Overall I thought that it was good journalism. It had facts and although favored one side it did show both sides. There were sources which helped the credibility of the article.

A)No, the article did explain some of the complexities, but not nearly enough. The issue of immigration seems to take a back seat in this article. The article doesn't examine why the Republicans would want to stall the act. I felt that the writer should have quoted a Republican to give understanding to why they believe that the act should be stopped. The Dream Act, itself was barely mentioned and it's description seemed hurried. The writer throws out many quotes that with out context means absolutely nothing. B) It felt like the article was written as just a short telling of the events that had transpired and not a real in dept piece. The piece had few quotes that related to the parties or people that would be effected by the ... More »

A. I do not think that this article explained all the complexities to the issue because it still left me with questions of how the “Dream-Act” would work, what the problems the republicans see with this act, and why they do not want to let it pass. B. For the most part it basically stated that the republicans are going to do everything in their power to stop any plan for amnesty created by the democrats. I do not feel like it went very much into depth because the article did not explain the concepts of the act in the first place. C. The article actually raised more questions than it answered for me, it could be due to the fact that I did not know much about the issue in the first place, and the bit of information they gave ... More »

A great, well-rounded story with experts. A good read from a reliable publication.

This is good journalism. It's well-written and, for a pretty short article, draws on a good variety of sources.

1. This article explained the complexities of the issue of having the Dream Act passed and also the Republican’s great opposition expressed by stalling of the Senate’s measure to pass this Act, which enables children of illegal immigrants to be placed on a road to citizenship. 2. This article didn’t go extremely in-depth about this issue. Just enough information, so that the reader could understand the issue, not much more information was given regarding immigration. 3. It raised more questions because I would like to now to more about immigration laws that I am unaware, the number of illegal aliens residing here, the reasoning for the strong nativist attitude of the Republicans, and the reason Obama wants to pass this ... More »

several sources with good examples

This was a poorly written piece of journalism. The article was not balanced, since it seemed to only vouch for the Republican side of the story. The writer clearly depended on quotes, using less factual information, such as any other background information. The reporter does not explain why this is relevant.

This story clearly sides with passing the DREAM Act and it shows in the language, choice of sources and quotes used. It has a lot of bias, but I still found it insightful.

A. This article scratched the surface on the tpic of the immigration and the amnesty they want. It did not go into deep detail about everything, for example the Dream Act was mentioned a few times that it would give children of immigrants residency but just gives the summar of the act. Not state what it really was. B. They did not go in depth much into the issue. This is a rather short article and can not be done in a page. They scratched the surface. They did not go into deep detail of all the issue. C. It raised more for me personally. For example If a permanent residency is given to the children would they eventually be able to become citizens or just residents? Another question would be is the age they woujld recieve ... More »

A.) The Article, in my opinion, could have done a better job at describing the reasons as to why the Republican Party chose to stall the DREAM act. It lacked the motives within the Republican Party and it failed to mention the pros and cons of the DREAM act. B.) It seemed as though the article was more of reporting on the event instead of evaluating it. It felt as though there were no issue or problem with what was going on, it was just a description of what had happened. C.) The Article did clarify the motives for passing the DREAM act and it got good interviews with the opposing sides of it. It just seemed however, that it did not offer much of a voice to the people that gained from the act. D.) It will stir in the idea as ... More »

I don't think this article did a very good idea of explaining the complexities of this issue. It gave a very brief overview of the "Dream Act" and the politics surrounding it and was not very in-depth at all. It introduced the issue to me but only served to raise more questions for me. The confusing memo drama was not explained to me enough. I think this article won't really impact the general public's dialogue on the issue because I don't think many people will think this is important. But people directly connected to the issue will probably take note. I do believe that this is something that makes a huge difference in the lives of illegal immigrants and their children.

This article clearly states a serious situation that's going on right now. The Immigration Dream Act has been in debate and bouncing off the administration for a while now. This article clearly explains how the situation is not being taken care. The facts Vendantam used were fairly well supported with quotes taken from officials, which gave us a very informative article. It wasn't an opinion piece as it there was no opinion given by the writer, merely just facts, which shows that the journalist writing this did not give his two cents to the matter, making it very well balanced. It answered all the questions I had on the issue in terms of where we stand in this ongoing battle for immigrants getting their rights to live as ... More »

The article did answer the questions I had behind why Senate put a stall on the measure that would allow undocumented immigrants citizenship. The article backed up the points it stated my quoting others and giving links to some of the things he brought up in the article. However, the author did not give a lot of facts to back up the points made. The article helped me to get better informed on the subject even if there was some biased in the author's tone. Until reading the article I did not know what the dream act was. Bringing up that the stall to pass the act was stalled by Republican lawmakes will bring up discussion on whether or not the Dream Act should be passed or not and how to deal with the issue of immigration and ... More »

