In Latino Vote Story, CNN Reporter Skips Dems' Immigration Pitch

Photo of Matthew Balan.

NewsBusters.org - Media Research CenterIn a report on the upcoming Nevada caucus, CNN reporter Chris Lawrence highlighted Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s outreach to Latino voters, and while he did mention the issue of "immigration reform," he did not do the elementary thing a reporter should do: explore what the candidates are saying to Latinos about their immigration proposals.

The report, which aired 21 minutes into the 6 am Eastern hour of Thursday’s "American Morning," featured a committed Obama supporter who was once an "undocumented" immigrant (and is described as a "child of immigration reform"), and a Nevada talk radio host who claimed that Hillary Clinton’s experience made her more capable to handle the immigration issue than Obama. But did they talk about amnesty?

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

In his interview of Dana Ramos, the Obama supporter, Lawrence made a reference to Obama’s "promises" with regards to immigration, but other than Ramos’s own references to a "resident program or obtaining a path to citizenship," he did not reveal what Obama’s actual stances on immigration are.

CNN may be evading the fact that as a whole, the Democratic presidential candidates are more "illegal immigrant friendly" than the Republicans. It was only a few days ago that Clinton received cheers when she gave the reply that "no woman is illegal" after a man shouted that his wife was an illegal immigrant during a stop at a Las Vegas restaurant.

Lawrence did mention one specific in his report. He interviewed a Latino restaurant owner in Nevada who credited his caucus support for Hillary Clinton because "her health care plan mandates coverage for everyone."

The full transcript of the report from Thursday’s "American Morning:"

JOHN ROBERTS: Voters in Nevada will caucus on Saturday, and it's a good bet that Latino voters are going to have more influence in this race than all the previous contests put together. Latinos could make up more than a quarter of caucus-goers on Saturday. 'American Morning's' Chris Lawrence has been talking with those voters, the issues that matter to them. He joins us now. What did you find out?

CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: They're like a lot of other voters, John. Latino voters here, with all the foreclosures -- they're concerned about the economy. They're concerned about health care. They're concerned about immigration. So, they have very similar concerns, but they are deeply divided over which candidate can best deliver some results.

LAWRENCE (voice-over): Dana Ramos is a child of immigration reform.

DANA RAMOS, FIRST TIME VOTER: I was undocumented until Ronald Reagan passed his amnesty program.

LAWRENCE: Now, she's a U.S. citizen and college grad. But immigration is still her priority.

LAWRENCE (on camera): You were leaning towards Obama before you went to the debate. Are you firmly in his corner now?

RAMOS: I am. I am definitely ready to caucus for him on Saturday. I think he has prioritized immigration more than Senator Clinton at this point.

BARACK OBAMA: Si se puede....

LAWRENCE (voice-over): There are more Latino voters in Nevada than the national average, and the Democratic rivals are fighting for every one. The owner of this restaurant is caucusing for Clinton, because her health care plan mandates coverage for everyone.

JAVIER BARAJAS, RESTAURANT OWNER: I'm worried everyday that one of my kids is going to get sick or I go to the hospital and how I'm going to pay.

LAWRENCE: Obama won the official endorsement of the Culinary Workers, Nevada's most powerful union. But Clinton has been encouraging individual members to vote their conscience.

MIGUEL BARRIENTOS, KRLV RADIO HOST: And this is where you're going to see the split among the culinary workers.

LAWRENCE: Radio host Miguel Barrientos and others told us a lot of Latino workers were never consulted by union leadership.

EDDIE ESCOBEDO, PUBLISHER, EL MUNDO: And seven out of 10, that's what they say, they never asked me. I don't know why they chose Obama.

LAWRENCE: Barrientos says the choice comes down to immigration.

BARRIENTOS: And we don't think Senator Obama will be able to handle this the way we expect Hillary Clinton, with her experience, to be able to deal with it.

LAWRENCE: Dana remains committed to Obama, but won't give him a pass on his promises.

RAMOS: You know, just a resident program, or obtaining a path to citizenship, I expect him to deliver on that.

