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

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 such residents.

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 in Prince William County, in Virginia, and in Montgomery and Prince George's counties, in Maryland. 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.

My 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 national and local looks 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 in 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 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 last spring. 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 legal 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 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.

==================================

COMMENTS

pattipace7 wrote:
Illegals are the biggest contributors to unemployment in the US, and they are forcing many US citizens into early retirement. Three illegals are working for the price of one American and with no employer benefits. They help the employer in the present and future. My school taxes have doubled because of the illegals many, many children in our public schools.

An ex-friend of mine use to brag about the money he was saving by hiring illegals and of course, what great workers they are --home-depot regional management. He then arranged for some of them to work on and clean his mother-in-laws small business. Then they where hired to do the lawn work at their homes. Actually the only American they still use is the pool guy, but give these illegals a bit more time and they will pool enough cash together to invest in some pool cleaning equipment.

At the same time another friend lost her small home cleaning business, two young mothers that was looking for an apartment together so they could move out of the welfare housing project lost their employment there. You know the jobs Americans do not want to do?

One year prior to the above another friend lost their family run small landscaping business. You know the jobs Americans do not want to do?

If all these low wage illegals receive amnesty the already filled to capacity low-income welfare housing projects will change from just being a dangerous place to live into a real war zone.

3/2/2008 10:44:30 AM


calmom wrote:
1. How about stories on the number of Americans killed by illegal alien drivers, like the four children killed when their school bus was hit by an illegal alien in Minnesota?

2. How about all the people who lost their jobs in construction to illegal aliens?

Aren't those 'human interest sob stories', the kind the Post likes?
3/2/2008 10:41:17 AM


Bellamia wrote:
I suggest to my liberal friends: why pay for a Harvard education, or any other for that matter. Simply show up to the class, take notes, hand in assignments and participate in class discussions, and demand the teacher meet with you privately if you need extra help. Demand a good grade for your effort, but taking the tests should be optional if they are too hard.

If confronted by teacher or administrators about your "unpaid status" demand a student ID card so you can be "brought out of the shadows."

Problem solved.
3/2/2008 10:12:52 AM


DC14 wrote:
to the state dept employee who says 'alien' is the appropriate word to use in the immigration debate, i have one question: if anyone who is not born in the US or is not a naturalized citizen, then that means the ambassadors to the US from France, Great Britain, China, and the Vatican are aliens. Would you as a State Dept employee recommend to Condi Rice that she refer to these dignitaries as 'aliens'? If so, maybe you really are not cut out to work at State.

words rarely, if ever, are neutral. ask advertisers, political consultants, novelists, poets, politicians (and their speech writers). would all of these professionals use a word simply because it is the word used by legislators who wrote statutes decades and decades ago? or would they use the word which best helps them achieve their objective. the anti-immigration organizations consistently use the word 'alien' in the immigration debate. to use that word immediately sends a political signal to readers that you are a Lou Dobbs loyalist. to argue otherwise is just plain silly.

i applaud the Post for seeking neutral ground in its choice of which words to use in its coverage of a very controversial and very very important policy debate facing this nation. we cannot expect legislators to adopt rational immigration laws if we use loaded terms to discuss the issue. the word 'alien' might be the word used in federal statutes to describe anyone who is not born in the U.S...but that does not mean that it is a neutral term. ask a random sample of 100 people to define alien and they will talk about creatures (not humans) from outer space. and anyone who has half-heartedly followed the past two years of debate on immigration knows that the term 'alien' is the word of choice among anti-immigration reform organizations.

Thank-you, Washington Post, for trying to remove emotionally charged words from the public discourse on this debate.
3/2/2008 9:47:39 AM


Bettybb wrote:
Finally, the Post starts to "get it".

How about articles on:

1. the racist preferential nature of any amnesty/visa system which violates our constitutions equal protection clause and anti discrimination clause.

Any amnesty/pathway/visa is racist.

The illegal supporters themselves say between 80-90 percent are Hispanic.

American immigration law provides quotas to all countries so all Americans have an equal chance to bring in family and race.

