‘Whose side are you on anyway?’ Why truth-seeking beats team-loyalty

Seven immigration articles I've reported or edited reinforce my own conviction that the aspiration for more truth could be a unifier across our many other profound differences.

Photo by Barbara Zandoval on Unsplash. U.S. Customs and Border Protection - San Diego, U.S. published June 22, 2021

I’ve been writing and reporting more about immigration over the last year, for two reasons: (1) it’s a heart-wrenching, human issue that is center-stage around the globe. And (2) the amount of confusion and conflict on the question is really stunning.

Doesn’t that sound like something good journalism should be focused on?

One reader certainly didn’t think so, at least not when he reviewed some of what I had found. In a lengthy, blistering email last month, he essentially told me: How dare you reach the conclusions you are reaching!

I’ve been hearing this kind of reaction for many years now - far less about what I’m arguing, and more about the fact that my observations are not in line with popular or politically-dominant messaging out there: in this case, “immigrants are hurting the economy, they are making crime worse in America, we’re (mostly) only deporting the criminals anyway, etc.”

The message is simple: “Stop publishing the wrong conclusions!”

‘Truth seeking together’

I’ve been reflecting on this, because of how at odds the sentiment is to the spirit of journalism, at its best. It’s maybe only natural to ask ourselves “whose side are you on” in a hyper-partisan political and social environment. But I’m still inspired by the higher realities and aspirations that offer a real potential to unite us beyond the myriad other temporal, secular, social, philosophical, ideological and political differences.

That’s one reason I think the faith I love is more politically resilient against division than most. We really don’t talk politics in our worship gatherings - instead, focusing on the “weightier matters” of the “plain and precious” doctrine of Christ; it’s glorious!

These higher aspirations are also why I’ve come to love journalism, like college and university life before. It’s all supposed to be about truth - aka, what’s the full story and the full truth of a matter?

Questions about immigration I’ve had

It’s true that I’m influenced by my faith in everything I write - a religion that underscores, compassion, respect for the law and the universality of our divine heritage as children of God. In the case of immigration, it’s also true I’m influenced by my own family background, where my own direct ancestors fled from Europe to find religious freedom. Many were then driven from the United States - dying on the trail to Utah, while their children became religious refugees seeking freedom to worship.

All this naturally orients the questions I ask. But it doesn’t dictate the answers. All the stories I’ve reported on (or edited) about immigration have had that same goal: genuinely trying to better understand what the full truth really is…including about:

• Latter-day Saint attitudes towards immigration, which have often been distorted and misrepresented (with Stephen Cranney, To understand Latter-day Saint views on immigration, look at all the data)

• Immigration’s impact on the economy? (by Walker Wright, Research says immigrants strengthen the American economy)

• What are the different ways people are in the country illegally? (Is it a crime to be in the country illegally?)

• How many being deported have criminal backgrounds? (How many individuals being deported have a criminal record?)

• Are there more constructive ways to enforce immigration law? (Bob Babcock, one of the original signers of the Utah Compact, There’s got to be a better way on immigration — An appeal from an original signer of the Utah Compact)

• Whether the United States has experienced a legitimate “invasion” or leadership by a “dictator”? (What qualifies as an ‘invasion’ or a ‘dictator’? Language battles dominate American politics)

• And this last week, my article on Deseret News explored whether migrants are more likely to commit crime than natural-born citizens? (Migrants aren’t more likely to perpetrate crimes. But they are more likely to be victimized)

None of this is an “anti-Trump” message - and certainly not a “pro-amnesty” message. Open borders are a disaster and following the law still matters, even if you are concerned about navigating these issues compassionately.

Along the way, I’ve found these all questions worth asking - and at least trying to answer more fully. Yet I was honestly struck at how hard it was to figure out what was actually going on in my own attempt.

Truth-seeking as a unifier

Shouldn’t that be what journalism, and scholarship are about - as well as the rest of our lives? Seeking what is true?

My friend Arthur Peña believes this kind of “truth seeking together” could be a powerful basis for unifying us as a people. As we wrote in an article years ago with Charles Randall Paul:

We want to convince you in what follows that it is wisest to meet each opinion we encounter in the world with one overriding and central question: “Is it true?” We want to persuade you to consider all other questions asked of an opinion (“is it loving?” “is it ‘scientific?” “is it orthodox?” “is it politically correct?”) to be secondary to the primary question of its truth.

Here’s my favorite thing Arthur has taught me:

What if, instead of thinking to ourselves—“I like that,” “I don’t like that,” “I agree,” “I disagree,” “That’s good,” “That’s evil,” “That’s racist,” “That’s bigoted,” “That’s compassionate,” “That’s hateful,” “That’s patriotic,” “That’s anti-American,” “That’s reasonable,” “That’s irrational,” “That’s typical of [those people],” “That’s progressive,” “That’s conservative,” “That’s reactionary,” etc., etc—

. . . what if, instead of entertaining such (not-directly-related-to-truth) thoughts, we were to simply and continually remind ourselves to ask one and only one question of everything that is being asserted or stated: “Is it true?”

What do you think about that? Could this really change how we’re interacting and talking in America today?

I think Arthur’s right; truth-seeking really could become a unifying foundation for peace-making. Arthur concludes: “Seeking not just the truth but the whole truth together is the only foundation upon which meaningful conversation on important topics can proceed.”