Essay on Political Bias on America’s Immigration Act

The journalism artifact I covered is an interview by Miles O’Brien. He hosted a law professor Jonathan Turley from George Washington University, and a previous acting solicitor general in President Obama’s regime Neal Katyal. The panel discussed President Donald Trump’s order which prohibits the immigration of visitors from Muslim countries. The interview was aired on PBS News Hour. The artifact targeted the public audience in America to provide arguments for and against the immigration policy proposed by Trump’s administration. The interview addressed the Immigration and Nationality Act looking at the discrimination of people based on religion under the law.

The interview portrayed bias in the two hosted professionals. They took two different political stands, with Jonathan indicating his support for Trump’s administration decision while Neal strongly opposed the policy reforms in Trump’s executive order. The difference in perception is well expressed when Miles brings up the question on law banning the entry of Muslims into the USA due to security reasons. Neal replies, “This executive order prefers Christians to Muslims. You have got it. The President himself said so contemporaneously when he issued the executive order to the Christian Broadcast Network. This is just un-American and unconstitutional” (The Legal Arguments). This indicates how Neal is stereotyped to oppose the decision by President Trump irrespective of the fact that the directive is taken to enhance the fight against terrorism. On the same question, Jonathan replies, “You don’t have to think about this law as worse than it is. It is not a Muslim ban on a legal basis” (The Legal Arguments). This shows how Jonathan defends the Trump government decision arguing that the process only affects the immigration procedures and does not restrict individuals from a given religion from entering the USA. The type of bias indicated above is ideological bias. Ideological bias is a hidden form where the speaker formulates judgment according to certain norms and ethics (Matthew et al., 34). In the present interview, the speakers are tuned to a given perception and values. They base their argument on political affiliations ignoring other ethical and normal values, thereby giving a biased response.

There is a serious challenge to the influence of the new immigration rule in America. Political parties have taken different stands on the issue, intending to catch citizens’ attention and support. Immigration of people is a global concern that needs to be addressed fairly to observe the involved person’s rights and freedoms (Matthew et al., 34). To eliminate the ideological bias presented by the two professionals, journalists have to educate citizens on the proposed immigration policy reforms and the influence on the citizens of America and Muslim refugees and immigrants in the USA. The two leaders need to agree that terrorism is a global threat, and the federal government has to do everything within its obligation to protect its citizens. On the other hand, innocent Muslims should not be discriminated against during the fight against terrorists. A non-discriminative policy needs to be established to counter-terrorism and citizens educated on appreciating religious, ethnic, and cultural diversity to curb ideological bias in America.

The present interview hurts the citizens of America because it divides them based on religion. Presenting the idea that the immigration law is introduced to discriminate the Muslims creates a rebellion impact with the Muslims in America. This perception limits the efforts to build one strong united community; therefore, the law should be revised to ensure it provides a fairground for all stakeholders involved.

Works Cited

Gentzkow, Matthew, Michael B. Wong, and Allen T. Zhang. “Ideological bias and trust in information sources.” Unpublished manuscript (2018).

The Legal Arguments for and Against Trump’s Immigration ban. PBS News Hour. 31 Jan 2017. Accessed at: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/legal-arguments-trumps-immigration-ban/