Vedantam covers the stall in the Senate over the “Dream Act” which would guarantee college/army-bound children of illegal immigrants citizenship. The complexities of the issue are well explained, though the story is lacking in background facts. Perhaps the short length of the piece did not permit expansion into past events such as the squabbles in Arizona over “border control issues”, but coverage or at least an abbreviated glean into the subject would have provided a more adequate backdrop. As far as outlining the Dream Act itself, Vedantam was thorough, though I wish the writer had included a brief mention of the nature of the defense spending bill the act was attached to. The topic of immigration has great potential ... More »

Erica Azucena 1. The immigration Dream act, which the democrats have been trying to pass through legislative, was brought to my attention. The republicans are stalling the Dream act, which presents an issue to our society. Illegal immigrants who have been raised in the US as a child and has attended some college or in the military should be granted residency. The government says they are looking into this issue and will find other ways to go about it, yet many are seeing that the law of homeland security is becoming much stricter on illegal immigrants. 2. Access to other links from the article clarified my understanding of what is the Dream Act, a sought-after goal for Democrats, a draft of a memo, midterm election and provided ... More »

This is good journalism considering the fact that the writer is not stating their opinion. They use many opinions of other sources but when not using quotes, they are just reporting the news. In some parts they state facts but don't really notify where they got those facts (but the writer seems trustworthy). Other than that it was well written and honest journalism.

I think the writer of this article maintains somewhat of a bias. This was noticeable within the first sentence when he writes, "The so-called Dream Act." He never even attempts to clarify what the Dream Act entails, such as granting immigrants who come here under the age of 16 citizenship. Instead he says "children," and "some time in college" is actually 2 years in college or armed forces.

Although the article shows an obvious bias against the DREAM Act, it does present the opposing opinion from DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. The author could have provided more facts and less quotes. The article went in-depth with the difficulties of the issue which helped me to understand it a little bit better. It was well-sourced and showed context, but became harder to follow towards the end and raised more questions.

Looking briefly through other comments, I noticed people saying the story "clearly" has a bias both favoring and opposing the DREAM Act. Though there is often a duality in the nature of all things, this seems rather unlikely, and the perception of two opposing biases may shed light on interesting facets of human psychology. Regarding the story, while not digging particularly deep in any analysis of the DREAM Act, does show the feelings regarding the filibuster. Most Democrats and civil rights groups are, unsurprisingly disappointed, and the article does nothing more or less than reflect that disappointment. On the Republican side, the article covers the new memo intended to rectify immigration policy in different ways without ... More »

This article included both sides opinions and identified almost all of the sources used. The only source that was not identified had an explanation of why the source remained anonymous. It is also from a well known and respected news paper.

This article informs of the Republican lawmakers decision to postpone the Dream Act, which would allow children of undocumented immigrants more of an opportunity for citizenship. There is a racial aspect embedded in the story with the inclusion of a quote from Brent Wilkes, national executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens, making the story geared toward Latinos rather than any other undocumented population. The article didn’t seam to be too biased in any way, but there was an emotional appeal from Wilkes quoted which may affect readers perceptions. Mostly, the article gave the facts, as much information as possible on the subject, and it was presented well.

1.Yes the article did explain the complexities of the issue. The issue being that the republicans blocked progress for the Dream Act, which is an immigration act that would grant citizenship for children of “undocumented immigrants” in the United States. The article presented readers with both sides of the topic. 2.The article failed to offer a depth of understanding regarding the issue of the Dream Act. It simply stated the gist of the act to provide the readers with the general idea. 3.No, the article failed to clarify any of my questions about this act. In the beginning of the article, it vaguely stated the premise of the dream act but only a general idea of the act. The debate of immigration in the United States ... More »

a) The article did not explain the complexities of the immigration issue. Vedantam vaguely goes into detail about the recent attempts to stop illegal immigration. The article is too cut and dry, he hardly even goes into detail about the Dream Act. He doesn’t answer enough questions. Immigration is a very complex issue at hand, so every article about it needs to be thoroughly delved into. b) Vedantam at least shows an understanding of the issue. It is clear that he is aware of the stance of each political party, and makes predictions about where the Dream Act is heading. c) The article posed more questions in my mind about immigration. I felt a little left in the dark. With more background information about the illegal ... More »

This article is purely good journalism. What I found impressive about it was the fact that it demonstrated both sides of the issue. The article began by stating the Republican standpoint on the decision they made, and continued with quotes from Latin American citizens who were unhappy with the decision. A good variety, as well as objective information are intertwined within this article. Both viewpoints of the Republican party, as well as the Democratic party are clearly stated, while at the same time keeping the article objective. I did however notice some undertones of favoring the Dream Act within the article.

The story presented facts and gave the reader a clearer understanding. Although it presented the ideas of one side, it wasn't limited to that idea only. The article gave facts, never opinions.