Does immigration coverage impact newspaper circulation?

I'm back in Charlotte. Before I left for Washington, D.C. I asked for some questions from you about what I should ask the panelists at the International Center for Journalists about covering immigration.

I got some pretty, um, let’s say inspired, questions from a few of you. I figured the panelist already knew what the term “illegal” means so I chose not to ask that one.

I did pose this question to one of the directors of our fellowship, Patrick Butler, Vice President of Programs at ICFJ:

“Has there been a correlation between the dwindling of our nation's newspapers subscribers and the general shift towards a more liberal journalistic perspective?”

Butler said newspapers’ struggles are more connected to the Internet, where people can get their news for free. He didn’t think there was a liberal or conservative bias.

Butler noted a Project for Excellence in Journalism study that found election coverage of then-Sen. Obama, a Democrat, had been more positive than negative and coverage of Sen. McCain, a Republican, had been “heavily unfavorable.”

He thought the positive coverage had more to do with Obama being a new face and that we’ll now see more critical coverage of his administration.

“Obama is not necessarily going to be praising media coverage of his presidency in the same way that Clinton wasn’t,” he said.

He said newspapers have long been criticized on both sides of the political spectrum. Some newspapers have taken flak for immigration coverage deemed too liberal, but they’ve also taken heat for being too conservative when it has to do with national security reporting, such as the buildup to the war in Iraq.

“Regarding immigration, I do think -- and this is strictly opinion -- that journalists tend to be open and interested in hearing stories of those who are perhaps less powerful. Journalists often see our role of giving voice to the voiceless….We’re telling immigrant stories and doing it in a way that is perhaps empathetic or perhaps sympathetic. That leads to criticism that we’re on their side.”

'Undocumented immigrant' vs. 'Illegal Alien'

Few things in the immigration debate are more controversial than the terms used to describe people in the country illegally.

Not surprisingly, immigration rights activists push for "undocumented immigrants." Enforcement advocates prefer "illegal alien."

We journalists are caught in the middle.

On Monday, a nearly two-hour discussion on the issue at the International Center for Journalist in Washington, D.C., got heated at times as each side charged the other with playing politics and promoting half-truths.

The discussion, led by USA TODAY immigration reporter Emily Bazar, can be watched here.

Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for NumbersUSA, which advocates for a reduction of immigrants allowed in the country, says the term undocumented immigrant is unclear . Illegal alien, she contends, describes all groups who arrived illegally or who have overstayed their visas.

"It seems to us that the best way to use the terminology is based on what the law says," she said. "Then, you're being very clear about who you're talking about," she said.

But Lisa Navarrete, vice president of The National Council of La Raza, which advocates for immigrant rights, said illegal alien, or especially illegal as a noun, is a pejorative term that dehumanizes and demonizes individuals.

"This is not a legalistic debate, this is a political debate, " she said. And the terms that are used in this debate say more about the speaker than they do the subject. Words matter... We do really have a problem calling a human being illegal. There aren't illegal human beings. They may have committed a criminal act, but they're not illegal. People who speed are not illegal drivers or illegal because they speed."

At the Observer, we do our best to seek the middle ground. We try first to describe that the person has arrived in the country illegally or overstayed a visa, whatever the action, instead of using a specific term. However, because of space requirements, that is often not possible.

So, for Observer reporters, the preferred term is "illegal immigrants." As a synonym we will use the terms undocumented workers or unauthorized as long as its clear we're referring to individuals in the country illegally. We try not to use the words "illegal" or "illegals" as a noun. We also avoid using the term "alien" unless it's in direct quotes.

'Within our organization there are real racists'

An advocate for greater restrictions on immigration says his group and others must fight racist members. Meanwhile, an advocate for comprehensive reform, says they also have extremists in their ranks.

One thing about getting those with opposing views into a room is the conversations that can develop. That was the case Thursday at the International Center for Journalists in Washington, D.C. when organizers set up a panel on advocacy work that included Roy Beck of NumbersUSA, who advocates for greater immigration restrictions, and Paco Fabian of America's Voice and Douglas Rivlin of the National Immigration Forum, both advocates for comprehensive reform.