LAWRENCE (on-camera): Now, a lot of the culinary members are shift workers who do work on the weekends. So, the plan was to have them caucus right here on the casinos on the Strip. That was the plan. The campaigns all agreed to these rules nearly a year ago. A late-filed lawsuit now threatens to kind of throw that into chaos. The judge is going to decide on it later today.

ROBERTS: Yeah, we'll be hearing about that -- about 12:00 noon Eastern time, is when that hearing takes place. And it's interesting to see that these voters in the culinary workers may not vote as a block. They vote their own minds. We'll see how that plays.

LAWRENCE: But the thing to really keep in mind is a caucus is not private, like a vote. You have to stand up on the side of the room with your candidate, so your union leadership and your co-workers are all going to know who you voted for.

ROBERTS: All right. It will be interesting to watch this weekend. Chris Lawrence, thanks very much.

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Matthew, Probably b/c

Matthew,

Probably b/c their view is the same as the laws we already have in place.

I'm extremely confused as to what the immigration debate actually is.  It's illegal to hire illegal immigrants.  Those who do are punished.  Presumably they will refrain from engaging in illegal behavior and hiring illegals in the future.

If illegal immigrants know they can't get a job in America, they won't come here and they won't burden our healthcare system or other social systems

So what's the debate?   As far as I can tell, we already have a solid policy in place, we just need to do a better job enforcing it or perhaps raise the penalties.

This is a non-debate hyped up political reasons, nothing more. 

Nice Try Leon

But there are all kinds of issues from Drivers Licenses for illegals to health care to homeland security that have not been decided and almost no one in the public is happy with how things are. This issue crosses normal political lines.

Dee, You're missing my

Dee,

You're missing my point.

Driver's licenses and health care become a moot point once we actively enforce the laws that already exist. 

If business owners are afraid to hire illegals for fear of prosecution, they won't hire any illegals, and illegals will have no reason to come here.  Thus, no chance to get a driver's license or healthcare.

 

Leon - the conservatives are the ones for enforcing current laws

Obama and Clinton are not. They support giving them licenses, letting them vote, giving them health care and leaving the borders unsecured.

I'm not on the same page with many of the conservative politicians on this , but I'm also not on the same page with Obama and Clinton. I think we need to have laws that are enforceable (the ones we have now are not). Many liberals I know agree with conservatives on this issue. It's a big issue that needs to be addressed not ignored. Clinton and Obama won't state their positions on it because they only care to pander.

Dee, The current laws are

Dee,

The current laws are competely enforceable.  What makes them unenforceable?

If you see a business owner with a lot Mexicans, call the authorities.  Have them check it out.  It's easy as cake.

Walk past a job site, see a lot of Mexicans.  Call OSHA, call the cops, call INS, write about it on a blog, do anything you can to bring  attention to it.

It's so simple it's absurd. 

Have police randomly check companies for undocumented workers. 

The laws we have are the best option.  It's just a matter of simple enforcement.  And if we can do this, than all the drivers license stuff and healthcare stuff will be irrelevant.

Leon - they are not enforceable because they aren't enforced

it's as simple as that. The Fed Govt can't force these cities and states to do it with the current laws and many just won't because it would destroy their economy. We don't live in a police state where the Federal Government polices all of the states.

→ And why bother enforcing

If we could build the fence, I'd argue our economy would be best served if we kept status quo and winnowed out the losers through the court system over say ten years.

Those left behind were never and will never be citizens until they go back to the end of the line.

Further, the Amendment that originally was written to clarify the legitimacy of ex Slave citizenship should addressed.

But send them all back?  Unworkable. 

I ♣ My Seal

Dee, Lack of effort in

Dee,

Lack of effort in enforcing the laws do not make them unenforceable.  And I don't follow your logic that since we don't enforce them they are unenfoceable.  How we handle them in practice has no bearing on whether or not they are reasonable/enforceable.

Again, you simply punish those who hire illegals.  It's very easy to target businesses that are more likely to do this. 

This is highly enforceable. 

My feeling is that it isn't enforced, b/c it would cripple many business owners that rely on illegal immigrants to run their businesses.  Sadly, many of the people that rail against illegal immigration can't live without them.

