Download issue (PDF) - Nieman Foundation - Harvard University

INS Coverage
mined that six times as many people
who are represented win asylum as
those who are not.
• Because the system is heavily decentralized,
the treatment of asylum
seekers varied greatly based on
where they entered the country—
and which INS district was responsible
for their custody.
The result was a system with recurring
tragic stories, such as that of
Kailasapillai. But the situation was far
from black and white: Government officials
were not out to dismantle the
Statue of Liberty. At issue was how the
Justice Department was expected to
fulfill the dual role of protecting refugees
needing liberty and safety and
protecting U.S. citizens from people
illegally entering the country by falsely
claiming asylum.
International refugee law, embraced
by the United States as law, recognizes
that victims of persecution often have
no way to obtain valid passports or
visas from governments that are persecuting
them. But by the mid-1990’s,
there was growing fear that the system
had gone too far in protecting refugees.
There was economic fear, that
illegal immigrants were taking jobs.
And there was fear of terrorism, as
people who had entered the country
seeking asylum were linked to the 1993
bombing of the World Trade Center
and to the shooting of CIA employees
outside the agency’s Virginia headquarters.
INS officials adopted regulations
to tighten the process; but Congress,
spurred in part by a “60 Minutes” segment
highlighting the potential for
abuse, ignored agency opposition and
went further.
The issue was clear: When thousands
of people with nothing beyond
the shirts on their backs and a tale of
horror show up at the borders each
year, how should the country respond
to protect its borders without causing
further harm to victims of persecution
and torture? It is a question without
easy answers, and the answer became
only more difficult for refugees after
the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001. That should provide obvious fodder
for journalistic investigation: questions
about government policies and
how those policies are carried out,
with the likelihood that the most vulnerable
of people are being hurt by
them.
INS Stories: Tough Sell in
Many Newsrooms
Those stories were widespread even
before the terrorist attacks of September
11, attacks which triggered only
tighter controls that furthered the likelihood
that some persecution victims
would suffer more harm as they sought
the safety and protection of the United
States. And yet, journalistic interest in
pursuing such stories seems surprisingly
tepid. “This is the time we most
need the press to investigate and ask
proactive questions about whether the
policies of this administration are just,”
said Elisa Massimino, Washington director
of the Lawyers Committee for
Human Rights. “We’re seeing exactly
the opposite, at a time when the rights
of those most vulnerable are being put
at further risk.”
There are a number of reasons that
such stories are not more sought after—reasons
that involve problems
specific to the issue and reasons that
involve problems more industry-wide.
• There is, of course, the skepticism
with which the issue is greeted by
many editors and reporters who
know how readily people would fabricate
stories if it would help them
find better lives in America. An awful
lot of friends and colleagues expressed
concern at the time and
effort I was spending to document
the stories of people who they presumed—wrongly,
in many cases—
were untrustworthy; that suspicion
certainly has only grown since the
threat of terror became more real.
• There is the problem any systemic
project faces in an era of tight budgets
and pressure for more productivity.
Taking on the systemic abuses
of asylum seekers takes time and
money, two commodities in shorter
supply these days; the amount of
effort is accentuated by the secrecy
that surrounds the system and the
time it takes to pry information loose.
• And there are the worries that pervade
editors’ offices these days,
about whether the hardships facing
anonymous foreigners without
proper papers are an issue that any
reader cares about. Refugees are not
likely to find favor in focus group
discussions about what readers want
from their morning paper.
Massimino adds one more reason:
“The government assault on noncitizens
has become more nuanced and
reporters have to work harder. I’ve had
a number of disappointing conversations
with reporters who lose interest
as soon as they realize what they have
to do to really explore the issue.” I was
lucky. Having undertaken the project
through a fellowship, I was left to argue
with only myself about time and
money. In the end, the San Jose Mercury
News embraced the articles and
gave them a good home.
But pursuing stories of the systemic
failures of the immigration system remains
no easy sell. It requires risktaking
by news organizations that understand
the topic might be expensive
to pursue and will generate a significant
amount of distressing e-mail from
readers who are angered and frightened
by the world. But it is, in the end,
what many of us entered journalism to
do: to serve as a voice for Ponnampalam
Kailasapillai and others like him, the
persecution victims who have no other
voice as they suffer at the hands of an
arbitrary system.
Seen in those terms, the decision
doesn’t seem so difficult after all. ■
Rick Tulsky, a 1989 Nieman Fellow,
is projects reporter at the San Jose
Mercury News. Tulsky’s project on
refugees and the INS won a Robert F.
Kennedy Journalism Award in 2001.
This year Hofstra University gave
him its Francis Frost Wood Courage
in Journalism Award for undertaking
and completing the project
despite many obstacles.
ricktulsky@aol.com
6 Nieman Reports / Winter 2002