By John Rudolph, FI2W Executive Producer
For a new president who is still in the process of defining his administration’s policies, the media scrutiny can be intense. Almost immediately after taking office President Obama experienced what it’s like to be under the microscope as he and his White House team began to grapple with the economic crisis. Reporters guided by the advice to “follow the money” in the stimulus package began pulling apart the president’s proposals even before a penny was spent.

But, it seems, all issues do not rise to the same level of media attention – even highly controversial ones like immigration reform. Last week Mr. Obama went on the popular Spanish-language radio program Piolín por la Mañana and stated that his administration will start to draw up comprehensive immigration reform legislation, “over the next several months.” The president also told the show’s host, Eddie “Piolín” Sotelo that before proposing new legislation:
“We’re going to start by really trying to work on how to improve the current system so that people who want to be naturalized, who want to become citizens, like you did, that they are able to do it; that it’s cheaper, that it’s faster, that they have an easier time in terms of sponsoring family members.”
Mr. Obama’s comments – striking in their specificity — were reported by Spanish-language media, but virtually ignored by mainstream English-language newspapers, TV and web sites. It’s a continuation of a pattern that was established during last fall’s presidential campaign. When he was running for president, virtually the only place where Mr. Obama talked about the issue of immigration was in Spanish-language media. His Republican rival, Senator John McCain, followed an almost identical strategy. As a result, consumers of Spanish-language media heard a debate over the two candidate’s positions on immigration that was missing from mainstream media.
According to Los Angeles Times’ James Rainey, by making himself available to the often-marginalized ethnic press, the president “has signaled that he may shake up the traditional protocols of Washington journalism.” But there’s more to it than that. Even as Mr. Obama says “we are one America” he seems to understand that there are groups – including journalists – in this country that don’t talk to one another, never compare notes, and hardly acknowledge each other’s existence. The powerful anti-immigrant sentiment that can be found across the country is, at least partly, a product of immigrant and native-born communities that exist side-by-side, but seem to inhabit parallel universes. And it is the anti-immigrant forces that the president will have to win over if meaningful changes to the nation’s immigration laws are to be enacted.
You can’t fault the president for his choice last week of a friendly environment to talk about immigration reform. But at some point Mr. Obama will have to take his proposals to the whole country, not just the Spanish-language radio audience. That’s when the gulf separating the different sides in this debate will come more sharply into focus. It will be the president’s challenge to bring all the factions together to find a way to fix an immigration system that just about everyone agrees is broken.
Go to feed
Or get FI2W by email
February 23, 2009 at 1:47 pm
There are 11.6 million unemployed Americans, and that number will, undoubtedly, increase to well over 12 million, on March 6th, when the February numbers are released.
There is also an existing law, against an illegal, being employed by anyone, anywhere, within our United States.
Yet, it is widely known that there are over 8.7 million illegals working at jobs within our United States; jobs that they illegally obtained by using forged, and/or stolen documents.
These are jobs in construction, manufacturing, food processing etc.,; jobs that Americans will do.
Why did the Democrats strip E-Verify from the Stimulus Bill, not only protecting these illegals in the jobs they are working at, but making them elgible, through the absence of E-Verify, to illegally obtain jobs provided by OUR OWN Stimulus money.
ALL Americans need to ask their Democratic Representatives, and Senators, why they are allowing illegals to take jobs that rightfully, and legally, belong to Americans, let alone, allowing illegals to remain in our United States.
Remember there is a law against illegals working in our country,and there is also a law against illegals even being in our country.
Democrats, why are our laws against illegals not being enforced??
WHY???
LISTEN UP DEMOCRATS!!!
FOR THE GOOD OF AMERICAN WORKERS, AND ALL AMERICANS, WE WANT OUR LAWS ENFORCED, AND WE WANT E-VERIFY MANDATED FOR ALL EMPLOYERS, AND ALL EMPLOYEES.
WE, YOUR CONSTITUENTS, AND VOTERS, WILL NOT BE DENIED!!!
