Thread: Immigration article provokes backlash

Immigration article provokes backlash
Posted by tbottomly August 24, 2007 15:54PM

From Therese Bottomly, managing editor/readership and standards

Last Sunday, The Oregonian carried a front-page news article that tried to answer a frequent reader question: How many illegal immigrants are in our jails and prisons?

With increasing frequency, readers call and ask whether a person with a Latino-sounding name mentioned in a crime article is in the country legally or illegally.

Latinos are among the fastest growing segments of Oregon's population so Latino names pop up more and more frequently in many contexts. Generally, police and the jails do not know whether an arrested person is in the country legally or not. In the aftermath of the Dani Countryman killing, we explored that issue in several articles.

The article Sunday tried to take a deeper look at the effect of illegal immigrants on the prisons and jails. This was an attempt to answer readers who wondered how many of their tax dollars were spent feeding and housing prisoners who were here illegally ($22.2 million a year for state prisons, according to the article). One reader wondered whether the undocumented immigrants in Oregon were hardworking family people, as she had heard, or a "bunch of bad apples."

What our reporter, Esmeralda Bermudez, found was that -- according to state statistics -- inmates with federal immigration detainers made up about 7 percent of the prison population. Some of those people are in the country illegally; others are here legally but their legal status might now be in jeopardy because of their convictions. The prison does not break the inmates down into those two groups.

The story pointed out that the state prisoners made up 0.6 percent of the estimated unauthorized immigrants in Oregon. The Pew Institute estimated Oregon's population of unauthorized immigrants at 175,000 (if you look online, you might see a different number but Bermudez called the institute for the most up-to- date one). The remaining prison population represents 0.3 percent of the state population: 3,560,000 from 2005 Census (the number is rounded).


Reaction to the article was fast and furious. Several callers pointed out that jails don't often know whether they are housing an illegal immigrant, a fact that was included in the article. One reader said she didn't believe the story because she could read the police blotter in her hometown and see that the majority of names are Latino.

The article paraphrased Randy Blazak, a Portland State University associate professor, as saying the numbers show that disproportionate violence among illegal immigrants is a matter of perceived threat, not reality. Several readers, including this one, questioned that:

You make a claim in the article "Undocumented jail prisoners mirror metro area population" that the crime rate of illegal aliens is "on par with the general population, statistics show."

Yet the statistics you cite suggest the exact opposite of your conclusion: "And they represent 0.6 percent of the estimated 175,000 unauthorized immigrants in Oregon, even as the remaining prison population represents 0.3 percent of the state population."

0.6 divided by 0.3 equals 2, which means that the incarceration rate of known illegal aliens in Oregon is TWICE that of citizens and legal residents. It's quite clear that the incarceration statistics you cite in the article do not support your conclusion. Can you please clarify how you used these data to come to the conclusion you did?

I think it would be highly irresponsible of you and your editors to let this serious error pass without correction - it undermines your entire argument.

There is no mistake: The detainers affect 1,013 immigrants in prison. That is 0.578 percent of the estimated population of undocumented immigrants in the state. We rounded to 0.6 percent.

The general population of the prison (less the immigrants with detainers) is 12,287. That equals 0.345 percent of Oregon's population. We rounded to 0.3 percent. (Converted to decimals, the numbers are 0.003 and 0.006.)

That means the actual numerical difference is 0.233 percent, which is statistically insignificant.

In other words, the numbers show that 99.655 percent of the general population of the state (excluding illegal immigrants) is not in state custody, thereby assumed to be law abiding, and that 99.422 percent of the estimated illegal immigrant population is not in custody, thereby assumed to be law abiding.

Other readers who called criticized other things about the article or The Oregonian's coverage of immigration in general.

I would have preferred your article to have been straight objective. Prison costs are only a small portion of what illegals do. Like any immigrant population they're going to be minority. They get a lot of publicity from your paper. Whether they're raping or stealing cars. By the way, never get hit by one because most of them do not register the cars when they buy them. They don't have insurance. If The Oregonian wanted to wanted to do something about illegals and citizens you should look at how when you drop your insurance there should be notifications to the state.

