deleted reference to "leadership" and "vision." This was designed to make clearer that TOY designation was based on impact and import, and not indicators of editorial support or embrace.

Here's the definition we published in 2005: "A Texan (or Texans) who has had uncommon impact, who exemplifies Texas traits of trailblazing, independence and staring down adversity and who has affected or influenced many lives (positively or negatively)."

It's the same definition we used in 2006 and 2007, though for shorthand purposes we eventually lost the parenthetical at the end. It seemed a small point at the time, but now I wish we hadn't settled for the abbreviated version. Regardless, the TOY designation is subjective; there's no formula for its development. It's our opinion – nothing more, nothing less – for better or worse.

There were other complaints from readers against this Texan of the Year, to be sure. We've tried to address most of them in a host of blog postings in response to readers' comments, in e-mails and in the half-dozen radio and television interviews we've given over the past week. Editorial writer Rodger Jones, our Texan of the Year project manager, wrote in a column and in various blog postings this week about his general discomfort with having named two "composite" TOYs (groups, rather than an individual) over the past five years, but explained why, in this case, he thought the issue merited the composite recognition.

But these three were the major points – all of them worthy of civil discussion.

In hindsight, I wish we'd thought to include a summary box noting for readers the editorial board's position on illegal immigration. This might have put the purpose of the TOY essay last week in better context and clarified that while this designation isn't meant as a condemnation or a glorification of the illegal immigrant (for all the reasons already explained) we do, as an editorial board, have a strong position on illegal immigration.

In fact, we've editorialized on this topic nearly two dozen times in the past year (not counting the number of news stories and op-ed columns published by this newspaper). In those editorials, we've made clear that:

• The existing immigration system is a joke.

• It is unconscionable that Congress has refused to reform the system.

• The Department of Homeland Security should get on with it and "finish the rest of the barrier" along the border, noting as recently as last month that this is clearly "the will of the people."

• It's not as simple as just "deport them all" or "ignore it and the problem will go away." We've called for comprehensive immigration reform, which includes tighter border security and workplace enforcement, as well as a guest worker program to create a system of documentation and a pathway to regularization that includes touchback provisions and doesn't put those who have broken the law ahead of those who came here legally.

• We support the city of Irving's efforts to partner with the feds to deport those in city jails found to be here illegally.

The bottom line is that none of us should settle for snappy sound bites from politicians pledging gratuitously to "crack down" on illegal immigrants. We must push elected officials to move beyond the rhetorical appetizer and dig into the meat and potatoes.

Until they do, the problem of illegal immigration will fester like a sore and continue to drive this nation apart.

source

[LaL 418]

Interesting how the editors have to explain satire to its angry readers? Mob, anyone?

[almaty 19]

It's not as simple as just "deport them all" or "ignore it and the problem will go away." We've called for comprehensive immigration reform, which includes tighter border security and workplace enforcement, as well as a guest worker program to create a system of documentation and a pathway to regularization that includes touchback provisions and doesn't put those who have broken the law ahead of those who came here legally.

touche

[rebeccajo 14]

It's not as simple as just "deport them all" or "ignore it and the problem will go away." We've called for comprehensive immigration reform, which includes tighter border security and workplace enforcement, as well as a guest worker program to create a system of documentation and a pathway to regularization that includes touchback provisions and doesn't put those who have broken the law ahead of those who came here legally.

touche

Dean, that readin' stuff will get you in trouble everytime......

[Boiler 45,525]

Yes, it's true, we actually did that. We devoted some 3,000 words in last Sunday's Points section to explaining the "why" behind this most un-PC of choices. And, yes, we expected a great deal of pushback against the idea.

Un PC?

Highly PC I would have thought.

I wonder who the 5% were.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Liberal rag.