US Media Response
The US media response to Central American migration has been deeply polarized. There is a constant struggle of terminology: “when is a migrant a refugee?” Discussion revolves around this question, and the portrayal is not very nuanced. Central Americans are either “illegal aliens” here to take jobs and attack American identity, or they are refugees and victims. The media is split along party lines, difficult to get a clear picture as different sources emphasize certain numbers; they all use different statistics to their advantage. The conversation in the past five years has shifted from a removed reporting on the “drug wars” to an immediate “refugee”/"immigration” crisis.
A close reading of the New York Times: (which has its own liberal bias)
Search term: “Central America”
Dates: January 2011-present (March 2016)
2011: “Drug Wars”; the focus was on drugs and their movement north, but mostly restricting coverage to Central America and the drug cartels.
2012: Slight shift to US intervention in the “drug war” within Central America.
2013: Coverage shifts to the US-Mexico border where “illegal immigrant”, “migrants” are trying to get across. The Senate passes a bill to enhance border security while facilitating a path to citizenship for immigrants already within US borders.
2014: Up until this point there are relatively few articles on Central America. In June, the topic of immigration explodes as increased numbers of unaccompanied children are apprehended at the border. It is now a “crisis”, some say “humanitarian”, others of American identity and security. The United States government is presented as completely overwhelmed as the whole country will seemingly be overrun with Central Americans from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala specifically. There are articles about people protesting in towns near the border, yelling at buses filled with "immigrants" and about groups mobilizing much more effectively than the government to provide first services when “refugees” arrive. There is fear about security, crime. It seems that just about everyone is frustrated with the how the government handled the situation. During the summer of 2014, a faceless mass crosses the border; there is so much discussion of numbers that there is some attempt at humanizing those who made the arduous journey north as 2014 draws to a close, with more articles about specific families and people.
2015: Whereas 2013 and 2014 were focused on people crossing, now the focus is more on what happens when people get inside the US. There is much debate over the detention system that many deem inhumane, but that others see as necessary to make sure court hearings are attended. During the summer, the government declares it will detain people for shorter periods of time, tracking people through other means such as ankle bracelets. However, this still paints a picture of people who cross the border as criminals. The focus away from the border itself stems from the Mexican government cracking down significantly on people traveling within its borders, detaining people before they get to the US and therefore decreasing apprehensions. This remains the case until November of 2015, when there is a sudden spike in border crossings. This stirs up another bout of hysteria as it falls around the same time as the Paris and San Bernadino terrorist attacks; many fear that terrorists will try to infiltrate the US through the “porous” Mexican border. "Refugee” is now a more established term as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, explicitly draws parallels between the Syrian refugee crisis and what is happening in Central America. Climate change as a driver for migration also enters the conversation around the time of the Paris Climate Summit in December.
2016: The US government begins carrying out raids, yet another polarizing move that shifts the focus more onto the detained and deported. Responses vary depending on whether Central Americans are deemed “migrants” or “refugees”. The most recent news is that Donald Trump’s anti-immigration stance actually fueled the increase of migration in November 2015 as people began to fear that should he be elected their chances of getting in would be severely diminished. They decided to make the journey while they still could.
An interesting point to note is how little American consumption patterns entered the conversation. Briefly mentioned earlier on, around 2011-2012, US media rarely focuses on American drug consumption as driving demand, instead vaguely mentioning how the drugs move north to the United States from the Andes through Central America.
Jose Antonio Vargas on How America Talks About Immigration
A conversation with the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and undocumented activist.
Excerpt from highlights of the interview:
What else is missing from our discussions on immigration?
We don't even talk about why people move! Why do people move? What does U.S. foreign policy and trade agreement have to do with people moving? I'm Filipino. The Philippines used to be a protectorate of the U.S.—we used to be a territory like Puerto Rico. I was in an event in North Carolina, an elderly white man said to me, “Why are there so many of you here?” All I could say to him was, “Sir, we are here because you were there.”Even that conversation of the roots of migration and the role of U.S. foreign policy and the trade agreements and economic agreements—do you hear that discussed at all? No.