Some were downright angry.

I'm calling on your joke of a thing here. All you see in the last two weeks are nothing but illegal aliens killing people, running into people, robbing people, raping people. And you're saying they're not filling the jails? Probably because after they're doing the crimes, they're going back to Mexico. That's why they're not filling the jails. They're not legal. Get it right. You make me sick.

-------------------------------------------------------------

They're all illegal aliens, not immigrants. They're in jail. Your thing makes it looks like you're supporting them. You're trying to make us feel bad about it. Kick them the hell out, and we don't have to worry about it.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I'm calling with a complaint. ... These are not illegal immigrants. They're illegal aliens. Get it right! Reprint it! They're illegal aliens! They're not immigrants! Immigrants are legal! Thank you.

Several accused The Oregonian of bias on the subject.

I don't think you point out the truth about what is really is going on. One of the Mexicans who (is accused of killing) that 15-year-old girl had a Ted Kulongoski driver's license. Quit trying to skew the numbers. All the polls show that Americans want it to stop. Please try to put out both sides of the argument.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your piece was entirely biased and left out pertinent facts; by cherry picking statistics from one state instead of reviewing the macro numbers from the entire nation, you provide an anecdotal, and thus irrelevant and incorrect, picture of what is occurring in this country.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm overwhelmed and disgusted by the constant day to day barrage of biased stories that always seem to be quite misleading. Now this front page coverage. I'm really just discouraged that your paper is constantly going in this direction of almost trying to legitimize the term illegal in this plight that we're facing in this state and in this country. I don't see any stories about the social cost that we as Americans are paying for education and health care of peopel who are here illegally.

A few readers were supportive:

Thank you for your fair reporting over the last few months on the Latino population. I was so pleased to see today's front page article on "Illegal Immigrants aren't filling jails." It is reporting such as yours that are important for the public to see and for The Oregonian to print. I have been angered by some of the biased based mis-informative articles on the Latino population. We as a nation do better for having immigrants and diverse ethnic groups here. It is our responsibility to care for, train, and provide health care and resources no matter what an individual's status is. That is the philosophy this nation was originally built on and unfortunately loses sight of in times such as these. We all suffer from this uncalled for persecution, that shows up in society and it is the journalists we rely on to inform us fairly.

The public deserves to hear both sides to every story in a factual, historical, and fair, information based forum. That is what good journalism is about.

Many readers cited the headline in calls and e-mails.

I'm calling about the headline in The Sunday Oregonian, the big bold headline above the fold, that says "Illegal immigrants aren't filling jails." For one thing, I think that's a very misleading headline, because the fact of the matter is, The Oregonian doesn't know -- nobody knows -- exactly how many illegal immigrants are in these jails. The county sheriffs in the tri-county area have all but stated that, because of ridiculous laws that don't allow them to check and inquire into a person's immigration status, there are people that are sitting in jails, county jails, that, they have no idea whether they're here legally or not. So once again, I know you're trying to protect, you know, the poor illegal immigrants, you want to crow about this kind of headline.

"Illegal immigrants aren't filling jails," the headline in the newspaper's Sunrise edition, is more definitive than the article warranted. If the headline writer had used "prisons," the numbers certainly back that up, but that is only part of the picture, as the article noted. Of 13,300 inmates incarcerated in state prison, 818 have Mexico listed as their country of origin. Even presuming all 818 entered the United State illegally, which is unlikely because that total number also includes people born in Mexico but here legally, the total prison population of Mexican-born inmates is 6.1 percent. That is hardly "filling" the prisons.

Several of the callers made harsh personal attacks on our staff reporter, Bermudez, calling her a lobbyist for illegal immigrants and other things that will not be repeated here. Here's one of the milder comments:

I wish she would quit taking the part of this illegal alien. This is just bringing this country down. And I'm not against immigration whatsoever. My parents were immigrants. But they came in the correct way. Thank you.

It is hard to capture the vitriol of the reader reaction. Suffice it to say, most of it was tinged with anger and some of it with outright racism.

