The issue of immigration has been a social and ethical issue that has engaged the focus of American media and the population in general since Donald Trump was elected as President. It has created controversies regarding the rights of children separated from their families, the rights of people who are not citizens but have grown up the country, and the status of all Americans apart from Native Indians as immigrants. Since 2017, President Trump has ran an extensive campaign against illegal immigrants and his administration has formulated several policies to curb immigration. These includes the call for a border wall on the Mexican border, the increase of border patrol services and deportation, detention of people trying to close the border and the revocations of laws that protect immigrants such as The Flores Settlement (Aukerman, 2019; Hansen, 2019). Since news about the immigration crisis in the U.S is always on the media, it is difficult not to have a predetermined opinion on these matters.
The first news article is “We Deported Him to a Land He’d Never Seen, and Now He’s Dead” by Miriam Aukerman, taken from the New York Times. The article is an opinion piece written about a man who was born in Greece to Iraqi parents but lived in Michigan since childhood. The man, Jimmy Aldaoud was deported back to Iraq as part of a wave of deportations executed on deportation orders issued before the Trump administration (Aukerman, 2019). Unfortunately, Mr. Aldaoud’s attempts at appealing his deportations were not successful. He spent an year and half in detention before he was deported. Upon arriving in Iraq, Aldaoud had no connections and he ended up living on the streets despite his frail medical state. He had no access to medical care leading him to succumb to diabetes.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
This article is biased because it is an opinion piece appealing for Mr. Aldaoud and other vulnerable Iraqi immigrants facing a similar predicament. Aukerman is clearly emotional in her presentation of this case, highlighting the troubles Iraqi immigrants face when they leave their families behind and are forced to start a life in a place they do not know. The article only considers one side of the matter where it talks about the emotional state of the victim and his family. It does not pay much regard to his disregard of the law even though it mentions that his previous record of assault makes him eligible for deportation. In the U.S, permanent residence can be revoked if a person has a criminal record.
Aukerman (2019) does not present the obligation of the ICE agents and the court to uphold the law and instead uses empathy rather than reason to appeal on behalf of Mr. Aldaoud. Although his case is tragic, there are other factors involved on the side of the government that are not explored. Furthermore, people leave their countries and go to places where they have nothing, and know no one but still survive. There are immigrants who face the same predicament as Mr. Aldaoud but they still live and so this tragedy may are probably internal factors affecting the victim and not the government’s fault. This possibility has not been explored.
The second news article is not very different from the first. It presents another instance of how the American government has treated immigrants unfairly. The article “ US sends pregnant migrant having contractions back to Mexico” by The Guardian tells the story of a pregnant woman from Salvador who was at the Mexican border hoping to enter the country. The case is presented as a cruel display of authority because the woman was having contractions but the U.S officials did not allow her to deliver ("U.S. sends pregnant migrant having contractions back to Mexico," 2019). She was given medication to stop the contractions and taken back to camp on the Mexican side of the border ("U.S. sends pregnant migrant having contractions back to Mexico," 2019). The article argues that the camp is unhygienic for a new mother and her baby and can present a potential health risk.
This article is biased because it does not consider that the pregnant woman did not get pregnant at the border and that she knew that there was a possibility of being denied access. In a sense, she chose to place herself in that position, probably because she was hoping that being pregnant would qualify her to be included as a part of the vulnerable population. However, there have been cases in the past where people try to have their babies in the U.S because the 14 th Amendment states that everyone born in the country becomes a citizen. The government had to act to prevent this case from being used as a reference for people that will try to get into the U.S illegally by getting pregnant. The article does not address the obligation of the government to its already existing citizenry and how such immigrants affect them.
The third article was derived from U.S news and it also presents a bias of opinion. “ New Trump Rule Allows Government to Detain Migrant Families Indefinitely” by Claire Hansen talks about the government’s new initiative to detain immigrants indefinitely until their cases have been tried. This was done through the revocation of The Flores Settlement, which allowed for children to be detained for 20 days and then released as they await to have their cases tried (Hansen, 2019). Although this article tries to explore both sides of the story by showing the government’s justification for its mandate and the negative effects on immigrant children, its underlying thesis is biased. The article pays close attention to how the law will affect the children of immigrants and uses this as a reason to appeal for the Flores Settlement to be upheld. However, in comparison to the other two articles, this article is more effective in presenting the whole story. However, an unbiased report should only provide information without trying to direct the reader’s perception of it.
Information presented through the media for public consumption often includes the bias of the agency presenting it, either unintentionally or otherwise. Sometimes, institutions and people publish information with the intention to influence the audience towards a specific opinion. The above stories favor privileged views by present the Trump administration as cruel and unreasonable towards the issue of immigration. Since his election, President Trump has been quite unpopular in the press and it is easy to view his action through colored glasses. However, there are valid justifications to his policies that present him as a person that is trying to safeguard the future of Americans, even if his methods are not always right or popular. News articles should present all the facts and leave it to the readers to form opinions about them.
A peer reviewed source is one that has been reviewed by scholars in the same field to determine its accuracy before it is published. The Economics of Migration by Jonathan Portes is one such article which describes the economic impact of immigration on a country as well as the immigrants. This article offers no opinion but rather, presents unbiased information based on research for the reader to analyze.
This article tries to prove that the backlash against immigration in most countries is irrational as immigrants present many benefits to the destination country. The author presents an economic case for why immigrants do not necessarily take away jobs from locals because they create more supply for goods and services produced (Portes, 2019). They contribute to the economy by spending the money they earn in the same country rather than taking it all home. The author also presents additional evidence to support immigration from an economic perspective in that immigrants increase innovation (Portes, 2019). This article also disputes any political claims that present immigration as a source of insecurity and crime because there is insufficient evidence pointing to this.
The reason why Portes’ article can be considered to be bias free is that he does not try to appeal to the reader empathetically. He does not paint the image of governments as cruel and immigrants as helpless victims. He recognizes the right of governments and political leaders to hold their opinions on the effects of immigration in their countries but uses rational evidence to dispute their claims. He does not place himself outside of the problem or let his personal feelings about the topic taint the impartiality of the paper even though it is evident that at some point, he has been negatively affected by immigration.
The four articles are essentially about a similar issue and they take similar stands on it. The underlying message given in all these articles is that the government should abandon its immigration policies and focus on better ways to build the nation. It is indisputable that some of the methods used by the government seem inhumane but they are seem by their executors as the most effective means to an end. The ICE agents are not dismissing immigrants due to personal vendetta or with any malicious intent; they are just trying to do their jobs. However, the first three articles fail to capture this. Portes’ article has no emotional or personal inclination as it simply provides the information needed to support its hypothesis. The liberty to determine the truth of this information is therefore left to the reader.
References
Aukerman, M. (2019, September 6). We deported him to a land he’d never seen, and now he’s dead. The New York Times . Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/opinion/refugee-deportation.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FImmigration%20and%20Emigration&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection
Hansen, C. (2019, August 21). New Trump rule allows government to detain migrant families indefinitely. U.S News. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-08-21/trump-administration-rule-allows-migrant-children-to-be-detained-indefinitely
Portes, J. (2019). The Economics of Migration. Contexts , 18 (2), 12-17. doi:10.1177/1536504219854712
U.S. sends pregnant migrant having contractions back to Mexico. (2019, September 6). The Guardian . Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/06/us-immigration-pregnant-woman-mexico-trump-policy
