Count the Washington Post among the many newspapers who aren't ready to acknowledge the revelations about President Obama's deportation record.
In their April 4 story, "New GOP push for immigration reform blocked," reporters Ed O'Keefe and David Nakamura and their editors chose not to clarify that people living and working illegally in the interior of the United States are less likely to be deported today than they were before President Obama took office. Toward the end of their story, O'Keefe and Nakamura had a perfect opportunity to shed some light on the subject. They wrote:
Whether immigration ever becomes a topic of debate in the House this year remains unclear. After trumpeting a list of immigration principles at their annual policy retreat in January, GOP leaders quickly retreated and cast doubt that the House could take up the issue, blaming distrust of President Obama.
Understandably, O'Keefe and Nakamura don't clarify that the "distrust of President Obama" relates directly to the question of whether he would enforce immigration laws after a legalization program was underway. Most Washington Post readers are familiar with that argument from previous reporting. Less understandably, the Post says nothing about a recent statement made by John Sandweg, Obama's previous acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE:
If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero -- it's just highly unlikely to happen.
Sandweg's quote appeared in a story by Brian Bennett of the LA Times ("High deportation numbers are misleading") just three days before O'Keefe and Nakamura wrote their story. Bennett also reported that "Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the United States have fallen steadily since [Obama's] first year in office, and are down more than 40% since 2009."
All of this informs the GOP's "distrust of President Obama." None of it made it into the Post's story. Instead, O'Keefe and Nakamura close their story with this:
On Saturday, groups across the country will participate in “Two Million Too Many,” a day of protests focused on the Obama administration’s deportation policies. In Washington, advocates said they will hold a rally and march from Lamont Park in Mount Pleasant to Lafayette Park. Two families of undocumented immigrants who were deported also plan to have a presence in front of the White House each day starting Saturday.
Obama told advocates in a meeting at the White House last month that he has asked the Homeland Security Department to undertake a review of its enforcement policies. The president has said he is legally powerless to broaden a 2012 decision deferring the deportations of undocumented immigrants brought to the country illegally as children.
The Post added a link to the phrase "Obama administration's deportation policies" but don't go there seeking a summary of his policies. That story only illustrates how the Obama administration's strategy to boost removal numbers by counting border apprehensions has fooled both anti-enforcement activists and the Washington Post.
Former Washington Post ombudsman E.R. Shipp once wrote: "No story is fair if it omits facts of major importance or significance. No story is fair if it includes essentially irrelevant information at the expense of significant facts. No story is fair if it consciously or unconsciously misleads or even deceives the reader."
Is it significant that deportations from the interior have dropped by 40 percent since Obama took office? Is the Post misleading its readers by talking about protests against 2 million deportations without clarifying that the majority of the 2 million were people caught illegally crossing the border? You be the judge.
JEREMY BECK is the Director of the Media Standards Project for NumbersUSA
