Wednesday, May 28, 2008

A Report: "Fear and Loathing in Prime Time: Immigration Myths and Cable News"

As regular readers of this blog well know, we often go after Lou Dobbs et al.'s " news coverage" on immigration.  Well check out a report on the topic "Fear and Loathing in Prime Time: Immigration Myths and Cable News" by Media Matters. Readreport290

KJ

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2008/05/a-report-fear-a.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00e552a0bb548834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Report: "Fear and Loathing in Prime Time: Immigration Myths and Cable News":

Comments

The Lou Dobbs show distorts or misrepresents the facts to reflect negatively on our nation’s undocumented immigrants on a nightly basis. Let’s use last night’s show as an example. Here is a partial transcript from last night’s show that I’ve taken off the show’s website:

“LARS LARSON, KXL RADIO: I got to tell you something, you and I both know that illegal aliens commit a disproportionate amount of crime in this country. The fact that the majority of illegal aliens happen to be Latino is another factor that makes the Latino community very unhappy but the fact is that you're not ginning up hate and discontent if you have legitimate criticism of people who are in our country illegally and committing crimes, I see nothing wrong with that.

DOBBS: As a matter of fact, I'm the guy who says illegal aliens are the rational actors in the entire mess. It's the illegal employers of the illegal aliens, a government that refuses to secure that border, for a host of reasons, not only illegal immigration and war on drugs, potential terrorism, it would be a thought, would you think, could be absorbed by this president. Steve Cochran your reaction?

COCHRAN: Well, again, a good professional politician never lets something silly like the facts get in the way.

DOBBS: Well he didn't.”

Okay, now here are the real facts, as documented by Ruben G. Rumbaut Ph.D. & Walter A. Ewing Ph.D. in a study that they did last year for the Immigration Policy Institute titled, “The Myth of Immigrant Criminality and the Paradox of Assimilation”.

1) Among men aged 18-39, (who comprise the vast majority of the prison population), the 3.5% incarceration rate among the native-born in 2000 was five times higher than the 0.7% incarceration rate among the foreign born.
2) The foreign born incarceration rate in 2000 was nearly two-and-a-half times less than the 1.7% rate for the native-born non-Hispanic white men, and almost 17 times less than the 11.6% rate for native born black men.

Obviously Dobbs' show draws good ratings, or they wouldn't keep it on the air. However, in would be to CNN's benefit as responsible journalists to, at minimum, post some sort of disclaimer such as, "The views and opinions represented on the Lou Dobbs Show do not reflect the views and opinions of CNN, and are provided for the entertainment value of their viewing audience".

Posted by: Robert Gittelson | May 28, 2008 10:29:51 AM

I briefly scanned that a while back, and it seemed like Rumbault was a bit less than precise, switching between "immigrants" and illegal aliens. And, of course, their figures might (or might not be) accurate for the first generation, but the first gen would lead to a second generation which might have a higher rate. So, the results down the road could be much worse than an agenda driven hack like Rumbault would have you believe.

Regarding the MMFA report, they called the NAFTASuperhighway a "myth", then they admitted that it exists as a current set of roads.

See also the many things like this:
infowars.net/articles/may2008/270508Integration.htm

Posted by: TLB | May 28, 2008 11:53:39 AM

") Among men aged 18-39, (who comprise the vast majority of the prison population), the 3.5% incarceration rate among the native-born in 2000 was five times higher than the 0.7% incarceration rate among the foreign born.
2) The foreign born incarceration rate in 2000 was nearly two-and-a-half times less than the 1.7% rate for the native-born non-Hispanic white men, and almost 17 times less than the 11.6% rate for native born black men."

