Thread: Is immigration status relevant?

Is immigration status relevant?
As staff writer Tony Barboza put it, "It might be worthwhile to post something about when and why reporters include immigration status in stories, and why they often don't."

He and other reporters -- and the readers' representative office -- get the question whenever, it seems, a crime story is published about someone who "happens to have a Spanish last name," as Barboza puts it. Some readers ask whether the person is illegal and often believe that The Times is not reporting information that, in these readers' opinions, would provide insight into a correlation between crime and illegal immigrants.

Examples are two stories from recent weeks: One did report on someone's immigration status, the other did not.

A story about a man who was being sought on charges of rape and kidnapping noted that he was born in Mexico. And a story about a San Juan Capistrano man arrested in connection with the rape of a woman on the side of Interstate 5 did not provide details of the suspect's citizenship.

There are two reasons the immigration status of a suspect isn't routinely reported, according to editors on the California desk. The first: The status often isn't known, even by authorities involved. And in a number of cases, notes California Editor David Lauter, the fact is not relevant.

Lauter notes, "As in many cases, the best test of what to report is to consider a parallel case with different facts. If the suspect in this story had been a U.S. citizen, would we have written 'Alejandro Martinez Leyva, a U.S. citizen, was arrested Tuesday and charged with rape'? Clearly we would not have. Given that, there's no reason why we would write 'Alejandro Martinez Leyva, an illegal immigrant, was arrested Tuesday and charged with rape.' There were no particular facts in this case that made his immigration status relevant. To report the immigration status only in some cases, not others, would give readers a skewed impression of the reality of who commits crimes."

That is contrary to the opinion offered by many readers who contact the newsroom. Of the article about the arrest in the attack on the freeway, David Arthur of Colton said: "Your article omitted one important fact.... The man is an illegal alien. I'm well aware that the news media, for many years, has chosen not to disclose the names of rape victims so those individuals can be spared the embarrassment and humiliation of the ordeal. Does the L.A. Times have a similar policy regarding the arrests of illegal aliens whereby their immigration and legal status is, likewise, withheld from readers so they might be spared the embarrassment and humiliation of having it known they are in this country illegally?"

"Who commits the crimes" matters to those who believe that context of illegal immigration is relevant to a larger issue of crime.

Lauter counters that belief: "The Times has previously reported that about one-fifth of the people who pass through the jails in Los Angeles County are in the country illegally. That's a significant number, although the number also means that the vast majority of people arrested for crimes are citizens or legal residents."

The suspect's citizenship status was relevant in the story about the fugitive wanted for rape, and Lauter says why: "In one recent story, a man who was already being sought on charges of rape and kidnapping snatched his 11-month old daughter from the home of his estranged wife. The story noted that he was born in Mexico. That fact was clearly relevant because earlier in the year, after the rape accusation, he had fled to Mexico and had briefly been in custody in Tijuana."

Also, "in other cases, the police arrest someone who is a repeat offender who has been deported in the past and has now returned to the country illegally and committed another crime. In a case like that, the suspect's immigration status would be part of his overall criminal history and should be reported if we know it. Similarly, there are stories in which we profile the suspect in a crime and provide considerable biographical detail about him or her. If, for example, we are writing a story in which we are describing the life of a violent gang member, the question of where he was born would be a normal thing to report. And if the person was born in another country, the circumstances under which he immigrated would be relevant and should be reported if we can ascertain them."

On breaking news stories, though, the status often isn't known, as Lauter points out: "Frequently, the police making the arrest do not know either. Sometimes, the question of whether a person is here legally is straightforward, sometimes it is quite complicated. That's why the country has a system of immigration courts."

February 06, 2008 in Accuracy issues, Bias issues | Permalink

TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/816965/24219528

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is immigration status relevant?:

Comments
The reason it is important to note a criminal's immigration status keeps the populace informed as to how many crimes these unwelcome intruders commit.

Each crime committed by an illegal is a crime that would have been avoided had we enforced our border adequately.

Illegals are a serious problem!

Posted by: Derek | February 08, 2008 at 12:25 AM

It is very relevant, not just for Hispanics, but for any criminal acts. If their status isn't known, it should be, and why isn't it? That is what news is about, reporting all the facts, isn't it?


Posted by: rogerg | February 07, 2008 at 04:42 PM

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/readers ... ation.html

Yes, it is relevant. It makes known the type and number of crimes against the American public that the US government is responsible for supporting and allowing. Without the aid of the government by not enforcing our laws, these crimes could not have been committed. Those people would not have been raped, robbed or murdered.
Yes it is relevant to keep records of the results of the governments failure to uphold our laws.

If a criminal is in this country illegally, his legal status should be reported. Being in the country illegally, and probably with false documents is a crime. Reporting of crimes is public record, is it not. Why would they report the crime of rape and not the felony crime of using false documents, not to mention being here illegally. Theyr'e only give the public half of the information they have a right to know.

New York papers are so guilty of this practice it makes me sick! The major network TV news too.

Chicago is very guilty of this. frequently if they are looking for someone, rapest, bank rober etc, they say 'white'. when they really mean hispanic.

Who, what, why, when, where, and how. These are the fundamentals of journalism.

Nationality is a big indicator of who a person is, especially if it reveals they are illegally in the country. It shows a precedent for behavior.

It is very intersting how differently people see this. Some see the actual crime as the problem, whether the person is here legally or not. For example, when a person is killed by an illegal alien driving drunk it is a drunk driving problem. Hmmm. The way I see it is that the illegal alien should not have been here in the first place. Therefore it was a totally preventable death. Am I from another planet or what?

Why do we report on a driver and whether or not he was intoxicated if they are involved in an accident? Is it relevant that he/she may have been impared?
I mean an accident is an accident right?

If your arguement is that but for the alcohol, the accident would not have occured, it's relevant. It's also a contibuting factor and should be reported.

Same with illegals who commit crimes in this country. These illegals are committing crimes in a country that they have no right to be in. Thus, the legal status is relevant because the crime was 100% preventable if they were not here in violation of law. To not report this is to exclude a very important component of the story that should be included.

That's why it's relevant and important. Of course, if your an illegal invader sympathizer, you would certainly omit such information as you would not want to risk tarnishing the image of your beloved illegal invaders. That's the real issue here.

The image of the illegal invader.

I'm a Union construction worker here in NYC and it just galls me when a news story of a death at a construction site fails to mention that the individual was an IA and the job was non-union! Unions have struggled for over one hundred years to achieve fair wages and safe working conditions only to find that in the last ten years our own government has allowed our trades to be under cut by IA's willing to work for far less and in very dangerous conditions!