Peter Bhatia, executive editor of The Oregonian, says, "We certainly appreciate the passion around this issue and while our coverage has not been perfect it has been truthful and fair. We cannot and will not edit the newspaper to suit any agenda, pro or anti. Nor will we back off in covering this important issue. We are very fortunate to have a capable, talented and tough reporter on the story, Esme Bermudez. She will continue to serve our readers well in dissecting the complexities of the immigration debate."

As managing editor for readership and standards, I believe The Oregonian provided accurate information. Readers are right that this is not the entire picture of the effect of undocumented immigrants on the courts, the justice system and the jails. It was not meant to be. But it adds to the body of knowledge that readers have been clamoring for, and readers should take it as additional information, not the definitive answer. This debate has played out elsewhere, and it will continue to be studied, analyzed and reported by us.

The article and the response to it only underscore the importance of this issue to Oregonians and the need for The Oregonian to continue reporting on it, truthfully and fairly.

If you have comments or questions, you may contact The Oregonian's editors at editors@news.oregonian.com.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/oregonianedi ... nagin.html

Give me a break....

The article and the response to it only underscore the importance of this issue to Oregonians and the need for The Oregonian to continue reporting on it, truthfully and fairly.

'truthfully and fairly' ...?
I wonder if any of the Oregonian reporters has taken the time to read through the most recent set of proposed immigration 'reform bills' which snaked their way through the US House or Senate? I have read many of them - front to back.
Esmeralda... have you? Steve Mayes, you? Sarah Hunsberger - how about you? - you're one that at least writes without an obvious bias in this area - so far... And, Ms. Bottomly, how about you?

And if you can't refer to the most basic facets of the issue with honesty and accuracy - in accordance not with my humble opinion, but with the actual terms defined and used throughout US immigration law (existing AND newly proposed ones) - then you have missed the key point(s) entirely.

In short: there is no such thing as an 'undocumented immigrant' (or even, 'illegal immigrant' for that matter). They almost certainly are not 'undocumented' and they also are not 'immigrants'. They do have documents - they just happen to be forged most of the time. Secondly, 'immigrants' are people that seek and understand the necessary steps required in relocating legally to another (eg. non-native) country. Persons that jump our borders or overstay visas certainly cannot be included in the classical definition of what an 'immigrant' is. They are border jumpers or visa overstayers - plain and simple.

If you take some time to read some immigration law(s), and you'll see the unambiguous references to the terms 'alien' and 'illegal alien' (as describing persons that are non-native US citizens and non-native persons having gained or remained in the US without official permission). These are the operable terms used in law and references to such persons should be consistent with these official definitions. That is not my opinion, that is US law.

While using the softened, and, all-importantly, more politically correct terms as "undocumented immigrant" or even "illegal immigrant" might pacify many persons that are included in these, and sympathetic groups, it is patently misleading and inaccurate.

If you can't even describe the most basic entities of the issue with simple and honest clarity, why the heck should any reader believe the 'facts' which are packaged into the stories your writers cite?


Fine Ms. Bottomly, you keep reporting on it, and we'll keep ignoring it.
The paper is still a RAG!!!


PS. How are the layoffs going?

That means the actual numerical difference is 0.233 percent, which is statistically insignificant.

I'm calling you on this one: Prove it.

Show me your work - at which significance level(s)?

bttt - Because I want as many people as possible to see that although the Oregonian newspaper claims to be "objective" in it's reporting on illegal immigration, immigration, crime and immigration...

The Oregonian necessarily misleads their readership and 'colors' the facts by the most basic of references to illegal aliens. Someone, somewhere in the reporting section at the paper chose to use the politically correct terminology of 'undocumented workers', undocumented immigrants, and even, 'illegal immigrants' - none of which are true to fact nor consistent with US law. When I see a story that uses the terms 'illegal aliens' - and ONLY 'illegal aliens' then you might begin to recoup some of your lost credibility on the immigration (and related) issues. Meanwhile, I'll encourage everyone I know here in the state of OR to use your RAG in a use-consistent manner: kitty litter box filler, fire starter, etc. - certainly not for current and accurate reporting on the immigration issue.