Knight’s ‘Poem’ Still Arouses Readers’ Anger

If there’s one topic that elicits angry letters and phone calls, it’s immigration. Nothing else that I’ve written about pushes readers’ buttons quicker or with more passion. Not even knocking the Dodgers in baseball-crazy L.A.

So I wasn’t surprised when the angry letters and calls started to come in after I criticized Republican Assemblyman William J. (Pete) Knight of Palmdale in this column for distributing The Poem. What surprised me is that more than a month later, it hasn’t stopped.

*

To recap, Knight, who said The Poem was written by a constituent, passed it around among his colleagues in the state Capitol. Written in pidgin English, it portrayed Mexican illegal immigrants as schemers who take advantage of this country.

I called The Poem a symptom of growing racism in L.A., believing that immigrants have become scapegoats for our economic and social ills. I related a conversation I had with an immigrant-turned-U.S. citizen, Sergio Martinez, to illustrate the hurt such hatred can cause.

Although he apologized for distributing The Poem to other legislators, I also said Knight didn’t deserve to be in Sacramento.

More than half of the 100 or so letters and telephone calls called for the immediate deportation of all illegal immigrants. I was called, among other things, a “wetback lover” and a “Mexican version of Saddam Hussein.” Most readers wanted me deported, too.

“Why don’t you go back to where you belong,” one caller demanded.

“I am where I belong,” I replied, explaining that I was born and raised in L.A.

“Go back to Mexico!” the woman caller insisted.

I told her of the time in the mid-1970s when I was assigned to cover the inauguration of a new Mexican governor in Baja California Norte. I didn’t think much of the new chief executive and said as much to a colleague. A ranking official from Mexico City, who came to Mexicali for the inauguration, overheard my remark and told me to “go back to where you belong.”

“Go home anyway,” the unimpressed caller said.

Katharine Foster, in a letter postmarked from Marina del Rey, wondered whether Martinez and I spoke in English or in Spanish.

“Have (Martinez and you) acquired enough love for this country to use English?” she asked. “If you did, I applaud you. If you haven’t, perhaps you can see a reason why non-Latino Americans don’t like or trust Latinos at this time. Using another language is a sign of division and we all need to stand together right now.”

Ronald M. Thomason, who said he was a “white peace officer for 25 years” and a constituent of Knight, wrote to defend him.

“Pete Knight is a courageous man who spent his life serving his country,” Thomason said. “Pete is a combat pilot who flew 253 fighter/bomber missions over Vietnam. Pete went on from there to become one of the world’s best-known test pilots and the world’s fastest man, flying experimental jet aircraft and then rocket-powered craft. Pete is obviously a very brave and intelligent man.

“I could not agree with you more that the poem Pete distributed . . . is very much racist. The point you miss is that Pete said it was sent to him anonymously and that it was distributed simply as an opinion of one of his constituents, not his own opinion. Pete did make a mistake of saying it was amusing. Anyone can choose poor phrasing. He has since apologized both publicly and on the floor of the Assembly. Can we please, now, go on?”

*

I don’t think speaking a language other than English in L.A. is divisive. I think it adds to the city’s richness because many residents speak only one language. I’m amazed how many accept the notion that immigrants don’t want to learn English when countless overcrowded English classes in adult schools indicate otherwise.

Martinez’s English was perfectly understandable but he chose to speak Spanish because I also speak the language.

I don’t challenge Knight’s achievements, but I do think he’s guilty of much more than just “poor phrasing.” He spread racism by passing The Poem around, initially laughing about its contents and then trying to say that its real point was to illustrate the public’s growing concern about illegal immigration.

We simply can’t go on when such a crude tool is used by a public official to discuss public policy.

If you disagree, I know I’ll hear from you.