Towards the end of a nearly two-hour conversation, the two sides opened up about playing politics and some of the challenges they face dealing with extremist members who can derail their efforts.

"I can tell you that within our organization there are real racists," Beck said.

Beck said some NumbersUSA members were angry late last year when he condemned the murder of an Ecuadorian man in Long Island, N.Y., allegedly by a group of teenagers who in the middle of a drinking binge decided to "beat up a Mexican."

"Sadly, out of 900,000 people we still had a dozen people who thought we were awful for standing up for the guy," he said. "They said 'well, he may not have been whatever, but he was illegal so he deserved to be killed.' There are people who think that.”

Rivlin said his group has dealt with similar problems.

"There are extremes in our coalition who really are for open borders; who really are for emptying the jails," he said. "And you know we get tagged with them. They get wrapped around our neck the same way the hate crimes get wrapped around Roy’s neck."

(Beck jokingly motioned like he was tugging at a chain around his neck.)

Its part of the political game, said Rivlin. And each side does its best to use the opposing groups' own extremists as an advantage.

"As advocacy groups, we're always saying we're in the middle and we're fighting for the middle. And we're always dealing with the extremes in our coalitions and always trying to characterize them as the extremes in their coalition. That is just the way Washington works."

Photo: David Paul Ohmer

Common ground over Diet Coke

When I saw two of the leading voices on opposing sides of the immigration debate share the same can of Diet Coke, I thought maybe there’s a chance for compromise after all.

Our hosts at the International Center for Journalists in Washington, D.C., started our program off strongly by inviting pro-enforcement advocate Jerry Kammer of the Center for Immigration Studies to sit with pro-immigrant rights advocates Tamar Jacoby of ImmigrationWorks USA and Angela Kelley of the Center for American Progress.

Each side took expected stances, but it was interesting to hear them discuss their strategies in more human terms.

Kammer talked about the country we're leaving for our grandchildren. He said the United States can't sustain its current rate of population growth, and he raised concerns that we could lose our large middle class if we inherit a more Mexican-like social structure dominated by disparate upper and lower economic classes.

Kelley talked about learning from the failed effort to pass reform in 2007 and taking tips from their opponents to build more middle-America support. She characterized as similar to "walking over Niagara Falls with an umbrella and a stiff wind." She expressed optimism, however, that some reform bill could be ready by next spring.

Kammer and Jacoby, who split a Coke, did appear to agree on the benefits of Wednesday's announcement that the Obama administration will award federal contracts only to employers who use federal databases to verify employees' immigration status.

"The business community welcomes workplace enforcement," said Jacoby, who represents employers backing reform. "Ultimately though it has to come with a legal pipeline to get the workers that America needs for future economic growth."

The Center of Immigration Studies has long supported the program, known as E-Verify, but it was surprising to hear Jacoby's support when many immigrant rights groups have lobbied against the program.

It may be a small thing, but on this issue where extreme views dominate, it's nice to see signs of shared interest – even if it's over a pop.

Photo: shstrng

Hitting the books...

I'm heading back to school, well kind of.

For the next few days, I'll be attending a journalism training program in Washington, D.C., one of 13 journalists picked for a Scripps Howard scholarship to study immigration. The eight-day program is run by the D.C.-based International Center for Journalists.


The program’s goal is to help journalists better “understand the legal, social, economic, and political impact of the immigration debate while providing new skills on how to cover this complex issue.”

If I can, I hope to blog from time to time about the conference. I suspect some of you will be interested in hearing about these same issues: civil rights, enforcement, and the impact of immigration on the economy.

My fellow reporters participating in the conference have quite the experience and backgrounds. They include a public radio reporter from Seattle, a Venezuelan-born news service reporter, a former Inter-American Press Association scholar from California and a D.C.-based producer for Al Jazeera.

We’ll be meeting with some big names from all sides of the issue. They include legislators such as representatives Charlie Dent, a Pennsylvania Republican and Charles Gonzalez, a Texas Democrat. We’ll also hear from Steven Camarota, senior researcher at the Center for Immigration Studies, Michele Waslin, senior policy analyst at the Immigration Policy Center and Jeffrey Passel, senior demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center.

