Is immigration status relevant?

As staff writer Tony Barboza put it, "It might be worthwhile to post something about when and why reporters include immigration status in stories, and why they often don't."

He and other reporters -- and the readers' representative office -- get the question whenever, it seems, a crime story is published about someone who "happens to have a Spanish last name,"  as Barboza puts it. Some readers ask whether the person is illegal and often believe that The Times is not reporting information that, in these readers' opinions, would provide insight into a correlation between crime and illegal immigrants.

Examples are two stories from recent weeks: One did report on someone's immigration status, the other did not.

A story about a man who was being sought on charges of rape and kidnapping noted that he was born in Mexico. And a story about a San Juan Capistrano man arrested in connection with the rape of a woman on the side of Interstate 5 did not provide details of the suspect's citizenship.

There are two reasons the immigration status of a suspect isn't routinely reported, according to editors on the California desk. The first: The status often isn't known, even by authorities involved. And in a number of cases, notes California Editor David Lauter, the fact is not relevant.

Lauter notes, "As in many cases, the best test of what to report is to consider a parallel case with different facts. If the suspect in this story had been a U.S. citizen, would we have written 'Alejandro Martinez Leyva, a U.S. citizen, was arrested Tuesday and charged with rape'? Clearly we would not have. Given that, there's no reason why we would write 'Alejandro Martinez Leyva, an illegal immigrant, was arrested Tuesday and charged with rape.' There were no particular facts in this case that made his immigration status relevant. To report the immigration status only in some cases, not others, would give readers a skewed impression of the reality of who commits crimes."

That  is contrary to the opinion offered by many readers who contact the newsroom. Of the article about the arrest in the attack on the freeway, David Arthur of Colton said: "Your article omitted one important fact.... The man is an illegal alien. I'm well aware that the news media, for many years, has chosen not to disclose the names of rape victims so those individuals can be spared the embarrassment and humiliation of the ordeal.  Does the L.A. Times have a similar policy regarding the arrests of illegal aliens whereby their immigration and legal status is, likewise, withheld from readers so they might be spared the embarrassment and humiliation of having it known they are in this country illegally?"

"Who commits the crimes" matters to those who believe that context of illegal immigration is relevant to a larger issue of crime.

Lauter counters that belief: "The Times has previously reported that about one-fifth of the people who pass through the jails in Los Angeles County are in the country illegally. That's a significant number, although the number also means that the vast majority of people arrested for crimes are citizens or legal residents."

The suspect's citizenship status was relevant in the story about the fugitive wanted for rape, and Lauter says why: "In one recent story, a man who was already being sought on charges of rape and kidnapping snatched his 11-month old daughter from the home of his estranged wife. The story noted that he was born in Mexico. That fact was clearly relevant because earlier in the year, after the rape accusation, he had fled to Mexico and had briefly been in custody in Tijuana."

Also, "in other cases, the police arrest someone who is a repeat offender who has been deported in the past and has now returned to the country illegally and committed another crime. In a case like that, the suspect's immigration status would be part of his overall criminal history and should be reported if we know it. Similarly, there are stories in which we profile the suspect in a crime and provide considerable biographical detail about him or her. If, for example, we are writing a story in which we are describing the life of a violent gang member, the question of where he was born would be a normal thing to report. And if the person was born in another country, the circumstances under which he immigrated would be relevant and should be reported if we can ascertain them."

On breaking news stories, though, the status often isn't known, as Lauter points out: "Frequently, the police making the arrest do not know either. Sometimes, the question of whether a person is here legally is straightforward, sometimes it is quite complicated. That's why the country has a system of immigration courts."

Comments

[Julie Rudnick]

I would like to begin by stating that the immigration status of criminals is not necessary in news reports. The reason for the news is to share an incident with the public, and the reporter should not feel compelled to report unnecessary information. Most illegal immigrants in our country do not commit crimes because they realize that if caught, they will be deported. According to a study in February of 2007, both legal and illegal immigrants do not raise the rate of crime in the United States. “In every ethnic group, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are less educated, said the study by the Immigration Policy Center, an immigrant-advocacy group in Washington” (Moscoso, http://azstarnet.com/news/171109). I do agree that the news should present all facts that relate to an incident, and if the citizenship of the criminal does play a key role, it should be included in the report. I agree with Lauter that by reporting the immigration status only in some cases, readers are given a skewed impression of the reality of criminals. By releasing articles which provide the impression that immigrants increase crime rate, the truth is not being provided to the public. We are acting prejudice towards a certain group, whether it is based on ethnicity or social status. This would not be the first time that our country discriminated towards a certain immigrant group. For example, when there was an influx of Irish immigrants assimilating in the United States, Americans began to discriminate against them. In 1860, over a million Irish immigrants came to the U.S. in search of a new life. Whether they were forced to leave by the British government, or they wanted to work on the railroads, there ended up being more Irish living in the United States than in Ireland. In the London Times Newspaper, in February of 1862, an ad was published stating “Wanted: A smart active girl to do the general housework of a large family, one who can cook, clean plates, and get up fine linen, preferred. N.B.-No Irish need apply”. The Irish were enraged by this type of discrimination.. Kathleen O’Neil, a songwriter, responded to the advertisement, as can be seen here: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/am sshtml/amssTitles25.html. If we were to learn from our history, we would realize that the less prejudice and hostility created, the better off our country would be. By discriminating against certain ethnicities and immigrant groups, we cause unnecessary antagonism that can be avoided.
The Chinese Exclusion Act is yet another example of our country’s desire and need to discriminate against an immigrant group. The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law passed on May 6 of 1882. The act “excluded Chinese skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining from entering the country for ten years under penalty of imprisonment and deportation.” Any Chinese who left the U.S. was forced to obtain certifications to enter again. The act made the Chinese immigrants permanent aliens by not allowing their U.S. citizenship. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Chinese _Exclusion_Act#The_Act). By including the immigration status in an article, the reporter is implying something about all immigrants, whether they came to America legally or illegally. It is unfair to include unnecessary information in some articles, while omitting it from others. If a newspaper decided that they were to publish the immigration status of one criminal, it is their responsibility to be consistent with all articles published. If not, our country is repeating its history. How will the cycle end if we continue generalizing a group for a few people’s actions?

[Derek]

The reason it is important to note a criminal's immigration status keeps the populace informed as to how many crimes these unwelcome intruders commit.

Each crime committed by an illegal is a crime that would have been avoided had we enforced our border adequately.

Illegals are a serious problem!

[rogerg]

It is very relevant, not just for Hispanics, but for any criminal acts. If their status isn't known, it should be, and why isn't it? That is what news is about, reporting all the facts, isn't it?