One paragraph in the New York Times' April 4 story "Immigration Bill Splitting House G.O.P." demonstrates the subtle bias that frequently mars otherwise good immigration reporting.
See if you can catch it:
In their January 28 story, "Backing in G.O.P. for Legal Status for Immigrants" for the New York Times, Jonathan Weisman and Ashley Parker provide a nuanced look into the division between the corporatist and populist wings of the Republican Party over immigration. But their good reporting is marred by an inaccurate description of the Senate bill that has the effect (intended or not) of transforming an otherwise well-reported story into an advocacy piece.
The mainstream news media is scrambling to explain why a "comprehensive immigration" bill that they virtually guaranteed would pass didn't. Many reporters and commentators echo the analysis of Molly Ball of the Atlantic who writes that the coalition of advocates for the Senate immigration bill is "no match for the illogic of today's Washington, where political imperatives, voter preferences, and even the desires of moneyed interests are powerless to move House Republicans off a default stance of 'no.'"
The Senate bill does not say what President Obama thinks it says, but he has probably read similar language in immigration polling. Most polls that find support for a "path to citizenship" use language just like Obama has. One of the problems with those polls is that, like Obama's statements, they don't describe the actual legislation that Congress is considering.
On Sunday, October 20, Delaware's U.S. Senators Tom Carper and Chris Coons joined Delaware's U.S. Representative John Carney to host a jobs fair. In their quotes to the media about the event, they sounded like three politicians who possess great faith in the ability of the U.S. workforce to meet the needs of employers.
Analysis of immigration politics and policy often yields contradictory results and the attention given to the issue by the New York Times over the weekend was no exception.
During the August recess, watch out for Members of Congress who try to change the subject from amnesty and immigration expansion to something else. They may be taking a page out of the Obama-Rubio-GOP House Leadership amnesty playbook.
All eyes are on the House Republicans and Speaker Boehner. President Obama has pledged to take a more active role in the House debate. With 20 million Americans unemployed and underemployed, Obama is teaming up with corporate special interests to lobby House Republicans to pass an amnesty and a large-scale expansion of temporary and permanent immigration for foreign workers.
If you haven't read the Corker-Hoeven amendment to the Senate immigration bill, you aren't alone. Congress hasn't read it either. The Gang of Eight and the cosponsors of Corker-Hoeven spent the last couple of days boasting about the amendment, and making promises about what it would do, then Majority Leader Reid sent the Senate home with a 1,000-plus-page reading assignment for the weekend. The text of the amendment wasn't released until Friday afternoon. The Senate votes on Monday. Additional handwritten changes to the amendment have yet to be distributed to every Senator.