Punish anyone that hires illegals and we will no longer have an illegal immigration problem.  This requires neither new debates nor new laws.

The President and Congress don't enforce laws - they make them

You saying to just enforce them isn't going to make it happen. They aren't being enforced and they won't be enforced unless a realistic policy is made.

Dee, First of all, I said

Dee,

First of all, I said legislators, I didn't say anything about the president or congress specifically.

Seriously what are you talking about?

Punishing employers that hire illegals is a realistic policy and easily enforceable.  Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

The lack of enforcement has nothing to do with the viability of the policy, it has to do with a lack of effort. 

How hard would it really be to target companies that hire illegals, inspect them, then fine them heavily?

Let's think about some industries we could easily target:

1)  Landscapers
2)  Small, private contractors
3)  Cleaning services
4)  Restaurants
5)  Farmers
6)  Mechanics
7)  Golf Courses

etc. etc. etc.

It's so simple to enforce it's insane.  The policy is perfect.  I don't see what changes you could possibly make to it to improve it.

Hire illegals = sever punishment = no more hire illegals = no more illegals

Leon - I'm staying on the point of the thread which is

that Obama and Clinton won't state a position and are given a pass by the media. So we are talking about what the President and Congress can do to make the problem better.

What is so hard for you to grasp about the fact that the current laws are not working? Almost no one is happy with the way things are. Some people want no amnesty, some want total amnesty and some want something in between. If you are going to force enforcement somehow that requires new policy that should be stated and advocated by the clients. Your position would fall under the No amnesty position I guess.

I don't agree with you that these people should be rounded up, but that is beside the point. The point is, Obama and Clinton need to state a position. I can guarantee you, it isn't the same as yours.

Sadly, you're mistaken.

Sadly, you're mistaken.  Businesses are NOT punished for hiring illegals.  Though there has been a slight uptick in enforcement recently, the government is not fining and going after businesses that violate the law. (Probably because in CA and elsewhere, it's a political hot potato to do so.)

It's very difficult to emigrate to the United States legally -- the process, which I've gone through (I'm from Canada) is hopelessly bureaucratic and slow, and I know of many cases of friends who took jobs in Australia, Europe and elsewhere instead of trying to come here. Jobs that were required to expand American businesses and thus give jobs to American citizens. 

 Basically, the US needs to 1) apply the law and stop encouraging illegals from coming here and 2) making it easier for legal immigration to take place, whatever the number might be.  Right now, it's the opposite; it's easier to come to the US illegally and lay down roots. 

Liberty, So the issue is

Liberty,

So the issue is enforcement.  We simply need to enforce the pre-existing laws to their full extent.

But we do have these laws on the books, correct?  It's just a matter of making people pay for it.

We obviously agree.  There is no need for debate, just action.  The solution is already in place we just don't use it. 

For all you people heated about the immigration issue, why don't you simply write a letter to your senator begger for stricter enforcement?

As far as I can tell, we

As far as I can tell, we already have a solid policy in place, we just need to do a better job enforcing it or perhaps raise the penalties.

I absolutely agree with you there, Leon, but to say it's a "non-issue" is like saying that murder rates are up, but since we have laws on the books already against murder, it's not an issue.  Tell that to the person who's family member was murdered.  Same thing with illegal immigration.  Yes, we absolutely need interior enforcement along with border security, but it certainly isn't a non-issue to those of us in southern California and elsewhere that are being decimated by the results of illegal immigration.

Darth Dutch

Darth, I'm not saying

Darth,

I'm not saying it's a non-issue.  I'm saying there isn't any need for debate.

It's certainly a major issue, but there really is no debate.  We know what needs to be done, we just need to do it.

That's just wishful thinking, leon

There are MANY issues where we "know" what needs to be done....yet they never get done. 

If there is no pressure, no squeaky wheel, then no attention is paid by the pols. 

Also, if there is no debate to inform the pols, they'll just try to push through programs that the people don't want.   An example of that is the recent amnesty bill from Kennedy, McCain, Bush, et al.

