LETTERS: Debating LUPE’s refusal to meet with Sen. Cruz

We respectfully consider that The Monitor’s editorial regarding “the art of politics” misses the point in comparing LUPE’s decision not to meet privately with Sen. Ted Cruz. We agree with and support LUPE’s decision not to meet with Sen. Cruz. Unlike Mr. Darling, LUPE is not a political organization. Politicians may consider compromise as a political maneuver, but community organizations stand with and defend their community’s dignity and values. This is true especially when confronting those who for years have advocated for policies contrary to that dignity and those values. The Monitor’s editorial compares apples to oranges. Moreover, the “smart politics” the editorial alludes to have included, in the last six months alone: (1) a letter from Mayor Darling to DHS that the federal government has interpreted as a request for a border wall in Hidalgo County, and (2) an op-ed co-authored by the McAllen police chief supporting SB 4, the “show me your papers” law that will lead to rampant racial profiling of Latinos in Texas.LUPE members, in contrast, stood with hundreds of immigrant advocates and other cities around the state at a federal court hearing in San Antonio on Monday, where a court will decide whether SB 4 is constitutional. For months, Sen. Cruz has been wholly unresponsive to requests for dialogue. LUPE’s proposal to have a town hall meeting is a way to leverage his visit to create that open dialogue. That is also smart. In the face of bigotry and attacks on our communities, we respectfully consider that the appropriate response from a community group such as LUPE should be resistance, not compromise. Lastly, as the editorial board recognizes, Sen. Cruz is attempting to use a private breakfast as a political ploy, and LUPE astutely saw right through that attempt. We are proud to stand with LUPE.

Efrén Olivares, racial and economic justice director, Texas Civil Rights Project, Alamo


I have read the commentaries of state Rep. Terry Canales and Juanita Valdez-Cox and unfortunately, I find their commentaries present nothing but generalizations, and foster and promote divisiveness and defeatism. They offer no solutions to the problems that we, Americans, are up against. They talk about border issues, not about people issues.

In my June 8 letter, I mentioned people issues not border issues. I offered solutions, not problems.

I suggest they read my letter, which offers solutions. It may well enlighten them and inspire them to seek solutions.

Juan Del Bosque, Jr., Donna