Knowledge of migration and its implications requires a thorough analysis and rationality in addressing their multiple variables and their many interrelationships. In the field of migration, the journalistic discourse has made too many simplifications that have somehow disrupted and distorted the reality of the phenomenon. Racism is generally associated with highly polarized political or ideological positions and middle-low social classes, who continue to defend the stale traditional European biological racism. However, authors such as Van Dijk have introduced another form of racism, which they call "discursive racism", which is based on the discursive practices of the elite, be they private individuals or institutions, and is legitimized by the leadership or credibility of their promoters. This discourse is transmitted multiple avenues such as parliamentary debates, news releases, bureaucratic documents, the language used by the authorities or even textbooks in schools and universities. Some of its traits are: positive self-representation and negative presentation of the other, exhaustively denying racism or at least mitigating it, controlled discourses of minorities, which are practically in the hands of white elites and emphasizing the negative aspects and paying attention to the problems and needs of immigrants. In order to decipher the different view points shown in the media coverage of immigration, we performed an analysis of the press using the methodology of discourse analysis, referring to the classic works of Foucault, Bardin, and of contemporary scholars such as M. Stubbs, J. Lozano, Van Dijk, etc. We observed the presence of two ambivalent points of view. One is more suspicious or unwilling to accept immigration and its various implications, socioeconomic and cultural and the other shows a more proactive, tolerant and favorable attitude towards immigration. In this research, thorough analysis of El Mundo and El Pais (representative of Spanish opinions) was conducted. Among them, we became aware of the presence of an assertive discourse, which is generated and transmitted by "them" for the outgroup, which is generally perceived as a destabilizing and uncomfortable point of view that is often diminished or limited through the medias broadcastings. The discourse is occasionally used hyperbolically to exalt the attitudes ingroup solidarity, but ignoring or reducing the impact of the contents found within the discourse endorsed by the involved parties. It is commonplace to find an attenuated or exculpatory treatment of hate speech. It is also common to hear arguments that may justify certain behaviors, as well as the identification of these positions and behaviors with a minority.
