Immigration

Tags ››› Immigration
  • Nativists And White Supremacists Love Trump’s New Immigration Executive Orders

    ››› ››› CRISTINA LóPEZ G.

    The Department of Homeland Security on February 21 rolled out a pair of memos meant to set internal guidelines for the implementation of President Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant executive orders. The flagship policies of those executive orders are unpopular with a majority of Americans, but they have been a cause for celebration among nativists and white supremacists. 

  • Do’s And Don'ts Of Covering Immigration Under Trump

    Blog ››› ››› CRISTINA LóPEZ G.

    President Donald Trump is turning his anti-immigrant campaign promises into policies by signing an executive order advancing his plans to build a wall across the southern border and expanding the definition of individuals who constitute deportation priorities. Journalists covering immigration policy should keep in mind that a significant segment of the U.S. population views immigration coverage as indispensable in planning their future.

    There are 42.4 million immigrants in the United States, with various immigration statuses. Many depend on news to navigate the uncertainty of the current environment on immigration, which makes accurate coverage of immigration policy crucial. Inaccurate coverage, and reports that focus on the politics of the issue or fail to highlight the human cost of these policies, do audiences a disservice.

    Following are some elements that media covering the enforcement of Trump’s deportation-focused executive order need to take into account to be accurate and provide clear information to audiences that need it most.

    Do: Explain How Trump's Executive Order On Immigration Changes Deportation Priorities

    In an executive order signed on January 25, Trump significantly changed deportation priorities to include “convicted criminals, immigrants who had been arrested for any criminal offense, those who committed fraud, and anyone who may have committed a crime.” As The New York Times pointed out, the order “expands the definition of ‘criminal,’” to include anyone who has crossed the border without authorization -- a criminal misdemeanor -- in the priority category for deportation.  According to the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, under the Obama administration, 87 percent “of unauthorized immigrants now residing in the United States” were not a priority for deportation, as they had not committed serious crimes. Journalists need to emphasize that the new enforcement priorities enacted by Trump “vastly expanded the group of immigrants considered priorities for deportation, including those without criminal records,” if they are to accurately represent the plight of many undocumented immigrants who have not been convicted of crimes and who are being targeted by the administration.

    Don’t: Uncritically Parrot Administration’s Statements On Detentions

    The administration’s statement -- and Donald Trump’s tweets -- regarding recent raids conducted by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) seek to paint all undocumented immigrants with a wide brush by characterizing them as dangerous criminals:

    However, according to The Washington Post, “about a quarter” of the immigrants rounded up during recent ICE raids “had no prior convictions,” and immigrant rights groups are pointing out that the recent raids have been “out of the ordinary” and that “most of those swept up were not dangerous.” An immigrant without a criminal record who had benefited from President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) was among those arrested, which calls into question the administration’s characterization of those targeted. Given the mischaracterizations by the Trump administration, it’s important that journalists pay attention to evidence that shows foreign-born residents are less likely than native-born residents to commit crimes, as demonstrated by the American Immigration Council:

    For more than a century, innumerable studies have confirmed two simple yet powerful truths about the relationship between immigration and crime: immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes or be behind bars than the native-born, and high rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of violent crime and property crime.

    [...]

    In other words, the overwhelming majority of immigrants are not “criminals” by any commonly accepted definition of the term. For this reason, harsh immigration policies are not effective in fighting crime. Unfortunately, immigration policy is frequently shaped more by fear and stereotype than by empirical evidence. As a result, immigrants have the stigma of “criminality” ascribed to them by an ever-evolving assortment of laws and immigration enforcement mechanisms.

    Do: Provide A Platform For Immigration Experts

    It’s easy for journalists to overlook the complicated nuances and crucial distinctions of immigration policy and to unintentionally misrepresent the situations of many immigrants and thus misinform the general public. Because immigration law is complicated and difficult to navigate, audiences are better served by hearing the insights of experts -- rather than political pundits -- who can thread the needle through the most nuanced aspects of immigration policy. Spanish-language networks do admirable work in providing a platform for individuals familiar with immigration policy, including immigrant rights advocates and immigration attorneys who can answer common questions.

    Media Matters spoke to Maria Fernanda Durand, communications manager at the Latino and immigration advocacy/assistance organization Casa de Maryland, who said there are “very few voices, especially in cable news, that actually represent the people that this [policy] is harming.”

    Durand remarked on the importance of turning to  experts, rather than pundits, to discuss immigration issues, noting that “a lot of people really don’t understand the process -- of how people come over, and the fact that there are very few benefits you’re allowed as an undocumented immigrant -- basically food for your children if you qualify.” Durand added that audiences in general don’t necessarily know that when it comes to fixing the irregularities of their status, “there is no line” for undocumented immigrants to get in -- “there is no path to citizenship.”

