You'd think, based on the media blitz promoting the conservative Heritage Foundation's recent study—which claims immigration reform will cost the country $6.3 trillion dollars—the organization would be using its full web presence to promote their work.
Not so on the think tank's Spanish-language site, Heritage Libertad.
Whereas the study, "The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer," is touted at the top of the Heritage Foundation's English-language website with the blazing headline "The Cost of Amnesty to You," on its Spanish-language site the report is buried well below the fold (on my browser, it's two screen-lengths deep).
This may all be a coincidence, but with content like "Why Does America Welcome Immigrants?" the site gives the general impression the organization in fact supports immigration reform.
"Looking at the Heritage foundation libertad webpage, they put information that gives the impression that they support immigration reform, or are at least welcoming; it highlights how well immigrants have assimilated to the U.S., how they have come to the country and built the country," says AFL-CIO Bilingual Media Outreach Specialist Gonzalo Salvador. "It's condescending to tell Spanish speakers one thing and then tell people in English another thing."
Here's a sample (my translation):
The key to the singularly successful American experience with immigration has to do with a deliberate policy of assimilation: We welcome newcomers while insisting that they learn about our civic culture and political institutions; in this way, we form a nation made up of many peoples - e pluribus unum. ...
The overwhelming result of this policy of assimilation, throughout American history, has been a strengthening of our social capital, the continued expansion of our economy, and a constant renewal of our national goals. The United States has been good for immigrants and immigrants have been good for America.
Maybe the organization's vehement opposition to immigration reform and disparaging characterization of immigrants' contributions have been "lost in translation"?