Joe Guzzardi
January 7,  2003

On December 14, the Sacramento Bee published an Op-ed titled, “U.S. Border Security: South—Tabs on Migration” by Jose L. Soberanes. The writer is the consul general of Mexico, Sacramento Office.

If the text of the editorial looked familiar to you, that’s because you may have read one of the versions that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on November 25th, the Ventura County Star on December 4 or the San Diego Union Tribune on December 4.

To date, at least 18 major dailies have published the same boilerplate editorial, ostensibly authored by the local Mexican consul general. All push the same Mexican propaganda promoted by Vicente Fox. The pieces really should be considered advertising and a fee should be charged.

Since Mexico has over 50 consulate offices throughout the U.S. (more than twice as many as any other country), you’ll be reading more drivel in other cities over the next few weeks. 

According to Soberanes and his plagiarizing peers whose Op-eds are in other newspapers, Mexicans living in the U.S. illegally should be “regularized.” Such an action, Soberanes concludes, is in the best interests of the U.S.

According to the ghost writer, “regularizing the status of Mexican workers within a new migration framework would allow U.S. authorities to know exactly who is in the United States, leaving less room for terrorists to hide.”

Unfortunately, Soberanes doesn’t elaborate on this point even though it needs a whole lot of clarification.

Daily newspapers publish as gospel whatever Mexico says about border issues. The Bee is no better and no worse than any other major newspapers. That is to say, the Bee is terrible. The Bee has steadfastly refused to adhere to even the most basic principles of journalism when the subject is immigration.

The professional responsibility of a newspaper and its reporters is to print fair and balanced stories. The Bee—and every other daily—does just the opposite. Stories about immigration are unfair and lack the slightest semblance of balance.

With interest and awareness about federal immigration policy increasing, many people wonder why newspaper stories and editorials don’t more frequently reflect their own thinking on this complex issue. 

The average citizen is concerned about the levels and costs of immigration. But newspapers invariably print stories that portray immigrants and immigration only in a positive light. Stories about immigrant successes are common; stories about criminal aliens are rare.

For those who wonder why coverage is so slanted, an excellent new report, Elite vs. Public Opinion, An Examination of Divergent Views on Immigration” has just been published by the Center for Immigration Studies. The report is available online at http://www.cis.org/circle.html 

The authors, Roy Beck, Executive Director for NumbersUSA Education and Research Foundation (www.numbersusa.com) and Doctor Steven A. Camarota, C.I.S. Director of Research, analyzed the findings of Chicago Council on Foreign Relations poll conducted between May and July in 2002. In the survey, 2,800 average citizens were interviewed by telephone and 400 opinion leaders were polled.

The results found that 60% of the American people view current levels of immigration to be “a critical threat to the vital interests of the U.S.” as opposed to only 14% of the nation’s leadership. Leadership, according to the survey, includes all levels of government, church groups, business executives, academics and journalists.

The 46% gap between what the man in the street and elites think about immigration is the largest differential of any policy-related issue.

Some other findings:

• Regarding illegal immigration, the public ranks it as the sixth biggest foreign policy problem; elites rank it 26th.
• Reducing illegal immigration should be a “very important” priority according to 70% of the public; only 22% of elites consider reducing illegal immigration “very important.”
• President Bush’s attempts to grant amnesty to Mexico are hurting him politically. While 53% of the public think Bush is doing “good” or better on foreign policy overall, only 28% rate his immigration policies as “good” or better. Bush’s rating on immigration is rated “fair” or worse by 70% of the public.

Of course, if the Sacramento Bee and other newspapers would cover immigration professionally—equal space to the pros and the cons of our federal immigration laws—that might generate more intelligent debate.

Instead the Bee offers condescending editorials like the December 22 piece, “Immigrants Under Glass: Reserve Deportations for Serious Offenses.” The Bee objects to enforcing a policy that requires adult males from terrorist countries to be photographed and fingerprinted. The editorial dismisses the importance of a tracking system to keep tabs on visa holders. 

Can anyone doubt that this is an opinion shared only by the “elites”?