To the Editor:
We were disappointed by both the headline “Brazilian immigrant charged in gun ring linked to Island” (April 24) and the associated article’s emphasis on the status of the people involved in this story. Both are unnecessarily provocative in tone, given the times in which we are living.
Of course, it is disturbing to read about an alleged gun and drug ring operating on the Island, and heartening to read that the two men accused of its operation were apprehended. But why the need to focus on their immigration status? Native-born Americans are perfectly capable of committing crimes like these. Meanwhile, there are hundreds of people currently living on the Island who were born in countries other than the U.S., many of whom have worked to become citizens, many others of whom hold work visas and green cards, all here legally, all performing essential work that helps fuel our Island economy. Your headline and unnecessary focus on the alleged perpetrators’ immigration status undermines the legitimacy of those others living productive lives and are here legally.
Matt Pelikan and Rabbi Lori Shaller
Oak Bluffs
There is no causal relationship between immigration and rise in crime, in fact just the opposite. However some States are easier to enter as an illegal viz other States. Massachusetts is one of them and considered a Sanctuary State. That might be the reason for the headline–to point out that if one has a criminal mind, he/she can do it easier in MA and indeed MV. No legitimacy of legal immigrants is undermined.
Could not agree more. Has The Times ever made the editorial decision to name suspects of a crime as natural born citizens? If they were born and raised on The Vineyard? My guess would be no, which really says it all.
I’m reminded of an old story in The Onion describing how a man saved a family from a burning building while mentioning he was gay every time he was referenced.
An apples-to-oranges comparison. Sexual orientation clearly has nothing to do with the ability to perform a rescue. The joke only works because that tidbit is so unnecessary.
In this case, the story explicitly involves a *transnational* crime organization. The home country/immigration status of those under evidence-based suspicion is relevant, especially given that distinction. I’d say the same about Americans accused of international wrongdoing.
Doesn’t mean that every person within the Brazilian community has gang ties. I’m sure the vast majority do not. But the eighteen suspects covered in the article? We have a right to know where they’re from and how/why/when they entered the U.S. Plenty of folks come here with honorable intentions. Some have other reasons.
Again, to withhold this basic information would’ve been dishonest and politically motivated. It’s not a newspaper’s job to shape public opinion via omission. They’re meant to provide objective facts. From there, we are each responsible for drawing our own conclusions, ideally with an eye towards fairness for all.
Every law-abiding immigrant I’ve heard from wants to see these alleged criminals exposed and dealt with. They don’t shy away from frank, informed discussion. I trust their approach.
A newspaper is supposed to report known facts. Stating that people with alleged gang connections are in the country illegally falls under that journalistic duty. There’s nothing provocative about it. Articles must contain truth and thoroughness in order to add public value. Omitting such information would’ve been an act of political bias, something that should, at most, be relegated to editorials.
I don’t feel the headline or article in question implied anything negative about legal immigrants/non-citizens who have committed zero crimes. While I agree those folks don’t deserve to be dragged into these types of stories, it’s the authors of this letter who are, in this instance, doing the needless dragging.
This has come up before. In 2023, the Times wrote about a convicted Brazilian national who’d been living, also illegally, in West Tisbury. He was deported for raping a 5-year-old child in Brazil, and still some glossed over that horror, shifting the focus to the paper’s mention of his nationality—as if that were the real crime.
No one has been singled out due to place of origin. When somebody from an off-Island location within America breaks the law on MV, the media reports that fact, too. Standard practice.
“alleged gang connections” – are not facts.
“He was deported for raping a 5-year-old child in Brazil,” – was he convicted?
The linked article contains multiple newsworthy facts. The evidence is strong.
Yes, that rapist was convicted. He was sentenced to fourteen years by a Brazilian court prior to fleeing home. Rather than serve his time, which was nowhere near adequate, he entered the U.S. illegally and hid out on the Island.
Pedophiles are cowards, among lesser things. I used to know a couple of the sex offenders currently registered here. Both locals with recognizable surnames. They, too, fit this description.
I brought up that heinous example because it would’ve been impossible for any journalist to write about deportation without specifying the countries and citizenship involved; they amounted to the story. Brazil wanted him returned, Boston-based authorities obliged.
Objections should’ve been directed at the convict. Lately, victims seem less likely to elicit concern than criminals spreading harm. Priorities are backwards.
Same goes for emphasis placed on headlines when 110 deadly weapons were introduced into our communities. There’s always been a vocal anti-gun presence on MV. It fell silent once international crimes surfaced. Do American gun-owners alone pose a threat?
Sometimes a truly irrelevant mention of nationality is, of course, unwarranted and best left unsaid. Not so in contextually appropriate cases.
I agree with Matt and Rabbi Lori. The headline was inappropriate. A person’s nationality doesn’t usually get mentioned in a headline – so do for all, or none.
A similar type of editorial standard is now also applied when referencing a person of color — making sure to capitalize the “b” in Black — as in “Black congresswoman Ayanna Pressley” — even though Elizabeth Warren is never identified as “White senator . . . “.
These examples of identity politics highlight and encourage divisiveness rather than acceptance of our multi-racial society.
I agree there was no need to mention the immigration status of this criminal in the headline. However, within the context of the story it was necessary information to meet basic journalistic standards.
(Keep in mind that the White Men who wrote our Constitution were also undocumented — and unwelcome — immigrants . . . just sayin’.)
If the criminal were unhoused and started an illegal campfire in an illegal campsite, on top of any other possible crimes he committed, his citizenship or lack thereof would not be noted in news coverage. He would not be publicly identified, even if he was a a non-white Purple alien from Mars. Homelessness is the key to keeping your name and immigration status out of the paper altogether, no matter the crime.
Illegal guns and drugs were transported to Martha’s Vineyard, per this story. Where did the illegal gun ring begin and who were the individuals involved? That’s journalism in action.