    Cable news outlets, specifically, still have to make a priority of including Latino and other immigrant voices in the stories they cover. Regarding the representation of Latinos specifically, Durand said: “They're talking about us, not with us. These are issues that affect us all, but we are at the center of it.”

    Don't: Lend Your Platform To Nativist Groups

    Media appearances by members of nativist groups that promote the work of white nationalists are an ongoing problem. Groups that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has described as part of the “nativist lobby” -- the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), an SPLC-designated hate group, NumbersUSA, and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) -- do not deserve to have their images sanitized, but that’s just what happens when media outlets repeatedly reference them and cite their work without accurately describing their focus.

    Characterizing these groups as “conservative” organizations that call “for added immigration restrictions” or that favor “stricter control on immigration” without disclosing that their founder, John Tanton, advocates for a “European-American majority, and a clear one at that,” is inaccurate. Doing so omits the full picture of their intentions and helps them access a seat at the immigration policy discussion table, where bigotry should not have a place.

    Do: Mention The Real-Life Consequences Of Trump’s Anti-Immigrant Policies

    Journalists should keep in mind that the subjects of their stories are people whose real lives are deeply affected by immigration policy. They owe it to these residents -- and their children, parents, and other relatives -- to present their stories in a substantive way, capturing their unique experiences and putting them in context.

    Don't: Perpetuate The Use Of Politically Charged Anti-Immigrant Slurs

    While multiple institutions and journalistic style guides recommend avoiding the use of the word “illegal” to describe people because it is “grammatically incorrect” and simply dehumanizing, many networks continue perpetuating the anti-immigrant slur. The words media use when they discuss a significant segment of the U.S. population have consequences in molding audience images of these communities. By referring to immigrants in a dehumanizing way, media help reduce them to statistics and deportation targets, instead of presenting them as human beings.

  • Cable News Hosts Anti-Muslim Extremists To Defend Trump’s Muslim Ban

    ››› ››› DINA RADTKE

    Just a few days after President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning U.S. entry for refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries, CNN and Fox News both hosted anti-immigrant extremists or members of designated hate groups to discuss the president’s move, effectively legitimizing and normalizing these groups. Neither CNN nor Fox correctly labeled any of the guests as belonging to groups that pursue fiercely anti-Muslim, anti-refugee agendas.

  • White Nationalists And Nativists Want Americans To Pay To Keep America White

    Trump Adviser Kris Kobach, Who Has Nativist Ties, Helped Write Executive Orders

    Blog ››› ››› SALVATORE COLLELUORI

    Media should be aware that white nationalist and anti-immigrant groups are rallying around President Donald Trump’s new executive orders on immigration. Republicans like Kansas Secretary of State and radio host Kris Kobach and Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions have embraced these nativist groups and pushed their colleagues in the GOP to prioritize costly anti-immigrant enforcement measures over traditional fiscal conservatism. And that means Americans will have to foot the extremely high bill of trying to keep America white and immigrants out.

    On January 25, Trump signed two executive orders which, along with a third that’s expected soon, seek to ban immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa from entering the United States, begin efforts to build a wall on the United States’ southern border with Mexico, re-establish programs that allow local law enforcement officials to act as de facto immigration agents, and threaten federal government funding of so-called “sanctuary cities,” which, according to The New York Times, are “jurisdictions that limit their cooperation with federal authorities seeking to detain unauthorized immigrants.”

    None of these ideas are new. Tightening border enforcement measures, attacking pro-immigrant cities, and pushing local law enforcement to act as immigration police are all ideas that have been promoted by the anti-immigrant, nativist, and white supremacist right for decades. But now they’ve finally found an ally in the Oval Office.

    This should come as no surprise, as several of the biggest proponents of these harsh immigration policies are advisers to Trump or nominees to his cabinet. According to The Wichita Eagle, Trump adviser and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach was involved in the early stages of drafting  the executive orders. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Kobach has served as counsel to the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), known as the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), since 2004. On January 23, officials announced that Julie Kirchner, the former executive director of FAIR, an SPLC-designated hate group “whose leaders have historical ties to white supremacists and eugenicists,” was also joining the Trump administration, as chief of staff at U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

    FAIR is also a favored organization of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Trump’s nominee for attorney general. In 2007, Sessions was the keynote speaker at the group’s advisory board meeting and publicly thanked the organization for helping defeat a bipartisan immigration reform plan. Sessions is also a regular at other events hosted by the organization, including its annual lobby day on Capitol Hill, dubbed Hold Their Feet To The Fire