February 23, 2009 at 7:35 pm
On what basis does this article appear to assume that the “US immigration system” is “broken” because journalists and others disagree that “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (which has become the code term for legalization/amnesty) is the only “right” or “fair” policy? It makes a mockery of the rule of law by which the US Congress (and states) have legislated control of US borders, residence, employment, and citizenship (including what behavior is criminal) and essentially condemns US policy to the vagaries of random or intentional unrepresentative migration flows. It also completely undermines an important purpose of laws to deter as well as punish non-compliance. Unless the USA suddenly opts to discontinue all immigration controls other than for national security purposes, the CIR that you comment cannot achieve consensus badly disserves three very meritorious groups of aliens. First, while rewarding violators, it would ignore current and former nonimmigrants who fully respected US law BASED ON THE BELIEF, PURSUANT TO ADVICE FROM LAWYERS SUCH AS MYSELF, that respect for the law would best preserve the immigration options for them that CIR WILL NOT PROVIDE. The third disserved group of deserving aliens consists of those who will not, especially if violators from their home countries are rewarded in large numbers through CIR, be able to overcome the presumption residing in the nonimmigrant visa process that they will not return home if they are given the opportunity to travel to and enter the USA as visitors, exchange participants, athletes, performers, lecturers, students, temporary workers, etc (these consequences would be felt, AT LEAST, in all developing countries). In other words, absent a political alternative that is likely to be even less popular than CIR (open borders), those persons who feel disserved by CIR are even more likely to be foreign-born than they are to be “nativists.” Count me as one who favors gross expansion of nonimmigrant and immigrant opportunities and zero tolerance for unauthorized behavior (except for bona fide asylum cases). We will have NO rule of law (especially immigration law) otherwise. Can’t those of you who comment on immigration policy not paint this picture more comprehensively? Is it fair to allow the US public to be turned against all immigration in order to serve the interests of unauthorized residents and workers (essentially closing membership to the club after those who broke the rules are initiated)? Please also address the issue of WHO PAYS. To the extent that unauthorized workers are primarily low wage workers, who benefits from those low wages? Who really supports the profit of those employers who gain a competitive advantage from their suppressed (perhaps exploitive) wages. Do those employers pay benefits to those workers (and would they do so under CIR) or would the costs of those benefits (which cannot be borne by the workers themselves –read Elizabeth Ehrenreich) be passed on to the public? Is this much different than the US public bailing Wall St out from its irresponsibly risky behavior, continuing to watch its executives reap huge salaries and bonuses while the economy collapses around them from their actions (look at the effects of uninsured workers incentivized by birthright citizenship in California, for example)? Is it good policy for the public to bail out or support profits of business by paying costs (such as health care, for one) necessary to achieve those profits? If US Chamber of Commerce members had to carry their share of the burden rather than letting taxpayers do so, would it be lobbying so hard for CIR? Would the public not rather pay a bit more for lettuce…?
February 24, 2009 at 1:06 pm
I agree that illegal immigrants should not be given the same rights as U.S Citizens or legal residents. Why is the U.S rewarding those who have broken the law? By the same principle, should the U.S also reward criminals? I believe all illegal immigrants should be deported to their country and not be given any special preference. It is ironic that these people HATE the U.S and yet they risk their lives to obtain jobs in the U.S.
February 24, 2009 at 8:24 pm
[...] News Analysis: Obama and Immigration Reform, Under the Radar … For Now By John Rudolph, FI2W Executive Producer For a new president who is still in the process of defining his [...] [...]
February 25, 2009 at 12:22 pm
your forefathers immigrated from across the the world and Things changed in that time. it change to adopt to the new workgroup that was present at that time. why shouldnt change take part for the present migrant workforce now. why should it be any diffrent.
February 25, 2009 at 5:26 pm
We are a nation of immigrants, and migration is a human right. People do not migrate to a foreign land unless they cannot feed their families or are otherwise unable to live safely in their places of origin. We should follow our nation’s traditions, our religious and moral values, and the inscription on our Statue of Liberty. We should welcome the tempest-tossed who come here to work hard and make a decent life for themselves and their families, as most of our own ancestors did.
February 25, 2009 at 8:47 pm
One of the few positives of the economic “stimulus” plan was the provision limiting the ability TARP recipients to hire foreign workers over American workers. Drafted by Senators Bernie Sanders and Charles Grassley, the provisions require only that a good faith effort be made to hire American workers over foreign workers, but the increased government scrutiny over the recipients of federal bailout money should give pause to any employer seeking to violate the spirit of this rule. Substantial research has shown that, despite an abundance of well educated domestic talent, employers often seek to hire foreign workers in an attempt to lower labor costs.
http://www.beyondthemargin.net/2009/02/immigration-reform.html
March 3, 2009 at 1:58 pm
[...] we wrote after the interview, this is not the first time Obama shows this different approach, tailored to the Latino, pro-immigrant [...]
March 9, 2009 at 9:56 am
Some attention should be given to the reality in America that jobs exist here which Americans will not do. It does not seem that wages are the main consideration. Americans, white or black, just don’t apply for service jobs or manual labor jobs. Wages are based on how much the customer is willing to pay for basic services that do not required technical skill. A plumber or electrician can charge a hefty hourly cost, but a labor job cannot.
I don’t believe that immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens that want to work.
March 11, 2009 at 9:48 am
If a nation wants to continue doing the same, it does not have to do nothing. But If a nation wants changes must to do changes. This is the change the US Nation needs, a Migratory Reform.