Any amnesty or guest worker program or visa would give a huge PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT to Hispanics over all other Americans, in both number of people allowed in, and timing of their arrival.

Our Constitution provides an anti discrimination clause and an equal opportunity clause.
Bush opened the southern border for North American Union purposes, thereby giving preference in ability to come in illegally to the USA Hispanics, especially Mexicans. All political parties want amnesty so they can be the champion of the new post integration enlarged voting block. No other race is given the opportunity to increase their voting block through illegal immigration.

2. How about stories about La Raza (The Race) and MEChA, two organizations that are as racist, if not more so, than the KKK?

3. How about stories about the known costs of illegal immigration. There was a Heritage Foundation report to Congress on the issue.

4. How about an article from ecomists like Paul Samuelson who have pointed out that first world countries need to select their immigrants carefully, or face severe economic problems. Educated immgigrants add more to the enconony than they take out, unskilled have to be carried by society for at least a generation.

5. How about an article about the Pew Fhispanic Center study that show Hispanics are taking FOUR GENERNATONS TO GET TO THE HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA STAGE! tObviously it is cultural, and probably results from a lack of assimulation with American values... but man is it costing teh US taxpayer/

6. How about articles about poor boo hoo hoo people waiting 10 years to come into the USA, and getting bumped by illegals?

7. How about an article about the group of Asian Americans lobbying against amnesty for illegals - they too want their fami8ly and ethnic group to be have an equal right to come here.

8. How about an articlea re the studies that show Americans are losing jobs to illegals, Black Americans are really being affect, and wages depressed.

10. How about an article about the lawsuites by honest business suing for unfair competition when dishonest business uses cheap tazpayer supported labor.

11. How about articles about the rise of kidnapping for ransom amoung the illegal community in the USA.

13. How aqbout an aritcle about the all the victims of serious illegal crime, by illegals who should have been deported but were left off the hook by police?

14. How about an article about the vitural fence which does nor work?

15. How about an article about Congress abolishing double fencing which does work?

16. How about an article about the North American Union... the reason Bush opened the souther door. Check out gov. reports. I belive it was OMB who issued the report pointing out that when Bush came into office, enforcement stopped.

Read David Brooks of the NYT article in December 2007 furious because as he put it " the elite" had a bipartisan agreement for free trade and Nafta that was raking in the money and Lou Dobbs screwed it up. He did not mention that the money goes to the "elite" and ordinary Americans are hung out to dry.

Check Judicial Watch and read the Bush government document that says that as Americans will resist North American integration. it has to be done in secret, and implemented by "evolution stealth". You can also read the agendas of meetings between USA/Mexico/Canada on infrastructure integration and open borders.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/hispani...
http://www.youtube.com/watch... NAFTA SUPER HIGHWAY & look at the report on real ID PSA


16. How about a story about President Calderon of Mexico and all his statements exerting soverignty over US territory. His latest remarks were to the effect, there will be integration between the two countries, so deal with it.

And on.. and on.. and on..

No, the print media, mostly pro preferential treatment for illegals, has not really covered ANY OF TEH ISSUES suurounding illegal imigration,

Let's see if the post can change it tune.


3/2/2008 9:31:19 AM


senatorblbo wrote:
Why the hell are you on the WaPo payroll? Do really think your fluff pieces will assuage the legitimate anger of this paper's readers, who are sick and tired of the hack work that passes for journalism?
3/2/2008 9:29:48 AM

hatchlaw wrote:
The Post Ombudsman wrote: 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.

Madame, you are the ombudsman of The Washington Post. Webster's Dictionary has one entry for the word alien. There are 9 common meanings listed, and extraterrestrial ranks last on the list. First on the list is a foreign born resident who owes their allegiance to another country.