    FAIR, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and NumbersUSA -- three of the biggest nativist groups in the country -- have made thinly veiled attempts to hide their nativist and white supremacist ties. While media outlets often highlight them as groups that merely favor increased immigration enforcement or want to crack down on undocumented immigrants, that’s far from the whole story. According to SPLC, CIS has distributed anti-immigration articles from Jared Taylor of the white nationalist website American Renaissance and Holocaust denier John Friend and held events with Charles Murray, a white nationalist who wrote a book “that uses racist pseudoscience and misleading statistics to argue that social inequality is caused by the genetic inferiority of black and Latino communities.” FAIR and NumbersUSA have also courted white supremacists and white nationalists, including via FAIR president Dan Stein’s association with the nativist hate journal The Social Contract and NumbersUSA’s courting of the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens.

    With Trump’s victory, these anti-immigrant nativists are finally getting an opportunity to attempt to fulfill their dream of keeping America white and immigrant-free by pushing government to spend potentially $31.2 billion on a flawed border wall and unnecessarily deputizing local law enforcement to crack down on immigrants, even though no evidence shows that the policy has ever actually deterred crime. And the real kicker is that taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill for these costly, unnecessary, and flawed plans that a majority of them don’t support.

    Now, as Republicans are faced with funding a multibillion-dollar wall that is not supported by a majority of Americans, and most likely won’t be paid for by Mexico, will they fulfill the nativist and white supremacist dream or will they stay true to their supposed roots of fiscal conservatism?

    Research intern Katherine Hess contributed research to this piece.

  • STUDY: Mainstream Media Use Anti-Immigrant Slur In Discussions Of Undocumented Immigrants

    ››› ››› DINA RADTKE

    Media Matters study counted the number of instances in which cable and broadcast news programs used, without pushback, the anti-immigrant slur "illegal immigrant" or variations of the term to describe undocumented immigrants, a practice that has been increasingly rejected by journalistic organizations, style critics, and other institutions. Starting from then-presidential candidate Donald Trump's September 2016 speech on immigration that used the slur through his election and into the transition, Media Matters found variations of "illegal immigrant" used on both evening and Sunday cable and broadcast news shows: ABC was the only network to avoid using such terminology entirely, while Fox News was by far the worst offender.

  • How The Media Elevated Anti-Immigrant Nativist Groups

    ››› ››› DINA RADTKE

    Throughout 2016, media outlets were complicit in mainstreaming the “nativist lobby,” made up of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and NumbersUSA, groups with ties to white supremacists whose mission is to drastically limit both legal and illegal immigration. Even though these groups have a record of producing shoddy research and pushing misinformation about immigrants, their agenda has now inspired many of President-elect Donald Trump’s immigration policies. Many mainstream media outlets contributed to the normalization of these nativist groups by repeatedly referencing them under the pretense of balance while failing to acknowledge their insidious anti-immigrant agenda or provide context about their nativist origins.

  • Cable News Reports On DACA Ignored Its Economic Benefits

    Blog ››› ››› DINA RADTKE

    After President-elect Donald Trump pledged during his presidential run to rescind an executive action on immigration that protects from deportation thousands of undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as minors, cable news outlets routinely discussed the program as a political tool without explaining how it benefits Americans and the American economy.

    The 2012 executive action known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, allows almost 800,000 people to study, work, and live their lives in the United States without fear of deportation. As a result of not being forced to live in the shadows, DACA recipients have generated more government revenue in the form of sales and property taxes, and created new jobs through increased consumer spending and boosted wages. The program has benefited the entire economy, but cable news coverage of DACA depicts the program as if it impacts only those who it protects from deportation.

    Media Matters reviewed how evening news programs on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC covered DACA from August 31 -- when Trump announced he would put an end to the program -- to December 15. Of the 20 qualifying segments on DACA during that time period, its economic impact was mentioned only once. Even then, the discussion failed to provide many facts on the scope of the program’s benefits.

    Meanwhile, new reports investigating the effect of rescinding DACA conclude that doing so would do more harm than good for all Americans, not just the thousands of undocumented immigrants protected by the program. On December 13, Univision reported on a study from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, which found that ending DACA would reduce contributions to Social Security and Medicare by $19.9 billion and $4.6 billion, respectively, over 10 years. On December 15, Telemundo reported that if approximately 3.4 million undocumented immigrant homeowners, many of whom are protected under DACA, lost protections from deportation, the resulting mass deportation “could hit the housing market, causing losses of up to $9.3 billion.” Additionally, a November 18 report by the Center for American Progress estimated that “ending DACA would wipe away at least $433.4 billion from the U.S. gross domestic product” over the next 10 years.