March 12, 2009 at 12:15 am
With the war that is errupting on the Mexican Border. We need Immigration Reform sooner than later. 1)Border Security,2)Comprehensive Immigration Reform (which needs to bring the 11.7 million out of the shadows and put them on a path to citizenship),3)Then we must enforce labor laws strickly. These solutions will regulate the border as long as we open up the legal immigration system. Mexico has a good government in power right that had been elected by the people wishing to throw the drug cartels out of power. With reform and a joint effort with the US we can fight our war on drugs and terror. There are people out there that will argue the same silly rhetoric about comprehensive immigration reform but the longer we prolong it the worse the situation gets. Now that the economy is slow it is the perfect time to reform the situation because people right now are simply not going to want to come in because there is not excess work available. Its important to make sure that employers do not have access to a workforce that is not protected by labor laws. This hurts the American workers, wage, employment and lifestyle.
March 13, 2009 at 12:39 pm
I dont think that immigrants are taking jobs away from americans. Is one fact…that immigrants work harder and americans can not do some kind of works. And i think immigrants works harder from americans and they get pay less than they do, and this is not right…People if u did study the history, dont forget that many years ago everybody use to be immigrant in US…the only one that use to be here was american natives. Rest was immigrants…So immigrants are human too, they deserve a better life, they deserve a shans and we hope God will give us one. Earth dont belong to people, people are just visitors, everything belongs to God, so let us to live free in the Gods land.
March 13, 2009 at 2:57 pm
we know the way to suceed in the immigration reform is difficult, and it will make up many arguments,but we don’t afraid, becasue we believe that the way of success in immigration reform is front of us.
March 21, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I support reform, but I do not think Americans will let it pass with such a bad economy. There is no good time or bad time, but when Americans do not have jobs why would the governmanet allow 12 million new people in the labor market? I know they are already there, but they would compete for better paying jobs now.
March 30, 2009 at 12:21 am
Reminds me of an argument between a spouse and her husband: He [or She] invites her brother and wife to live in their house. He tells his spouse that the additional cost can be borne by the both of them. After a year or two a child is born and the brother-in-law and and sister are expected to pay the $6000 hospital bill and to buy formula and diapers. Meanwhile the three require a room addition. The generous sister says that they can get a home-equity loan a pay it off over 30 years. Once a year the new family asks the host family for a $1000 credit because they saw it on TeleMundo that it is a custom for American families to give assistance to invited families. The Host family enrolls the new child at age five in private school costing $11,000 per year. Again the visiting family says they saw that on UniVision and that, too, is an Ameican custom. Getting the idea that so many things are free in America from the media the visiting family decides to call it quits with 3 kids and two bedroom additions afterwards. When the Host family tries to evict the Visiting family they go to a higher court and claim that they have Human Rights. Their sympathizers rally with signs outside the host family’s home carrying signs of VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICED HERE!. In the end the judge rules that the visiting family can now invite their parents and brothers and sisters. But, of course, the visiting family never claims that the host family has ever suffered from a downgraded standard of living. NOW, DO YOU GET THE POINT? Can we under some banner of HUMAN RIGTS continue to add, add and add another family?
March 30, 2009 at 12:32 am
CARRYING COSTS Who is to pay the annual cost to educate a child of $11,000 per year in California? The State Treasurer is telling the State Assembly and Senate that there are not enough funds for the children already here. Who will pay their free federal lunches? Who will pay their $6000-$10,000 child birth? Who will pay for their immunizations? who will pay for the kids’ Healthy family insurance? Who will build the classrooms and how will they be financed? Who will build the apartments for them to live in? What parks will they use? What cars will their parents drive? Will there be room on the freeways for more traffic? Will any of the children ever become gang members? Will it cost money to teach the children English? Just where will all this money come from? Higher taxes? No one… not one person has written or spoken of the source of all the new costs. The only rhetoric heard is the claim for Human Rights! Whose rights? Ours or theirs?
June 20, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Illegal don’t do harm to any Americans black or white.I just don’t understand why some people keep on saying that there is a big impact to this country when talking about illegal immigrant.they don’t steal money to anybody,they work hard to give their family a better way of living.beside many immigrant paying taxes with no return on their behalf.That many Americans is not paying their taxes correctly.Before you blame illegals you go and look at your self in the mirror and asked yourself if it really illegals hurting you…
November 25, 2009 at 1:55 pm
[...] has happened in the past, the president has chosen media aimed at the Hispanic population to maintain his presence on this iss…, while in mainstream appearances he is busy with other topics, like health care reform or the [...]
November 25, 2009 at 1:59 pm
[...] we wrote after the interview, this is not the first time Obama shows this different approach, tailored to the Latino, pro-immigrant [...]