Tribuna Newspaper

Comprehensive immigration reform gets green light
from new Congress

By Nadya Jaworsky and Emanuela P. Lima

In television interviews on January 7, Democratic and Republican leaders predicted that the U.S. Congress would pass new immigration law this session, after extinguishing President George W. Bush’s plan last year. House of Representatives Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said on “Fox News Sunday” that immigration was one of the topics discussed when congressional leaders were invited to the White House last week to meet with Bush.

“He (Bush) smiled and he said, ‘You know, I think I’m going to have a lot easier time dealing with you on immigration than I had dealing with the House Republican leadership on immigration,”’ said Hoyer.

“I think that’s the case,” said Hoyer, who did not detail the plan. Bush had proposed a major overhaul of the immigration system, which included a limited guest worker program and an easier path to citizenship for many already in the country. He coupled these proposals with money for increased border security. In the end, House Republicans killed the immigration overhaul, and Congress limited its action to approving money for 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Democrats took control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 12 years on January 3 and have been outlining their legislative agenda since then. However, immigration experts say that there are deep divisions in both the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Democrats not go for anything that has a temporary worker program in it, and Republicans won’t vote for anything that has a broad-ranging legalization program in it. But now, with the President and new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi both wanting a guest worker program and both parties eager to win alienated Latino voters, the time might just be ripe for immigration reform.

*Wire services were used in compiling this report.

Covering Immigration in Danbury – On the Streets and Behind the Scenes

The Danbury News Times just concluded a 4-day series on the impact of immigration in the city. A Letter to the Editor on January 7 suggests it is award-winning coverage, and gives it high praise. However, the day before saw protestors at the paper’s doorstep, calling for a boycott until the paper stops providing “News on a Slant” and reports “the real facts” about immigration.

But on the most basic level, the real news is that more and more stories about immigrant populations are being read with great interest by non-immigrants. In a city like Danbury, where close to 40% of the residents are foreign born, “ethnic” news no longer means just holiday or event coverage. It has been front page news for nearly two years now.

News Times editor Eric Conrad ran the series because he felt that looking at the impact of immigration in Danbury was a high priority subject that the paper needed to tackle. And he was prepared to receive criticism, “We chose from the outset to make it look at the impact of immigration, not just illegal immigration. We knew that would not satisfy advocates for and against illegal immigrants, but many immigrants in Danbury are quite legal, and they’re having an impact.” It’s exactly the impact that is at issue.

Telling the Story

The first day included a piece on the history of immigration into the area, and in essence, set the tone for the entire series, “Immigration’s story in the area has not been marked by any single thing,” writes William Devlin, author of We Crown them All: An Illustrated History of Danbury.” Although a constant in Danbury’s social fabric, it has provoked both welcoming and “less than rosy” reactions, including an intensive Americanization program in the early 1920s. A piece on multilingual churches brings religion into the picture, a factor that has historically united immigrants and helped them with transition to a new land.

Continuing on the theme of adjustment, the second day featured articles about the importance of learning the language and how the educational system in Danbury and the surrounding towns have addressed the stream of non-English speaking students. The main challenge, both reporters found, was not necessarily the changing demographic, but the sheer rise in numbers.

In the second half of the series, reporters told of economic changes, featuring the voices of Main Street businesses in an article about how the downtown has changed. They spoke with restaurateurs and other local businesses catering specifically to an immigrant clientele who reported a dramatic change in their traffic after ICE arrest earlier this year. People are simply staying in and saving their money, anxious and even fearful, was the sentiment they reported.

An article entitled “Hiring illegals hurts other businesses” described the issue of day laborers and their impact of the area’s labor market, and how some allege that the majority is here illegally, and this drives wages down and takes jobs from the native-born, especially in the construction industry. But, as Elizabeth Putnam (and many critics of this view) points out, there have been no systematic studies performed in the area to assess the real impact, nor has the difficulty of enforcing employers who abuse this cash-based market been addressed at the state level.

The series ends by discussing another hot-button issue - healthcare, and the debates about the impact of illegal immigrants on medical services. It is difficult to untangle uninsured individuals as a whole from undocumented migrants, because hospitals are bound to serve everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. Both area hospitals, as well as Americares, emphasized that they do not ask about a person’s legal status, and decline to discuss the issue. What they did talk about safety and fairness - making sure people get the care they need.