Anyone who thinks this is going to be a one-sided discussion should look again at the panelists. And I've only listed a few of them.

Feel free to send me some questions you think I should ask. Just please keep them civil. If they're witty, even better.

Obama tells sheriff to release some illegal immigrants

The Obama administration has ordered a Nashville, Tenn., sheriff to release some illegal immigrants swept up on minor charges. The move has drawn criticism from enforcement advocates and concerns of a return to the widely criticized "catch and release" policy.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement directed the Nashville sheriff to “release on recognizance” some illegal immigrants arrested on such charges as fishing without a license. It appears the Nashville sheriff was the only one issued the directive. But it could affect at lease some of the 66 U.S. law enforcement jurisdictions that are part of a controversial 287(g) program, which deputizes local law enforcement to act as de facto immigration agents.

The 287(g) program has been criticized by immigrant-rights groups as unfair and inhumane. A congressional report released in March criticized the $40 million federal program, saying it is rounding up minor offenders instead of the serious criminals it was designed to nab.

The program is operating in eight N.C. jails, including Mecklenburg, Cabarrus and Gaston counties.

According to a report by the Mecklenburg sheriff, which covered arrests through April 5, more than 6,300 individuals have been placed into deportation proceedings under the program started in 2006. Of those, 609 were arrested on felonies. More than 1,800 were arrested on traffic charges; another 1,523 were charged with DWI.

In May, we reported on enforcement advocates’ concerns that new federal immigration guidelines focusing on employers may signal a return to a de facto catch- and-release policy that allowed captured illegal immigrants to be released while they await a court date. Many never showed up.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates stronger enforcement, said new U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement guidelines raises questions whether illegal immigrants caught at worksites will be released. FAIR cited a line in the federal memo that states:

ICE will continue to arrest and process for removal any illegal workers who are found in the course of these worksite enforcement actions in a manner consistent with immigration law and DHS priorities.

FAIR contends that “processing for removal” could mean releasing illegal immigrants and giving them a notice to appear in court on a certain day to begin removal proceedings.

Matt Chandler, a Department of Homeland Security spokesman, told the Monitor there has been no policy change.

“ICE always puts a priority on criminal aliens who pose a national security threat,” he said. “We are taking a deep, hard look at the program.”

Releasing minor offenders could significantly impact 287(g), experts say. Pre-2006 studies showed that about 85 percent of illegal immigrants released on bond did not show up for their court date.

Photo: T. Ortega GAINES-ogaines@charlotteobserver.com

Unemployed day laborers turn to street theater

Imagine a group of construction workers, immigrants, breaking into a rendition of Shakespeare at the site of the new arts complex on South Tryon.

It’s a stretch, I know, but the thought went through my mind as I was reading this story about a similar scenario taking place at day-laborer sites in Los Angeles.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that Teatro Jornaleros Sin Fronteras – Day Laborer Theater Without Borders – is performing plays at city work sites to entertain other day laborers. The stories include real-life challenges such as alcoholism and religious themes such as fighting off demands of the devil. There have even been a few plays about life as an illegal immigrant and fears of being swept up in a raid.

"In our culture, some guys have never seen a play," said Juan José Mangandi, a Salvadoran laborer who serves as the troupe's director. "They think that only high-life people, like in Hollywood, can make theater. But when they see us, they say, 'He's like me.' "

Members of the troupe were recruited at day-labor job sites. About 50 people auditioned for the dozen spots. The actors come from Cuba, Mexico, Guatemala, and El Salvador.

Pablo Alvarado, the executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, which cosponsors the troupe, said that the artistic depiction of day-laborer issues is especially relevant given the economic meltdown that has left many immigrants without work. He added that Teatro Jornaleros also offers a little humor during stressful times.

"It's bringing a smile to their faces in this moment of crisis," Alvarado told the Monitor. "Times are tough. Competition has increased. When the Teatro Jornaleros comes to a [street] corner that's going through a difficult time, it's beautiful."

Photos: flickr, John D. Simmons - jsimmons@charlotteobserver.com