There you go again, Gittleson, distorting the picture yourself, and joining the self-hating liberals who can't miss an opportunity to make a point at the expense of your fellow countrymen. Maybe you ought to be verbally abused on nationwide TV yourself. First of all, in 2000 states made little effort to differentiate between foreign born and citizens, so the statistics are far from accurate. I believe that you'll find something to that effect in the report you cite, but don't let those little qualifiers get in the way of your agenda. Secondly, the issue isn't foreign born or citizens, it's between those who've entered illegally vs those who have not. We're not concerned with those who've entered on visas, yet the study you've cited includes them. Answer this for me, how many of those foreign born were illegal aliens? For the sake of argument, let's say that 90 percent of those incarcerated foreign born were illegal aliens. That would tell me that our immigration vetting system was weeding out the criminal element of applicants for visas, and that contrary to your assertions, we have a serious problem with criminal illegal aliens. We've gone over this once before, Git, but like many advocates who are prone to bending the truth out of shape, you do it over and over again, unabashedly.

Posted by: Horace | May 28, 2008 3:16:01 PM

Mr. Gittleson, the problem with that dog-eared report is that it's missing the point. The fact is that illegal immigration contributes to the death and injury of citizens, and that our people are entitled to be protected from those people of unknown character who cross our border every day. Explain to me why the promises against invasion do not apply to foreign nationals, some of whom pose a threat to our general welfare. We are to listen to people like your advocates who don't give a fig for our nation, but would sell the rest of us out for their own purposes? The people have the right to question them and prevent those whom they've elected to deny entry; the illiterate and the criminal, the contagiously ill, the potentially dependent upon the public welfare, including the chronically ill who would become hospitalized our expense in long term care, the same people who are denied entry if they were from just about any other country on the planet.

Posted by: Publius | May 28, 2008 3:34:57 PM

Gentlemen, first of all, while I didn’t write the report that I cited, I have no reason to suspect that it is materially inaccurate. I cite it to make a point, namely that there is no “illegal immigrant crime wave”, as Lou Dobbs, et. al., would suggest. Are there illegal alien criminals? Certainly, but no more so then legal residents or citizens. On the whole, these people are here to work hard, earn a better wage then they could elsewhere, and live their lives in a law abiding and peaceful manner.

However, if we do want to weed out the unsavory among them, and prevent criminals from entering our country in the first place, we need to do a little work. We need to tighten our ports and borders, and give our border patrol adequate tools to apprehend illegal entry, and ferret out criminals. We need to step up workplace enforcement to make sure that people can’t work here unless they’ve been processed and approved through the system. I think we are in agreement on those points. However, we also need to deal with the 12-20 million already here and contributing peacefully and economically to our country. They won’t leave voluntarily, and we won’t deport them, so they are in limbo. Note: we can’t afford to deport them or allow them to leave through “attrition”, because it would do too much economic and political damage, not to mention the fact that it would be mean-spirited and callous of us to do so, and beneath our dignity as Americans. I hold us to a higher standard, and so should all of you. The far left and the far right have so alienated each others point of view, as to negate any hope of compromise, which is where we stand now. We can’t get the enforcement we need until a middle ground is reached. Neither side can possibly get everything that they want, which means that nobody gets anything. How short sided, impractical, uncompromising, and fruitless is that?

Posted by: Robert Gittelson | May 29, 2008 11:50:03 AM

"They won’t leave voluntarily,

If they can't find the very employment that keeps them here, they will go home, just at those legal resident aliens do when their work is done, just as my brother-in-law did when he returned to Korea. As a matter of fact, the Mexican government is complaining that they can't handle the large numbers of expatriates returning home. You practice the very same spin that you accuse Lou Dobbs of.

"...and we won’t deport them, so they are in limbo."

On the contrary, we are deporting them on a daily basis, and state and local governments are assisting them by enacting discouraging laws and ordinances. It's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court gives the green light on the constitutionality of their efforts, the efforts of the liberal legislative actions of the lower courts nothwithstanding. It's just a matter of time before most illegal aliens get the idea that they aren't welcome. And why not, it's not their country to begin with.

More and more employers are questioning the wisdom of employing illegal aliens every day. You say that you don't employ illegal aliens. Why is that so, Gittleson? I'll tell you why. It's on advice of your wife that you don't wish to be arrested of breaking our immigration laws. Stiff punishments of illegal aliens and employer alike will solve illegal immigration. Jailed spouses do not bring home the bacon.

