You know that country down there? said Rawlins.
The Mexican shook his head and spat. I never been to Mexico in my life.
–Cormac McCarthy from All the Pretty Horses

Like in many major American cities, the debate about immigration reform often has been contentious and polarizing. In the spring of 2006, an estimated 40,000 persons marched in downtown Salt Lake City for positive immigration reform – a turnout that surprised march organizers, local authorities, and observers alike.

I have strong personal and research stakes in this issue. I am a first-generation American, born just a few years after my parents – who did not know each other at the time – fled Hungary as the Soviet army crushed the brief freedom uprising in the fall of 1956.

My father was among the freedom fighters and his family was in a town just three miles from the border of Austria, which was officially a neutral country. They fled there after the Soviets crushed the revolution and they arrived in Camp Kilmer, New Jersey in April 1957. My grandfather had a friend in Vienna and they stayed at his home until they got the necessary papers from the U.S. Embassy in Vienna. Interestingly enough, President Eisenhower had lifted the quota restrictions on émigrés so they could go anywhere they desired.

My mother’s family had a much rougher time. They lived in Budapest and they escaped to Yugoslavia where they lived in uncertainty at a refugee camp. They were there for 10 months. For them, the red tape process was much more laborious than what my father’s family experienced in Austria. Her family arrived in November, one year after the revolution. They arrived in New York and eventually moved to Toledo, Ohio, as did my dad’s family.

I strongly empathize with today’s immigrants so I wanted to direct my sentiments toward worthwhile analysis. Recently, I joined forces on a research project with Mark Alvarez, an attorney member of the Utah Bar Association and perhaps the city’s most well informed source about the complexities of immigration law and the challenges policymakers face in reconciling the failed process of our current immigration system. Incidentally, he and his wife, Lorena, are in Mexico at the moment working on a long-term education-related project.

We decided to analyze editorials from newspapers across the nation to see the media’s opinion on how policy reform concerning immigration should proceed. The Cormac McCarthy quote you see at the top of this post set the stage for the direction we planned to take. Misperceptions, like the fiction quote, abound. Often, the debate in this country over immigration policy and possible reforms—as evidenced in media coverage—has centered on these long-running misperceptions and has exacerbated them. For example, in late 2005, California enacted into law an apology for a Mexican repatriation program that in the 1930 led to the deportation of 1.2 million U.S. citizens of Mexican descent.

Terms and symbols in the immigration debate have great power of persuasion. Understandably, advocacy groups place great emphasis on certain labels. Many arguing for more restrictive immigration policy insist that those people unlawfully present here be called “illegals.” Their opponents counter with “no human being is illegal.” Some duels of labels include “amnesty” versus “earned adjustment,” “invading workers” versus “essential workers” and “welfare dependents” versus “taxpayers.” Examining these terms and symbols and how editorial boards use them reveals much about the debate and bias.

Even a casual reading of letters to the editors or of newspaper columnists suggests that people generally believe that the U.S. immigration system is flawed and should be reformed. The nature of that reform is where viewpoints scatter in any conceivable direction. A few points dominate the text of these letters and columns, often a reflection of news articles focusing on the debate. Twelve million people live here in violation of immigration law. The employment verification system contains a weak enforcement mechanism that places little responsibility on employers. Border control, especially in the south, is considered weak.

And, much of the immigration argument concerns national security, a theme that has grown in political importance because of the events of September 11, 2001. National identity has also become central to the debate. Being American for some means speaking English, and immigration proposals include this and the knowledge of U.S. civics as requirements for immigrants.

The debate over immigration moves between crisis and opportunity. Some call 12 million people living here unlawfully a crisis. Others consider the economic and social opportunity for integration of that population.

In working toward a sound immigration system, a more rigorous values-based and factual analysis would better serve a discussion that too frequently reads like a squabble among people and organizations working in wildly different worlds.