Sorry, I mis-read your

Sorry, I mis-read your original post. 

But sadly, there IS debate needed because so many people (some citizens, but scores of illegal aliens and illegal alien advocacy groups) feel that the laws on the books are too tough, or even "immoral".  The fact that we even have a debate shows how important the issue is.  To me it seems as dumb to debate this than it does to debate why America even exists or why murder is illegal.  It seems pretty common sense to me that we should have exterior and interior enforcement. 

The fact that the politicians are debating it and taking sides shows that the voice of the vast majority of the American people is not being heard, or has not been heard in the past, and we are upset about it.

Darth Dutch

Fair Enough Darth, No

Fair Enough Darth,

No worries about the original post, I misread stuff on here all the time!

I personally find nothing immoral about the laws on the books.  If you get caught being here illegally, then get out.  See ya!  Furthermore, whoever hired you, pay up!

People are doing a lot of finger pointing, but there is really only one person to blame for the current immigration situation in America.  The guy that hires illegals.  I have no sympathy for them, throw the book at them, and make them dig deep into their pockets to atone for their illicit behavior.

 

CNN needs to Rephrase the Voters concerns..

They don't quite have it right......a slight rewrite is needed....

They're like a lot of other voters, John. Latino voters here, with all the foreclosures by people who should NOT have bought an exspensive home in the first place -- they're concerned about the economy because the MSM is selling the recession scare 24/7 . They're concerned about free health care for Illegals relatives . They're concerned about Illegal immigration because they might have relatives deported in the future.  

 

"Barack Obama is a Powerful Speaker—And so is My Bose Bass Amp"  Doug Giles

INFURIATING

I wonder how the immigration "debate" is going in Mexico? The question there is, "do we shoot immigrants from the south in the head or put them in prisons to be mistreated for months or years and then release them"? I am getting sick and tired of the Democrats' agenda. What is it, exactly? To destroy the U.S. - which, after all, only became the most powerful and successful country in the world after two centuries of independence, largely due to socialist welfare programs like free healthcare and early head start? Wait! I was confused. The U.S. became the most powerful country in the world because of self-reliance, hard work and the rule of law. The Dems are trying to remove the last pillar, and have been with the morally relativist ACLU for decades. Watch everything collapse like a house of cards if the Dems are able to get their loser agenda across. Our enemies are already applauding.

 

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius

Harry Reid on Immigration .. "freeloaders & scam artists"

Any discussion on immigration reform, especially one conducted in Nevada with Democrats should include the views (OK former views -- but they still represent a strong majority view of the voters in this country) of Senate Majority Leader Hary Reid - you know the other Morman.

Senator Harry Reid:  " ..entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world."

For the life of me, I don't know where I copied this from some time back, and I apologize to the source - but it's too good not to share.  (;~>

In an Aug. 5, 1993 news release, Sen., Harry Reid's D., NEV office said he introduced the bill '[i]n response to increased terrorism and abuse of social programs by aliens." His "Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993," he said, "overhauls the nation's immigration laws and calls for a massive scale-down of immigrants allowed into the country from approximately 800,000 to 300,000."

"Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools and social programs," Reid said in 1993. "The Immigration and Naturalization Service needs the ability to step up enforcement."

Reid said during Senate debate at that time: "If making it easy to be an illegal alien is not enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee full access to all public and social services this society provides."

Reid, in his 1993 press statement, was quoted saying, "Safeguards like welfare and free medical care are in place to boost Americans in need of short-term assistance. These programs were not meant to entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world."

Even worse, he said, "Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally."

Reid said, at the time, the U.S. open-door policy was being "abused at the expense of honest, working citizens." "We are a country founded upon fairness and justice," Reid said. "An individual in real threat of torture or long-term incarceration because of his or her political beliefs can still seek asylum. But this bill closes the door to those who want to abuse America's inherent generosity and legal system."

Reid also emphasized, "Recent terrorist acts, including the World Trade Center bombing, have underscored the need to keep violent criminals out of the country."

Please note. That WTC bombing, Reid referred to was in 1993.