    Cable news networks’ failure to connect the dots on how anti-immigration policies would negatively affect the economy is a disservice to voters whose decisions at the polls were guided by a desire for a strong economy.

    Methodology

    Media Matters conducted a Nexis search of transcripts from Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC using the search terms "allcap(DACA) or dreamer or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" for programs airing between 5 p.m. and 11 p.m. from August 31 through December 15. We reviewed the transcripts for segments discussing the economic impact of DACA. This included reports from correspondents and guest panels and excluded brief mentions of DACA that did not generate meaningful discussion between hosts or guests.

  • Univision Lifts Up Nativist Center For Immigration Studies As Credible Source

    Blog ››› ››› DINA RADTKE

    Univision’s daily email brief cited the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), an anti-immigrant nativist group that often peddles in misinformation, continuing the leading Spanish-language media outlet’s pattern of promoting anti-immigrant groups and failing to label them as such.

    The December 5 edition of Univision’s Daily Brief claimed, “New government data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows more than three million new documented and undocumented immigrants settled in the United States in 2014 and 2015 — a 39 percent increase over the prior two years.”

    CIS is one of three anti-immigrant groups, all spearheaded by retired ophthalmologist John Tanton, that use the veneer of impartiality to inundate media outlets with false statistics and misinformation about immigrants. The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated CIS -- along with the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and NumbersUSA, both also founded by Tanton -- as anti-immigrant white nativist groups for their ties to racist extremists. CIS’ Jessica Vaughan, a right-wing media regular, has used her media platform to misinform about sanctuary cities and peddle lies about undocumented immigrants voting and being released to commit violent crimes.

    Some media outlets, like The Daily Beast, have reported on this “shady network” of anti-immigrant groups that bolster right-wing media talking points and routinely creep into mainstream media, noting that their problematic studies are often characterized by a lack of context. Univision’s propensity to cite CIS and FAIR contributes to this dangerous media pattern and threatens the integrity of immigration information.

  • WSJ Op-Ed Rehashes Discredited Evidence To Fearmonger About Noncitizen Voting

    Blog ››› ››› JULIE ALDERMAN

    The Wall Street Journal opinion page provided a platform for serial misinformers -- citing discredited research -- to falsely suggest that a large number of noncitizens voted in the 2016 election. The evidence used by the authors, who have made careers out of pushing misleading claims to advocate for laws that would result in voter suppression, has been criticized by academics and flies in the face of data showing no evidence that noncitizens have voted in recent U.S. elections in any significant numbers.

    In a November 30 op-ed, Hans von Spakovsky, a National Review contributor and a current senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and John Fund, a columnist for National Review, asserted that “there is a real chance that significant numbers of noncitizens and others are indeed voting illegally, perhaps enough to make up the margin in some elections.” The authors declare that “the honor system doesn’t work” and that “there are people—like those caught voting illegally—who are willing to exploit these weaknesses that damage election integrity.”

    The evidence von Spakovsky and Fund cite to back up their claim is seriously misleading, is methodologically flawed, and has been debunked by experts. Von Spakovsky and Fund point to one “2012 study from the Pew Center on the States estimating that one out of every eight voter registrations is inaccurate, out-of-date or duplicate.” But as USA Today pointed out in a write-up of the study, “experts say there's no evidence that the [registration] errors lead to fraud on Election Day.” The article quoted David Becker, the director of Pew’s election initiatives, warning that “‘the perception of the possibility of fraud drives hyper-partisan policymaking.’”

    The authors also cited a 2014 study that “used extensive survey data to estimate that 6.4% of the nation’s noncitizens voted in 2008 and that 2.2% voted in 2010.” That study was endlessly hyped by right-wing media, but Brian Schaffner, a political scientist who was “a member of the team that produces the datasets upon which that study was based,” wrote, “I can say unequivocally that this research is not only wrong, it is irresponsible social science and should never have been published in the first place. There is no evidence that non-citizens have voted in recent U.S. elections.” Another expert, Michael Tesler, pointed out that the study had “methodological challenges” that rendered its conclusions "tenuous at best.”

    The authors additionally cited a Heritage Foundation report that they call “a list of more than 700 recent convictions for voter fraud” to dispute “academics who claim that voter fraud is vanishingly rare.” However, as FactCheck.org noted, the report found "less than a dozen individual cases of noncitizens convicted of registering or actually voting since 2000," and USA Today found that the report, which is “based largely on news clippings and news releases,” contains “only a handful of allegations of voter impersonation that voter ID could have prevented.”

