It’s hard to imagine a worse example of media bias than the national coverage of illegal immigration. Every week, it seems there are stories across the United States that minimize the issues of illegal immigration and border security. But look at the facts and the media’s bias towards illegal immigrants is clear.
Many reporters often neglect to mention that the immigrants they write about are illegal immigrants. For example, in an article that appeared in the San Antonio Express-News last year, “Hunt for border-crossers is on ground and in air,” the reporter used the words “immigrant” and “immigration” five times but couldn’t bring himself once to use the word “illegal.”
It’s not right to gloss over the difference between legal and illegal and call them both immigrants. There’s a huge difference, and political correctness shown by some reporters cannot bridge the gap.
Illegal immigration and securing the U.S.-Mexico border are serious concerns for millions of Americans, but it seems some reporters try to diminish these issues. For example, several newspapers, including the Washington Post, have published editorials and articles claiming that the border is more secure than ever.
Despite this growing media chorus that repeats the Obama administration’s talking points, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office recently found that less than half of the Southwest border is under operational control. Less than 50 percent is a failing grade and reporters should not gloss over this fact.
Because the Obama administration has failed to secure the U.S.-Mexico border and enforce our immigration laws, illegal immigrants continue to live in the U.S., taking away scarce jobs from citizens and legal immigrants and soaking up taxpayer-funded resources. But when you read a newspaper, chances are you don’t read about these problems.
Recently, in a New York Times article, the reporter cited a questionable study that recommends we give amnesty to illegal immigrants to increase revenue for state and federal agencies. But the reporter failed to mention that there is a consensus among nonpartisan economists that illegal immigrants are a fiscal drain on American taxpayers.
A majority of illegal immigrants have less than a high-school education and have well below average incomes. The nonpartisan National Research Council found that an illegal immigrant without a high-school degree will impose a net cost on taxpayers of $89,000 over his or her lifetime.
Illegal immigrants also pay little in income taxes. Low-skilled workers very often pay no income taxes and receive tax credits from the Internal Revenue Service. In fact, illegal immigrants received $4.2 billion in tax credits last year.
Illegal immigrants also receive huge amounts of taxpayer-funded benefits, such as health care and education. Some estimate that illegal immigrants cost taxpayers as much as $113 billion annually. All in all, if illegal immigrants are granted amnesty, one study estimates that it will cost at least $2.5 trillion in retirement expenditures, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Supplemental Security Income.
Many newspapers have also published articles that minimize the impact illegal immigration has on the current unemployment crisis and overstate the opposition to an E-Verify system that could help eliminate this problem.
Currently, 23 million Americans are unemployed or cannot find full-time work. At the same time, 7 million people work illegally in the U.S. These jobs should go to American citizens and legal workers, but rarely will you read about this in a newspaper.
And when the House Judiciary Committee approved the Legal Workforce Act last year, a bill that could open up these jobs for unemployed Americans by requiring all U.S. employers to use E-Verify, reporters from both the Wall Street Journal and USA Today portrayed the bill as unpopular. But these reporters failed to mention that 82 percent of likely voters — including 78 percent of black voters and 72 percent of other minorities, primarily Hispanics — think all U.S. employers should be required to use E-Verify.
The truth is that E-Verify enjoys strong support from the American people because it is free, quick, and easy to use. This web-based program quickly identifies individuals working illegally in the U.S. and protects jobs for legal workers by checking the Social Security numbers of new hires. Persons eligible to work in the U.S. are immediately confirmed 99.5 percent of the time, and it only takes a minute to run a new hire through E-Verify. It’s a jobs bill for Americans and legal workers.
Despite some reporters’ efforts to minimize the problems posed by illegal immigration and our lack of border-security, both remain big issues. Our national media should be held accountable for their performance, just like any other institution. We need to remind the media of their profound obligation to provide the American people with the facts, not tell them what to think.
— Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) is Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the Media Fairness Caucus.
"It’s not right to gloss over the difference between legal and illegal and call them both immigrants. There’s a huge difference, and political correctness shown by some reporters cannot bridge the gap."
THIS cannot be overstated.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd say the media's non-vetting of Obama in 2008 was a far worse example of media bias than its coverage of illegal immigration.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is the same Lamar Smith that is in the pocket of Big Hollywood and supports SOPA, PIPA and now ACTA. This is what Mr. Smith says about citizens who don't support his effort to censor the internet for the benefit of Big Hollywood:
“It’s a vocal minority. Because they’re strident doesn’t mean they’re either legitimate or large in number.”
–Lamar Smith, Representative Texas 21st District
Fortunately, we can get rid of this sellout by supporting his primary challenger, Sheriff Richard Mack: External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLamar Smith (R-Big Hollywood) is sponsoring special interest legislation on behalf of Big Hollywood to crush internet freedom. Not surprisingly, he gets massive donations from Big Hollywood to enact legislation that his consituents overwhelmingly oppose. Fortunately, he has an opponent in the Republican primary.
Site: External Link
“A Buck to Crush SOPA”:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou do not want to address the topic at hand? It's easier to just change the subject when you don't like what you hear.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
Vernon Briggs, a Cornell University labor economics professor stated:
"The toleration of illegal immigration undermines all of our labor; it rips at the social fabric. It's a race to the bottom. The one who plays by the rules is penalized... a guest worker program guarantees wages will never go up, and there is no way American citizens can compete with guest workers."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse==================================
The mere idea that Bush and Obama proposed an amnesty for the massive number of illegal aliens in the United States is dishonorable.
