Thread: WaPo: Immigration Coverage in the Crossfire

Immigration Coverage in the Crossfire


By Deborah Howell
Sunday, March 2, 2008; Page B06

Readers who oppose illegal immigration often complain that The Post has too much sympathy for those living in the United States illegally and too little for those who oppose this.

They prefer that The Post use the term "illegal alien" and are disturbed that they sometimes are called "anti-immigrant" when they say they do not oppose legal immigration. While the Post covers many immigrant groups, most of the coverage of illegal immigration has involved Hispanics in the suburbs because that's where the controversy is.

Leslie Wilder of Alexandria wrote last fall: "Am I the only one annoyed by The Post's constant glorification of illegal immigrants? Hardly a week goes by without either an uplifting or heart-rending article."

These readers also criticize The Post's editorial page, which has consistently opposed local attempts to suppress services for immigrants, but editorials are not in my purview and do not affect news coverage.

This issue has flared nationally and locally, especially in Herndon and elsewhere in Prince William County, and in Montgomery and Prince George's counties. Several readers were upset about a Feb. 23 headline on the Metro section front: "Anti-Immigrant Effort Takes Hold in Md." A secondary headline made it clearer: "Grass-Roots Movement Expands Beyond Montgomery in Targeting the Undocumented."

John Mac Michael of Alexandria wrote: "Your recent article on growing opposition to illegal aliens (immigrants?) in Maryland once again used the familiar ploy of labeling those citizens who oppose illegal aliens as being 'anti-immigrant.' This is baloney. There is a clear difference between the two classes, and I certainly welcome those who are here legally."

The headline should have been more precise. The story also drew fire from pro-immigration activists who said it didn't make clear that most people appearing at a Mount Rainier City Council meeting favored declaring the city a "sanctuary" for illegal immigrants. A correction was published.

A review of immigration stories, mostly local, over the past year and several months, showed that the coverage was mostly straightforward and informative. Because it is a huge issue, reporters throughout the Metro staff cover immigration, and three do so full time. Ashley Halsey, associate Metro editor, supervises the coverage.

A Jan. 10 story by staff writer N.C. Aizenman laid out particularly well how differently illegal immigrants and their opponents view breaking the law. A Washington Post-ABC News poll also gave a national look at what people are thinking.

A few "anti-immigrant" references have popped up in recent stories -- and shouldn't have. The Post also went astray on a March 18, 2007, story about a federal raid on a New England plant; the story reported on what happened to illegal immigrants swept up in the raid but never quoted immigration officials. I also worry that advocacy groups on both sides of the issue are quoted uncritically.

Readers are right that some journalists do tend to write sympathetically about the underdog. But you cannot ignore the human story. "It's impossible to cover this issue without the challenges faced by people who are here illegally. We have tried not to be repetitive in those stories," Halsey said.

Have the views of those against illegal immigrants been fully told? My review included many stories quoting opponents -- as well as their march on the Mall. Some feel they've been portrayed as racist and xenophobic. While some have been quoted expressing views that might be interpreted that way, most have not. Halsey said it has been "very challenging to write effectively about people opposed to illegal immigration, because they are very passionate and seem suspicious of our motives and are less welcoming to our attention when we try to talk to them about their motivations."

But there are stories that could be done that would give readers better context. How many immigrants are admitted to the United States every year and from what countries and in what categories? Do some racial or ethnic groups get more visas than others -- or tend to overstay visas more? There haven't been big immigration raids locally. Why? Do businesses that tend to hire illegal immigrants think they won't be caught doing so?

Is it possible to quantify how illegal immigrants affect public school expenditures, crime and housing? Just how bad are the problems? Halsey said this is a daunting job, because trustworthy figures are hard to come by.

On terminology, Chip Beck, a State Department officer and former U.S. consul, believes it's important to use "illegal alien." Beck, who said he was not speaking for the State Department, said, "Foreign nationals who come across the border without papers or who overstay their visa are deemed 'illegal aliens.' Those are the legally correct terms. . . . The correct terminology is not derogatory but carries precise meanings under law." He sent a copy of the federal law that says: "The term 'alien' means any person not a citizen or national of the United States."

The Post does not use "alien" in news stories and prefers "illegal immigrant." Even if "alien" is legal terminology, to me, it sounds like someone from outer space. "Undocumented workers" is also discouraged. The Post stylebook says of "undocumented": "When used to describe immigrants, this is a euphemism that obscures an important fact -- that they are in this country illegally."

Deborah Howell can be reached at 202-334-7582 or atombudsman@washpost.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03332.html

I don't get it.
Is this author critisizing or poking fun at us "anti-illegal Immigration Activists"? or what?
Who's side is she portraying?

What,,,,this paper isn't even out until tomorrow.

Originally Posted by mkfarnam

I don't get it.
Is this author critisizing or poking fun at us "anti-illegal Immigration Activists"? or what?
Who's side is she portraying?

What,,,,this paper isn't even out until tomorrow.

WAPO Reader comments are being left at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03332.html

Good post, zeezil! I interpreted the article as a half-_ss confession!

WAPO is getting hammered in the comments section:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... ments.html

the_mohlengrafts wrote:
The article states - "It's impossible to cover this issue without the challenges faced by people who are here illegally."