    In fact, a 2014 study conducted by Loyola University law professor Justin Levitt found only 31 credible allegations of in-person voter fraud among the more than 1 billion votes cast in "general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014."

    Von Spakovsky and Fund’s reliance on discredited research is no surprise, given their history of pushing misinformation about voting. Von Spakovsky, who has been featured on Fox News and on National Review for years, has demonstrated an unending willingness to distort the truth in the service of restrictive and discriminatory voter ID laws. Von Spakovsky, in particular, has repeatedly overstated the prevalence of in-person voter fraud and continues to push for voter ID laws that disproportionately affect minority communities and suppress legal voters. At National Review, he also characterized the modern civil rights movement as "indistinguishable" from "segregationists." Even former President Ronald Reagan’s attorney general Dick Thornburgh accused von Spakovsky of being “wrong on both the facts and the law.”

  • Univision Helps Anti-Immigrant Hate Group Sanitize Its Nativist Image

    FAIR Is A Nativist Anti-Immigrant Hate Group, But Univision Won't Say So

    Blog ››› ››› CRISTINA LóPEZ G.

    Univision has continuously failed to provide proper context to its audience when interviewing members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), by omitting the fact that the group is an anti-immigrant “hate group” with ties to the nativist movement and white nationalism.

    During a November 29 segment about FAIR’s hard-line anti-immigrant policy proposals on Univision’s Noticiero Univisión, anchor Jorge Ramos and correspondent Janet Rodríguez both helped mainstream the group by labeling it a “conservative organization that opposes undocumented immigrants” and a “conservative anti-immigrant organization.” By simply labeling the group as “conservative,” Ramos and Rodríguez failed to properly identify the group’s nativist origins and extremism while interviewing FAIR spokesperson Jack Martin:

    Translated transcript:

    JORGE RAMOS (HOST): A well-known conservative organization that opposes undocumented immigrants is preparing a series of recommendations for the future Donald Trump presidency. Among the suggestions there is the elimination of the deferred action program and increasing deportations. Janet Rodríguez spoke with a leader of this organization.

    JANET RODRÍGUEZ: If Donald Trump promised to be strict against undocumented immigrants, the organization proposing to advise him on this topic is even stricter. Today, the directors of FAIR, a conservative anti-immigrant organization, put forward a series of recommendations that they're making to the new administration.

    JACK MARTIN: We think they will find these recommendations very favorable.

    RODRÍGUEZ: For the first hundred days of the administration the organization is proposing that the president eliminate deferred action, withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities, restart workplace raids, and start building the wall.

    MARTIN: Just being in the U.S. illegally should be enough for deportation.

    RODRÍGUEZ: They say that during the first year the goal should be to limit reentry permits and Temporary Protected Status (TPS), eliminate the use of ankle monitors and conditional freedom, reviving the 287G program and the secure communities program. The plan is very similar to the one Kris Kobach, also an enemy of immigration reform, and who is looking to become the next secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. He has presented the plan to the president-elect. But these are just recommendations, and the organization recognizes that perhaps the president-elect and the new Congress will never approve a plan as harsh as they'd like it to be.

    This is not the first time Univision has provided FAIR with a platform to air its extremism without providing necessary context. On November 17, the network also featured Martin’s point of view devoid of context.

    According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), FAIR earned the “hate group” label because of its history of “defending racism, encouraging xenophobia and nativism, and giving its all to efforts to keep America white.” FAIR also accepted funding from the Pioneer Fund, “a group founded to promote the genes of white colonials” which also “funds studies of race, intelligence and genetics.” SPLC also noted that FAIR has hired people who are also members of “white supremacist groups” to its top posts and specifically promoted “racist conspiracy theories about Latinos.” The group’s founder, John Tanton -- a current member of FAIR’s national board of advisers -- has “expressed his wish that America remain a majority-white population.”

    In a July 22 report about the nativist influences on President-elect Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric, The Daily Beast described FAIR’s work as an effort to “demonize immigrants" and explained that even conservative groups “loathe the Tanton network.” In addition the piece noted that before Trump, “these groups found themselves pushed to the margins of the conservative conversation of immigration.” Yet failures by the media to appropriately characterize groups like FAIR has allowed the group to pass as a mainstream conservative organization with a valid seat at the table in the immigration policy debate.

    Spanish-language media has in the past failed to grasp the influence of white supremacy on anti-immigration sentiments. Regardless of whether the Trump administration implements FAIR’s policy proposals or not, providing hate groups with a platform could have an impact on rhetoric and negatively impact those affected by the immigration policies. As NPR’s Latino USA host pointed out in her coverage of virulent 2016 campaign rhetoric, “words are powerful; they can motivate people in good ways and bad.”