New York Times reporter explains deceptive immigration coverage

 I've been a critic of the media's coverage of immigration for years, primarily for ignoring mass immigration's impact on every aspect of our daily lives, and especially these days when 20 million Americans can't find full-time work.

In short, the very rules governing responsible journalism created by journalists themselves are no where to be found in what is laughingly known as immigration "news" stories.  Editors are as bad - no, worse - then their reporters because they permit such lousy material to get by their desks and onto the streets.

I won't bother you with the many examples of the boilerplate stories about how hard life is for illegal aliens who are "forced to live in the shadows" because of our "broken" immigration policy.  Suffice it to say that when you read these stories you can't help but come away with the impression that today the only people in the country entitled to "search for a better life" are those here illegally.

But I've grown increasingly disturbed by the media's activist role in trying to help pass another amnesty, or "path to citizenship," as the media prefers.

Let's look at the Gang of Eight's amnesty bill (S. 744). It's common knowledge that the American public has little stomach for a repeat of the 1986 amnesty that promised enforcement - but only after 3 million illegal aliens were legalized. The media have consistently hyped polling that shows a general willingness on the part of the public to support a "path to citizenship" for some or most illegal aliens, but these journalists consistently leave out that almost all of that public willingness is contingent on there being enforcement measures put in place first.

But that's not what the Gangsters' bill does. These guys are requiring only that the Department of Homeland Security submit two plans (one for border security and another for fencing recommendations) before the legalization of an estimated 11 million people begins. As soon as those plans are submitted, illegal aliens start receiving legal status and work permits. All of the proposed enforcement in the bill is promised after that point.

Sound familiar?  Like maybe, "The check is in the mail" or, "You bet I'll love you in the morning."

How many polls show public support for that sequence of events? Zero.

Given the public's opposition to the legalization-before-enforcement sequence, you would think the media would take care to clarify that aspect of the bill. Instead, most immigration reporters have done their best to obfuscate that inconvenient detail.

On May 22nd, New York Times reporters Julia Preston and Ashley Parker reported that the Senate immigration bill "sets up a sequence of new border measures that must be in place before illegal immigrants can gain legal status and eventually citizenship."

That language suggests to me, uh, well, a sequence of new border measures MUST BE IN PLACE - that is to say working, even if not as well as I'd like - before legalization kicks in. Certainly most people who read the story and were not already aware of the bill's contents likely assumed that the bill's legalization-before-enforcement sequence was actually enforcement-before-legalization. They would be wrong, but the confusion sowed by the  Times would help gain support for the Gangsters' idea of "modernizing" the immigration policy they helped to break, which coincidentally was the headline of the story: "Allies of Immigration Bill Aim for Added Support."

Thinking that the Times would want to be as clear as possible for its readers on this important issue (and assuming that the Times would not want to give the appearance of helping the "allies of immigration bill" find "added support"), I contacted Preston:

"There are no enforcement triggers in place "before" legalization.  Your profession's own code of ethics and standards requires that the Times run a correction."

Preston's first response indicated that she didn't know what I was talking about:

"You have not indicated any sentence or passage in my story that you believe contains a factual error.  Without that,  we cannot make an assessment as to whether a correction is in order.  At no point does my story report there are 'enforcement triggers in place before legalization.

"I take it seriously when someone suggests there is a factual error in a story under my byline.

"If you would like an independent assessment, I would suggest you write to the public editor, Margaret Sullivan:  public@nytimes.com  .

Preston knows the immigration issue better than most reporters "covering" it. I found it difficult to believe that she didn't know which passage I was referring to. But I clarified by quoting from the offending paragraph:

"Mr. Rubio has said he hopes to further strengthen border security 'triggers' during the Senate floor debate in June. The current bill sets up a sequence of new border measures that must be in place before illegal immigrants can gain legal status and eventually citizenship. Under the current bill, the Department of Homeland Security is directed to produce and carry out the border security plan, with as much as $6.5 billion for technology, fencing and border agents."

Preston's response was shocking even to me. She began:

  "Thanks for getting back to me to clarify your request for a correction.