Lamar Smith is correct. Almost all the media just says "immigrants", when in fact they are "illegal aliens" that they are refering to. Another word the media very seldom ever uses is "anchor baby". Why?
I'm not a republican, but I will be voting for one this election, and pray to God he will get our immigration laws enforced. I'm sick of obama pandering to these people who have NO RIGHT to be in this country. The illegal aliens who don't have our jobs, are using this country as a welfare country with their anchor babies, (illegal alien children). Why should illegal aliens be entitled to a DREAM Act? They are in this country ILLEGALLY no matter how they got here. It's time to get these illegal aliens back to their own country where they belong. They DO NOT belong here! Then we have obama's aunt and uncle, who just snubbed their nose at our laws. What are they doing here? Tell me. What are they doing here?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse.
> "the reporter used the words “immigrant” and “immigration” five times but couldn’t bring himself once to use the word “illegal.”
Better have your staffer read the article again, Mr. Chairman:
"..tracking the footprints of illegal crossers and drug smugglers through the South Texas terrain..."
"It's a far cry from Falcon Lake downstream, which has been a hotbed for illegal activity."
"Since then, illegal traffic on Amistad has ground to a halt..."
FYI, at my newspaper, we only call someone an illegal immigrant when they've either confessed or been convicted of such -- just like any other crime. Failing that, we call them undocumented immigrants or just immigrants, depending on what we know. Same reason we don't call Sam McGee a murderer until he's been convicted in court -- even if 15 people saw him do it.
I know that policy may not satisfy politicians who would like to see more favorable propaganda in their local newspaper, but it keeps us safe from libel and is consistent with all other crime reporting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSide note: a congressional "Media Fairness Caucus?" That doesn't raise anyone's free-speech hackles just a little bit?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWouldn't that depend on whether their intent is coercion or encouragement?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThin line, and not one I'd expect to hold up well in the U.S. Congress.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMay I make a suggestion, then?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you don't want to take it upon yourself to rule on a person's legal status -- that's a fair position -- until you use the unqualified word "immigrant" which, actually, assumes that he IS legal! (If he isn't arriving/didn't arrive with an immigrant visa, he's not an immigrant. She could be here legally as a visitor or perhaps a temporary worker; or here completely illegally -- but she's not an immigrant.)
But in any case there are neutral English terms you could use: he's a foreigner, or a foreign national, or a non-citizen, or a foreign citizen -- or, if you have more facts available, she's a Mexican, or a Honduran, or a Canadian, or a Jamaican, or a Haitian, or ... well, you get the idea.
Fair point, though technically immigrant simply means someone who moves to another country -- legally or illegally, for whatever reason and by whatever means. The word has probably been standard in newspapers since long before the immigration crisis gave it new connotations. Maybe it could use an update.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think he meant using the term "illegal" immediately before "immigrant".
I'll admit to not having read the article. When the term "immigrant" was used, was it referring to a specific person who was claiming to be legal? If not your argument about when you call someone an "illegal immigrant" has no bearing on this discussion. If the article was speaking in generalities, than there is no reason to wait until the people confess or are convicted. If you write about generic hypothetical murderers, do you say some group of generic hypothetical people are "alleged murderers"?
And how far should that be taken? If you report that I'm wearing a grey shirt today, do you have to get confirmation from somewhere that I am, indeed, wearing a grey shirt?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile I understand your need to protect yourself & your paper from libel, I do NOT understand how/why the media has such a Liberal slant on this issue...It Is nauseating...I remember when the media was very careful to show Both sides of an issue Or just the why, what, where, when (just the facts) without the Built In Editorial on Every Story...!!!---IF You are honest You will admit that the main stream media is VERY biased on the issue of ILLEGAL immiigration...just sayin...!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLamar Smith is right on-we taxpayers in Texas are fed up with paying for illegal immigrants-there are many stories in the San Antonio Express featuring illegal immigrants and their sad stories-not a word about who is paying for them. One article praised the Catholic church for bringing in foreign families-but our tax dollars paid for their upkeep and they were put in public schools, which required special classes and teachers as they had never been to school and did not speak English. I hurt for these people -but we should take care of our own , get our debt gone and then we can try to take care of the rest of the world. I support Lamar Smith.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe can never have enough criticism of the mainstream media's irresponsible coverage of the immigration issue, and we applaud Rep. Smith's continuing efforts to highlight this problem. But we disagree with Smith here when he says "the reporter used the words “immigrant” and “immigration” five times but couldn’t bring himself once to use the word 'illegal.' In all likelihood the reporter had no choice because the paper's "style" guidelines prohibit use of that term that no doubt was banished by the paper's editors,who were taking orders from the publisher.
Dave Gorak
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMidwest Coalition to Reduce Immigration.
There are laws to protect the freedom of the press's speech, but none that are worth anything to protect the people from the press.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMark Twain
This article is Dead-On on All points, it's bad enough that We Have been Invaded by an est. 12-20 ILLEGALS, but then to add Insult to injury we have the Far Left Wing-Bat media screaming at every turn that ILLEGAsL are" good" for us, & they don't STEAL (right), and we should all Listen to the Crazies from La Raza, cuz they only have the best interest of the American people in mind...yea right & I Have some Swamp Land In Florida to Sell YOU...!!!
NumberUSA.org--Join If You want an End to: *Birthright Citizenship*!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow about using the word that is stated in immigration law: alien. Legally, factually but politically incorrect? If one believes the latter then one's liberal bias is proved.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse