The Albuquerque Journal issued an apology, of sorts, on Thursday after it published a highly controversial cartoon which depicted a white couple being robbed at gunpoint by MS-13 gang members.
"Now, honey," the man being robbed in the cartoon said to his wife, "I believe they prefer to be called 'Dreamers' … or future Democrats."
Predictably, the cartoon sparked widespread outrage, including from both of New Mexico's Democratic senators, who said it was "heinous and bigoted" as well as "hateful and offensive":
"The day after the Journal editorialized to say ‘our elected representatives in Washington should put aside some of the vitriol and make a real effort to come to agreement on an immigration reform package,’ the editors printed a cartoon that does the exact opposite," a joint statement including several New Mexico lawmakers, and the state's attorney general said. "Instead of putting aside the vitriol, this cartoon feeds it. It plays to the most false and negative stereotype of ‘Dreamers,’ which can only serve to enrage extremists. Instead of highlighting some middle ground that could be fertile for agreement, this cartoon pushes the two sides further into their respective corners."
The statement continued, "Aside from the obviously racist undertones of this cartoon – coming from an artist with a history of racist cartoons – its goal is clearly to destroy an immigration compromise, not to promote one."
The cartoon was drawn by Sean Delonas has a history of racist, offensive, and misleading drawings. He has also depicted former President Barack Obama as a monkey in the past.
Cartoons published in the Journal are chosen by the editorial board, which is separate from the newsroom with reporters, and editors. However, as a response to the backlash, Journal Editor Karen Moses weighed in and said cartoons are typically used to spark "discussion and debate."
"Our editorial pages offer views from all sides of the spectrum, and we realize some of the content will offend readers," Moses said in a statement issued on Wednesday night. "We do not agree with many of those views, but their purpose is to spark discussion and debate. In hindsight, instead of generating debate, this cartoon only inflamed emotions. This was not the intent, nor does the Journal condone racism or bigotry in any form.
The statement, while critical of the cartoon, was still milquetoast and hardly addressed the implications of the drawing, which in turn generated so much outrage and attention. The cartoon plays on the idea, frequently touted by President Donald Trump, that equates DACA recipients (known as Dreamers), with a violent street gang. It harps on the false notion that immigration has brought a spike in crime to the United States and that Democrats condone the behavior in order to score more votes and appeal to a diverse audience.
In reality, the cartoon was never truly drawn to spark any "debate and discussion" it was only meant to affirm preconceived beliefs, and oversimplify an issue that deserves a far more humane solution than a border wall.
Shares