Immigration Distortion
by Wes Vernon

It is a truism that if you want the relevant facts, you must do more than scan the headlines or the first paragraph, especially when the issue is immigration--the story the media want to forget. Sometimes two different media sources will even report the exact same story in ways that will leave opposite impressions to the casual reader.

On September 28, a front page New York Times headline read “Decline Seen in Immigration.” In the first paragraph, we learn that “[m]igration to the United States peaked in 2000 and has declined substantially since then.” Very interesting, the reader might think, but have we not been flooded by illegal immigrants sneaking across the border?

So far, the story had said nothing about illegal immigration or legal immigration. In paragraph four we get the clarification: “Though the level of immigration to the United States has subsided by 25 percent from a peak of 1.5 million a year in 1999 and 2000, more annual immigration is now illegal than legal, the study found.” Bingo! One finds the real story. There are more illegal than legal immigrants arriving in the U.S.

On the very same day, the Washington Times, reporting on the same survey reported led off as follows:“Illegal immigration into the United States regularly outstrips legal permanent immigration and showed a dramatic increase from 2003 to 2004, according to new report by the Pew Hispanic Center.” By any standard, especially that of this old journalist, that should have been the lead in any story regarding the survey. Granted that different editors and reporters will look at the story and quite often come to different conclusions as to the most significant point. Yet, since illegality is always a bigger story than obeying the law--because law normally is obeyed, the "man bites dog" media standard used by the Washington Times should prevail, no? Even more, the facts prove that a government program does not work, always a media favorite. As the Washington Times did report, “Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican [Chairman of a Border Security Subcommittee] said the high percentage of illegal aliens shows that the immigration system is broken.”

Or consider a recent story from the Associated Press. Three people who taught foreign languages at the Joint Operations Command Center at Fort Bragg, North Carolina were arrested on “immigration charges,” says the report. In paragraphs four and five we learn that the “immigration charges” are (in one case) “being in the United States illegally,” and in the other two cases “using counterfeit resident alien cards and falsely saying that they were lawful permanent residents of the United States in order to get a job” with a consulting firm working at Ft. Bragg. Finally, it notes that “there are pending deportation proceedings against both men in New York City.” Hello, should this not have been the lead?

The story is that illegal immigrants facing deportation can breach security enough to penetrate a military installation. The AP reporter did mention further down that the three “were not exposed to any classified materials.” At least, the officials had the sense to keep the illegals away from classified information. We can be thankful for something that is almost lost near the end of the story.

Last Spring, a Fox News poll showed 91% of Americans believe immigration is a serious problem and that a huge majority of them—Republicans, Democrats, independents—favored putting military forces on the border to stop it. Yet, at President Bush’s news conference shortly after that poll was released, not a single reporter asked him about immigration. Not one. Here is an issue that bothered millions of Americans on a level right up there with gas prices, and media ignore it when given an opportunity to question the president of the United States.

The politicians ignore the issue too. But that might be coming to an end. Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minutemen Project—a citizens group that has been monitoring border violations---is running for Congress as an independent in a special election in California. The December 6 runoff will include Gilchrist, Republican John Campbell (who has the backing of such fiscal conservative groups as Club for Growth), a Democrat, a Libertarian, and a Green Party candidate. The math says that even though the district is overwhelmingly Republican, the Democrat could squeak through if Gilchrist siphons off enough votes that would otherwise go to Campbell. Gilcrhist is a one-issue candidate, but that one issue just happens to be uppermost in the minds of many of the voters.

Ronald Reagan--ever the optimist--acted in good faith back in 1986 when he and a Democratic Congress granted amnesty to the then 2.5 million illegal aliens who were deemed to be “safe”—i.e. not having committed any crimes and had strong ties to American life. That amnesty was to be accompanied by a robust fully funded Border Patrol and heavy sanctions against employers who knowingly hired illegals. Reagan’s good faith was abused by Senator Ted Kennedy who ultimately gutted the enforcement provisions of employer sanctions, and successive administrations have not given the Border Patrol the funding to do its job. It is important to remember, however, that at the time of the 1986 amnesty, President Reagan said that a nation that cannot defend its borders is not a nation anymore.

What if—God forbid--there is another 9/11 or worse, and it turns out a border crasher who arrived in the U.S. illegally had anything to do with it? President Bush would undoubtedly be held accountable--perhaps even with a serious impeachment effort on Capitol Hill. The media’s apparent indifference to immigration would come to a sudden halt, one can bet on that. If that day comes, suddenly the liberal media—which hate George W. Bush---will become staunch advocates of border protection. Then it will not be necessary to read below the headlines or the first paragraph.

Wes Vernon is a Washington-based writer and veteran broadcast journalist.

Email the Editor