Either the definition of alien needs to be updated to reflect our national predisposition to Sci Fi fandom, or you need to rethink how you influence this paper!
3/2/2008 7:56:25 AM


tbetold wrote:
Ms. Howell, You may wish to give consideration to the ever declining circulation of the WaPo. Readers are not stupid and see clearly the bias of WaPo. However, I doubt the WaPo patronage to people that are illegal in our country and their supports will have a net positive result in LEGAL CITIZENS finding it appealing to purchase your employers' product. I was pleased to cancel my subscription in 2007; who cares to read what the WaPo thinks is good for our country?
3/2/2008 6:51:54 AM


sendthemhome wrote:
foreign criminals, or foreign invaders would work fine if illegal alien is a problem for you.
3/2/2008 5:30:20 AM


franklkinney wrote:
pretty informed bunch of readers their washington post! people got illegal down pat! truth in reporting is what we all wish and maybe sympathy for american citizens who are victims of illegal foreign crime! sympathy for illegals just don't cut no juice! mexico sending their poor and in return their country men send funds back home to their economy! we have over 37.9 illegal people in our country and we should all be on one page to stop this invasion not news papers promoting this behavior or media? americans victims moms dads children police border agents we all are suffering from this none stop invasion! wheres sympathy for american citizens? minnesota illegal runs stop sign crashes into bus killing children? if she was not here these american kids would be!!! story after story like this all across america victims for what? corporate greed? cheap labor votes for democrats? slum citys? three amigo's want amnesty for millions of foreign invaders and give them voting power over americans? for which like illinois a obama city we give them power to take over said city? power thats a question for which news papers across our country do not report? power to invaders? give up anything to invaders illegal jungle people with very little education don't ring bells or what? now ask american citizens to pay the cost of these peoples needs too? to support something for which it pushes us in the back of the line for what? replace us for profit? keep wages down? keep us out of our own work force? h-1b h-2b visas for tech workers? imported nurses? import workers visas? open border cheap labor workers just walk in move where ever? gangs drugs crime and american victims? this is not send alarm bells in media and news papers? what future are yous helping to create anyway? people and children living in fear? look at our schools and children? washington jefferson don't make the top ten in history question? martin luther king and rosa parks do? first president of united states and jefferson the main author of our declaration of independence!!! takes back seat to i have a dream, i will not get out of this seat? declaration of independence means nothing to our children? this political correct schools? wright brothers? bell? ford? none make top ten? scientist knowledge inventions excitment to exployer and think to create like these men? gone from or taken out of schools? mark twain, jack london? huck finn? young tom edison? this news papers men and women are letting happen in our system of political correct junk! this kind of truth is what americans would like to here and have our educated speak up about too!!! now add illegal no speakie english to our all ready worthless teaching and more poor? to learn is fun but a trouble mind learns NOTHING and illegal immigrants mean more trouble for our own youth to learn period. think american your thinking of YOU!!! MICHIGAN LITTLE BIG HORN AMEN. p.s. music singing is good for children too! not rap crap music either. how about davey davey crockett king of wild frontier!!! just a clue. peace brother.
3/2/2008 3:15:53 AM


shelvapreston wrote:
If you are offended by the correct legal term illegal alien, I suggest you use invader. This is an appropriate word to describe illegal alien. Legal status is important in a news story. Now that you have another term for description possibly we can see more informative and complete information in your reporting.
Shelley
3/1/2008 9:29:50 PM


Alberto1 wrote:
"The Post does not use "alien" in news stories and prefers "illegal immigrant."

I don't mean to be insulting, but do you know the definition of the word 'immigrant'? It is a narrow term in that it only refers to those who intend to settle permanently in a new country. It's well established that not all foreign nationals in the country intend to settle permanently. So why do you prefer this narrow and imprecise term over 'alien' which more accurately covers the variety of foreign nationals who are present in the country? Why do you prefer 'immigrant' when not all aliens are immigrants? If it is because 'immigrant' sounds nicer and evokes a warmer reaction than 'alien' then the Post stylebook policy on this matter promotes editorializing over accuracy.

'Even if "alien" is legal terminology, to me, it sounds like someone from outer space.'

Is that the justification for the Post not using 'alien', Ms. Howell? The meaning it 'sounds like to you' is only the 4th definition of the noun form--the meaning relating to countries is the PRIMARY definition--listed at #1 in every dictionary I've ever seen. It's not just some arcane legal term non-lawyers shouldn't be expected to know. That excuse doesn't hold water.

