Media reaction paper - Essay Example

The media have also joined the debate, actually taking sides although in a more discreet manner in line with its vow of upholding objectivity. The analysis that the U.S. media is far from being objective because it can be broken down into the liberal and conservative camps has only become more evident in its handling of the issue. Even as journalists try to present news on the issue in the most balanced and objective manner, they still could not avoid showing their bias. One media piece, an article written by David Fitzsimmons titled U.S. Must Enact Immigration Reform Now, which was published in Statesman Journal, is a rare example of how the issue can actually be handled in a manner that can be considered fair and balanced despite the author showing ultimately his personal stand.

The article Fitzsimmons wrote is a response to the approval of the Arizona Legislature of a bill that would introduce reforms in the state’s immigration policy. The article begins with a brief background of events prior to the passing of the bill, SB 1070, in a news-like writing manner. After such short description, Fitzsimmons then starts to lay down his analysis on the issue when he writes that “state lawmakers were so fed up with the federal government's inconsistent, inadequate immigration enforcement that they took the issue into their own hands” (29 July, 2010).

Based on this analysis, Fitzsimmons then expressed agreement with the measures approved by the Arizona Legislature, including the concepts behind these such as the enforcement of stricter policies against employers who wittingly know that they are hiring illegal immigrants. However, Fitzsimmons does not stop here and, as a consequence, prevents the reader to immediately conclude that the author is all-out in his support of a crackdown policy on illegal immigrants and their support machinery. Instead, he also expresses apprehensions over the enforcement of the new immigration law in the state.

He worries that “the law will foster discrimination against Latinos — creating the wrong presumption that ‘if you look Hispanic, you must be here illegally’ — even though the law's supporters vow that won't happen” (Fitzsimmons, 29 July, 2010). In the end, Fitzsimmons points out that while there may be negative aspects in the presence of illegal immigrants, there are also positive ones. While he attempts to present an unbiased analysis in this part, he errs in using the term ‘illegal immigrants.

’ Apparently, what he means is not just the illegal ones but also the legal immigrants as well. It is not just the illegal immigrants but also the legal ones who contribute to the economy as employees, consumers, and tax-payers. It is also not just the illegal immigrants who “consume tax dollars” as they avail of public education, healthcare, and the welfare system. Fitzsimmons then proceeds to push for certain measures that do not really drive the immigrants off Arizona’s borders but just process them more efficiently so they can be legalized.

What makes Fitzsimmons perspective rare though is that he also proposes that helping the immigrants within the border is the solution. He proposes that in order to solve the heavy influx of immigrants, it is necessary for Arizona