How about the challenge to our children as they find themselves sitting in classrooms held back from an appropriate level of learning by policies catering to non-English speakers?

How about the challenge Americans face every day when making unexpected trips to the emergency room, if they can find one that hasn’t shut down?

How about the challenge Americans face on our ever-increasing gridlocked highways?

Or the challenge faced by less-educated Americans to find blue collar or low-skilled jobs at living wages.

Those are but a few examples, of course. There are a great many costs, burdens, and challenges we face daily because we have an extra 20 million people here who shouldn't be. What ARE the challenges faced by Americans as a result of this flood of illegals? Is the WAPO interested in that story?

3/1/2008 1:16:25 PM
Recommended (2) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

LonewackoDotCom wrote:
I've discussed dozens of WaPo immigration stories that were full of lies and/or misleading or incomplete statements. The latest example involved Joel Achenbach comparing those who oppose illegal immigration to the Nazis:

http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007442.html

Howell mentioned N.C. Aizenman; about a year ago he or she gushed over El Salvador's consul:

http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/006102.html

Here's another WaPoer misleading about Huckabee:

http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007367.html

They printed a disingenuous article describing how to hire a day laborer:

http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007216.html

I could sit here for the rest of the day typing those in, but you get the point: Howell is misleading you just as badly as the WaPo's "reporters" do.

It's interesting that the paper known for "following the money" tries to obscure the trail when it comes to a different type of illegal activity.
3/1/2008 12:51:04 PM
Recommended (1) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

DrColes wrote:
Illegal Aliens and Immigration is NOT the same thing. Immigrant is a legal status granted by a sovereign country. We have to many folks who do not know and are ignorant or outright deceivers, confusing illegal alien workers calling them illegal immigrants with immigrants. Criminals did NOT build America; Citizens and LEGAL immigrants built it. American’s want an end to anarchy! This is NOT a Democrat, Republican, Independent issue. It's an American Issue.

Illegal aliens are criminals, those who hire them are criminals and those who aid-and-abet them are criminals.

Illegal aliens in America have NO rights. We are required by law to arrest and prosecute, deport them. (Title 8 U.S. Code) To report illegal aliens call the DHS National Hotline 1 866 DHS 2ICE. (1-866-347-2523)

No, matter your political party affiliation, and setting aside your thoughts on issues. We all need to remember what it is to be an American Citizen. We need to make sure our elected representatives obey their Oath of Office and keep their Oath of Allegiance. See http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl Know whom you are voting for.

3/1/2008 11:55:59 AM
Recommended (9) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Patriot12 wrote:
Come on Debbie - the WAPO with its labeling categories and anti E Pluribus Unum doctrines assists daily in the growing violent division of this region and the nation regarding Illegal Aliens.

And, to be objective, you would think the WAPO might just once address the basic consequences of the impacts of over population via both legal anmd illegal immigration on the nations growing limited resources - like the water shortage in Maryland the WAPO reported on two months ago with no mention of population management.

It is ironic too that the WAPO labels its principal English Reading "consumer base" as "Nativists".

That's a great way to get more readers -NOT!

The Nativists cancelled their WAPO subscriptions long ago in reaction to the the WAPO's pro open borders, and illegal alien invasion dogma.

You might say that the nativists are emigrating to the Times.
3/1/2008 9:22:21 AM
Recommended (3) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

zeezil wrote:
Immigration Terminology 101

With the vitriolic immigration debate roiling in all parts of our country, it is important to understand terminology. Be prepared to dispel the half-truths and no truths of the way those who are illegally in our country are described by their advocates. Knowledge is power:

ILLEGAL:
1.) Unlawful; illegitimate; illicit; unlicensed.
2.) Illegal, unlawful, illegitimate, illicit, criminal can all describe actions not in accord with law.
3.) Illegal refers most specifically to violations of statutes.
4.) Prohibited by law

ALIEN:
1.) a person who is not a citizen of the country.
2.) in the United States any person born in another country to parents who are not American and who has not become a naturalized citizen. There are resident aliens officially permitted to live in the country and illegal aliens who have sneaked into the country or stayed beyond the time allowed on a visa.

INVADE:
1. to enter like an enemy: Locusts invaded the fields
2. to enter as if to take possession: To invade a neighbor's home
3. to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease: Viruses that invade the bloodstream.
4. to intrude upon: To invade the privacy of a family.
5. to encroach or infringe upon: to invade the rights of citizens.
6. to permeate: The smell of baking invades the house.
7. to penetrate; spread into or over: The population boom has caused city dwellers to invade the suburbs

Those illegally in a country are not "immigrants". There is no such thing as an "illegal immigrant". An immigrant is involved with an established and orderly procedure of immigration (entering a country to which one is not native in order to settle there by legal process).

They are not immigrants, not undocumented immigrants (Kennedy and the PC fan favorite), not undocumented workers, not undocumented Americans (Harry Reid’s favorite), not economic immigrants (Big Business and Wall Street favorite), not immigrants without work papers, not people who are working (Enrique Morone’s favorite), not migrant workers, not day laborers and not the “unbankedâ€