Because 'alien' isn't even a pejorative, a policy of not using it creates the appearance of bias in favor of positive sounding language. It's true that 'alien' isn't positive--it's neutral. Since when is neutral language forbidden from news coverage? In the context of immigration, your policy against 'alien' excludes from print not just the most accurate term but the most neutral one. Thus, in immigration coverage, a news department should certainly not ban the use of 'alien'. It should, at the very least, officially prefer it if not insist or require it.
3/1/2008 8:19:56 PM


asmith1 wrote:
So basically, what the WaPo is saying is .... we know the legal term is illegal alien, but we don't like that term so we will continue to encourage our news reporters to mis-identify their legal status.

If the WaPo "tweaks" this, what other news stories are being tweaked?

Can we trust the WaPo to report anything accurately?
3/1/2008 6:40:23 PM


mkfarnam wrote:
I don't care what who say's, There's no excuse for ignorance of the Law.
3/1/2008 3:49:09 PM


wpguest1 wrote:
Ms. Howell scratches the surface of this issue, but she fails to get to the heart of the matter: i.e., there is a clear pro-illegal alien bias in this newspaper. This is troubling not only to the extent that its "reporters" should know better - but also because WaPo editors have FAILED in their responsibility to enforce journalistic standards and ethics.

See, for example, the slanted article entitled "Immigration Program Drains Reserves" by known pro-illegal hack Kristen Mack:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02507.html

Others have already pointed out the dishonesty of this 2/20 article's title. Consistent with Ms. Howell's observations, efforts to enforce laws governing illegal aliens do not constitute an "Immigration Program." (By that twisted logic, Mack might call organized efforts to catch crack or heroin dealers a "prescription drug program.")

But Mack's real bias is in the narrative. Again, it's the subtle digs she makes when she writes: "The decision to dip into reserves is unusual, and shows how Prince William is having difficulty financing the crackdown on illegal immigration since the board approved it in October. The rainy-day fund is normally used to offset revenue shortfalls or match grant funds."

An OBJECTIVE statement would read: "The decision to dip into reserves is unusual, as the rainy-day fund is normally used to offset revenue shortfalls or match grant funds."

Of course, any phraseology that would portray enforcement as a positive - like "The decision to dip into reserves is unusual, but shows how Prince William is committed to fulfilling its promise to the electorate" would be out of the question. (This is, after all, the Washington Post.)

Next, Mack includes a quote from a PWC official: "'It is certainly unusual for the board to use this money to start a new program,' said County Executive Craig S. Gerhart." But, surprise - she fails to reveal it was Gerhart who took it upon himself to completely exclude the initiative when he drafted the budget in the first place. See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02168.html

which is a 1/22 article whose headline gloats "Immigration Initiative Is Left Out of Budget," authored by - you guessed it - Kristen Mack.

Even that article went so far to admit that "Gerhart is essentially forcing a countywide discussion of how that program should be ranked as a priority." So much for the "countywide discussion" we thought was signed, sealed, and concluded BY THE VOTERS OF PWC less than three months earlier.

Of course, the only thing Mack's 2/20 story was missing was one of her trademark illegal alien sob stories. She capped her earlier screed with this gem:

"'Obviously, I am not welcome,' said Juan Carlos Celaya, 28, who moved to Woodbridge from Honduras. 'But when you have no legal documentation, what else can you do?'"

How about going back to Honduras?

Oh yeah, and PLEASE take Kristen Mack with you.
3/1/2008 3:45:14 PM


alleva wrote:
I am strongly opposed to illegal immigration. I have and will continue to vote against our two Maryland Senators and Steny Hoyer in every election until they abandon there pro-amnesty position. I recently let my subscription to the Washington Post elapse due to its abandonment of the American workers and tax payers who are adversely affected by the failure of the government and other institutions to enforce the law on immigration. - Jim
3/1/2008 2:16:51 PM


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


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


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


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