The conclusion of the series hearkened back to the historian’s comment, and showed how it is difficult to say immigration in Danbury today is “any one single thing.” The impact this issue will have in the upcoming Mayoral election, and exactly how Boughton will (or even can) change the fact that “no one is happy,” remain to be seen, as does immigration reform at the federal level.

Taking to the Streets

According to Elizabeth Putnam, who worked with a colleague to produce 8 of the 10 articles in the series, they went into the field with an assignment from their editor, but no potential headlines in mind, “We went into the series without any story ideas. Instead, I and fellow reporter, Marietta Homayonpour, spent about two weeks just talking to people about their concerns, comments and experiences relating to legal and illegal immigration. From there, we shaped our series.” Homayonpour says they went out with “an open mind,” and “spoke to scores of people in and around Danbury to get a sense of what would be important in putting the series together”.

However, there are very vocal factions weighing in on whether Danbury’s recent influx of the foreign born is largely positive or negative. And each side believes they have the right story, based on the “facts” of the matter. Neither seems to think that mainstream media have it straight, even when it comes from the ground up, as this series of articles did.

About eighteen individuals, many of whom are members of Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control (CTCIC), a state organization spearheaded by Darien resident, Paul Streiz, showed up Saturday morning, responding to his call to put their “boots on the ground” and pace the part of Main Street that runs outside the News Times offices. Their objective, according to an e-mail sent out to organize the protest, was to “ask that the people of Danbury boycott the paper until it has objective reporting on illegal aliens and reports on the full impact of illegal immigration.”

There were nearly as many police officers as demonstrators, but there were no problems. About half a dozen counter-protestors across the street held signs. The mantra of immigration rights activists, “No human being is illegal,” read alongside the message, “Immigrants are welcome; Racists are not.” They represent some of the voices that want the News Times to “balance” their coverage a little differently. One reader recently asked, “Where are the articles pointing out the hatred, venom and stupidity of the anti-immigration movement?

Behind the scenes

Responding to the News Times coverage is not always a collective process. There are about 20 readers who comment and/or protest the News Times immigration articles from the comfort of their home or workplace on a regular basis, using the Internet. About three-quarters are self-proclaimed “anti-illegal-alien,” and they consider the remainder "pro-illegal.” Few fall in the middle.

The ability to post a comment in response to a particular news story is a new feature for the online edition of the News Times. Eugene Driscoll, online editor, has seen this development in all its creativity, especially with regard to immigration stories. They are not the most widely read, but they receive the most comments, he told us. “They also use the reader comment section as a way to communicate with each other and talk about subjects I never envisioned before the story published.”

He also noticed something different about this project, “This particular series took on a life of its own, especially when the series itself became part of the story. Readers were able to debate the issue – and our coverage – online.” They often refer to our Web site as a blog or forum and have a strong sense of ownership, he continued.

The bottom line – digging deep and learning from the ground up

One could say the News Times has done their job – and very well – if people from both sides of the debate about immigration’s impact in Danbury claim the paper is biased toward the “other side.”

Conrad feels that their coverage has not shied away from the issue of illegal immigration, “From the vast majority of our readers who aren’t so focused on these issues, [we] have been very gratified to hear that these people see our newspaper becoming better, having more hard news, and being much more courageous to tackle tough issues. Many readers have told us they read the paper more each day and they see nice improvement in our aggressive approach to community journalism.”

One frequent online commenter, “voice of reason,” asks, “Why is it that the press does not dig deeper when reporting?” Certainly, there is always more than meets the eye – but the News Times reporters who worked on this series spoke about venturing into not-so-familiar territory and learning as they are in the field. Elizabeth Putnam remarks, “The whole process of putting together the series was one of learning, especially because immigration is such a hot-topic for the area.”

We asked a local blogger, who posts in response to News Times coverage regularly, if he thought anything “missing” from the immigration series. “I think it's a case where there is a disconnect between the reporters and the immigrant community…I think the paper made a sincere effort to tackle the disconnect in their series. There is always more that can be talked about but that should not take away from the work that went into [this] series.”

Finally, we asked Eric Conrad how he would proceed if he were to remain editor. “We would just stay on top of the issue, including all facets of it. At some point, we would have “investigated” the impact of illegal immigration – the financial cost, as best we could. I didn’t think we were ready for that on this first project. Also, we desperately need to recruit people to this newsroom who can speak Spanish and Portuguese. We have a language barrier here now and it hurts our journalism. This would have been a priority.”