   "As you know, the Senate “Gang of Eight”  bill sets up a sequence of measures related to the southwest border, which are timed in relation to the “path to citizenship” for immigrants now here illegally. Briefly:

     --Six months after passage, the Department of Homeland Security must present a border security plan to Congress to achieve 100 percent persistent surveillance and 90 percent effective control along the length of the border with Mexico. A separate strategy for fencing must also be presented. No illegal immigrants can apply for provisional status before those plans have been submitted.

    --DHS will have $4.5 billion to carry out those plans within five years. At the five year mark,  if DHS has not reached those goals, a border commission will be created and funded with up to $1.5 billion to advise DHS on how to achieve those results.

    --After 10 years (the end of the period of provisional status for legalized immigrants), the border plan must be substantially operational, and the fencing strategy must be fully deployed.  An electronic exit system must be in place at air and seaports, and some other ports (based on amendments).  If those requirements are met, legalized immigrants will be allowed to apply for legal permanent resident status, the first step to citizenship.  After three years as permanent residents, legalized immigrants will be eligible to apply to become citizens.

        "Thus," she continued, "this sentence is an accurate, though obviously extremely condensed, summary of the bill:

        "The current bill sets up a sequence of new border measures that must be in place before illegal immigrants can gain legal status and eventually citizenship."

As I said, Preston knows immigration better than most. She knows very well that there is no border enforcement before "illegal immigrants can gain legal status" but she defends her misleading passage by talking about promised enforcement that would come after the legalization but before the legalized aliens would get green cards.  And she justifies this by claiming that legal permanent resident status is the "first step to citizenship." Maybe it's just me, but I think the first step to citizenship for illegal aliens under this bill is getting legal status.

Preston continued:

       "Ashley Parker and I were careful not to write that 'new border enforcement' had to be in place or that any specific security standards had to be achieved before initial legalization for illegal immigrants." 

Yes, you read that right. Preston and Parker were "careful" not to inform their readers that no border enforcement "had to be in place or that any specific security standards had to be achieved before initial legalization for illegal immigrants."

The question is, why? Why would two of the Times top reporters be careful to avoid including that in their story? It is not as if it isn't relevant. The point of the story is that the bill's supporters want more allies. And the question of enforcement promises is universally agreed to be a key sticking point of the bill. Combine that with the polling and it would seem that the legalization-before-enforcement sequence is the bill's chief problem. So why would the Times take care to ignore it? But perhaps I've answered my own question.

Preston concluded:

   "I understand that you would like more emphasis on your point that the bill does not require any hard new enforcement from the outset, before provisional legal status could be granted to illegal immigrants.  Indeed, concerns about the enforcement provisions of the bill is the subject of our story: Senator Rubio is among a number of Republicans who think the 'triggers' should be toughened, and we anticipate much debate on that in the Senate in coming weeks.

  " I thank you for your close reading of our story.  In future we will be careful to be clear, when relevant, about the point you raise.  But I do not believe a correction is warranted on this story.

"I am copying Greg Brock, our editor for reader feedback, so he can make an assessment as well. I will also copy the Public Editor, since I see that you have written to her."

Best regards,

Julia Preston

I think I've made a pretty good case for more emphasis on my point that "the bill does not require any hard new enforcement from the outset." In fact, I'm at a loss as to why Preston didn't use those very words in her story. They certainly would have been more clear than the carefully-worded alternative that the Times ran with.

The American people deserve to know whether this bill would repeat the mistake of the 1986 amnesty that Sen. Ted Kennedy promised would be a "one-time-only" event.  As a former Chicago reporter with 30 years experience, I would hope that the media would work to enlighten the public on that point. If Preston's response is any indication, should I get over the idea of clinging to such hope?

I'm aware that this is much longer than your typical Examiner.com article, but think of it in these terms:  How long will it be before millions of your fellow citizens find suitable employment if the Gangsters succeed in passing what would be the eighth amnesty since 1986 and result in issuing 33 million work permits to immigrants in just the first 10 years?