"Note: we can’t afford to deport them or allow them to leave through “attrition”, because it would do too much economic and political damage, not to mention the fact that

"...it would be mean-spirited and callous of us to do so, and beneath our dignity as Americans."

This is how you feel, but it's not how Americans feel, as evident by the lack of support your friends are receiving, in spite of all the emotional appeals and marches in the streets. Our nation was not built on extortive tribute to foreigners, but by equal treatment under the law, and through the enforcement of our laws. We will never cave to the ignorant corrupting ethnic special interests that divide us in their demands for exception to law.

Those who object to the employment of illegal aliens, which means most of us, are willing to take the economic hit (which most believe is exaggerated) rather than compromise the principals that have made this nation great. Anyway, most of the complaints that it will hurt the economy originate from the very unscrupulous people who knowingly employ them. Should we be listening to those greedy scofflaws that undermine our nation of laws? The Chamber of Commerce has proven to be nothing short of open complicity immigration violations and treated as a criminal enterprise.

"I hold us to a higher standard, and so should all of you."

Hold the Mexican government to a higher standard, and stop acquiescing to the forced migration of its citizens. You liberals would make us be complicit in Mexico's failures and promote further illegal immigration, because that would be the message you're sending.

Every year millions of Latin Americans are born into poverty. A guest worker program would never fulfill the needs of such numbers. You say that 12 million won't go home. What about others who'd follow, with the expectation of another amnesty that you'd only be too willing to grant? If things got too bad, even you would say enough is enough and we'd wind up deporting these people by force. By what means do you propose to remove additional illegal aliens after your proposal is implemented. Maybe you'd ask them politely, as we do today, but that doesn't seem to work, does it? As you would put it, how terrible a picture this would be. You could never muster the courage as it's not in you. Would we ever muster the political will to do this? The supporters would once again yowl about its unfairness. The only difference between now and "enough is enough" is the magnitude of the problem.

You would put the welfare of these illiterate and potential welfare clients on the backs of our citizens. The poor, like our own citizens, and as these people are, have historically never paid net taxes, but have always taken from the treasury.

We can't even handle the process of legal immigration efficiently, and that's already a huge tax burden. The incorporation of these people into our fold and implementation of an amnesty program will cost additional billions. Who will pay it? The taxpayer, the employer, the illegal alien himself? You can bet that the employers will fight tooth and nail to foist it on the citizens. And who profits most? It's the very criminal employers of illegal aliens who advocate the abolishment of our immigration laws. How could our government possibly handle an amnesty in such a way as to prevent the fraud and pathways to citizenship that occurred after the last amnesty? I, and others find your easy capitulation to the demands of foreigners most distasteful. Hispanic, 5th column advocacy groups who divide their allegiance between this country and Mexico wish to use this invasion to accelerate their bullying proliferation of political power. Mexican politicians love it, as it gives them surrogate power within the U.S. We've all heard that Mexican nationals do not assimilate as other immigrants do, because many have every intention to move back to the homeland. It was pointed out in a study referred to in this very blog. And you'd grant these people influence in the running of a nation that I and other Americans put their heart and sole into. I know of no ethnic group in modern times that's advocated undermining rule of law for their own self-interest. as ethnocentric Hispanics have.

"The far left and the far right have so alienated each others point of view, as to negate any hope of compromise, which is where we stand now. We can’t get the enforcement we need until a middle ground is reached. Neither side can possibly get everything that they want, which means that nobody gets anything. How short sided, impractical, uncompromising, and fruitless is that?"

Actually, federal enforcement of current workplace laws, with state and local support can solve the problem, just as they did in the days when organized crime ran rampant through many of the large cities in this country. The new Mafia are the ACLU, immigration lawyers, La Raza, MALDEF, PRLDF and people like Frank Sharry, who, though their corruption of the truth, seek to undermine this nation for the benefit of illegal aliens. Americans will not be held hostage to the labor of invaders who arrogantly claim that we cannot do without them.

Posted by: Horace | May 29, 2008 7:06:46 PM

Post a comment