Lack of Analysis in Immigration

The immigration issue and bias came up often in the first two classes. The Harvard student incident was specifically mentioned. I found this interesting because I have following the immigration issue closely and never heard of this case. Perhaps, because I live in Miami and the media here is somewhat conservative and found that this story would enrage audience who are looking to bash immigrants and not help them . A link to this story can be found below.

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2010/06/19/officials_harvard_student_will_not_be_deported/

This story is short and straight forward. It does not go into politics and arguments and counterarguments. This is a bit refreshing as the issue of immigration is a very volatile one and it has tendency to provoke strong reactions from an audience. What bothers me about immigration stories and commentary in the current media is lack of true analysis. We often hear arguments like,” they should get in line.” These could be quotes from the common man or a sheriff in Arizona, but reporting them is problematic. True reporting and analysis would show that there is no line and that immigrations mechanisms are arbitrary, antiquated, and irrational.

Lack of analysis or background is not only a problem in the immigration debate, but also in most legally related matters. It’s almost as if bias is built to any sort of reporting on legal matters (like the pizza murder discussed in class) because lack of knowledge and understanding leaves a lot of room for the reporter and audience to make assumptions. The reporting of these assumptions then becomes rampant and leads to misconceptions that then influence public opinion and policy. For example, it could be argued that assumptions about illegal immigration lead to misconceptions that influence the public and legislature which lead to laws such as the one passed in Arizona. Of course, the matter becomes even more convoluted when the media reports on the Federal Court proceedings to pass an injunction against the law. Most media focuses on guttural public reactions instead of interviewing an unbiased constitutional law professor to really analyze the issue.