HE WAS PLANNING TO CAMPAIGN IN ARIZONA FOR DEMOCRAT CANDIDATES.
Networks Fail to Distinguish Between Xenophobia and Law Enforcement
Reporters label Arizona law ‘anti-immigration’ twice as often as ‘anti-illegal immigration.’
by Colleen Raezler, Culture and Media Institute
Liberal political pundits frequently remind Americans that words matter, which makes broadcast network reporters’ coverage of Arizona’s new crack down on illegal immigrants so appalling.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a law on April 23 that would make it a misdemeanor for immigrants to not carry documentation proving they are in the country legally. The bill gave state law enforcement the power to determine the immigration status of any person during “any lawful contact.” Amid allegations that this law would lead to “racial profiling,” Brewer later amended it to allow law enforcement to only check the immigration status of those involved in a “lawful stop, detention or arrest.”
Reporters on ABC, NBC and CBS misled the American people about the law by calling it “anti-immigration” twice as often as correctly identifying the law as “anti-illegal immigration” and reporting, as ABC’s Bill Weir did on the April 24 “Good Morning America, “Police [in Arizona] now have the power to stop anyone and make them prove they are legal.”
Between April 23, when the law was signed and May 2, reporters on ABC, CBS, and NBC correctly identified the law as an “anti-illegal immigration law” in only 4 percent (3 out of 72) of the references to the law. Nearly ten percent of the references (7 out of 72) referred to the bill as an “anti-immigration law.”
“Anti-immigration” and “anti-illegal immigration” are two distinct labels. The former is a xenophobic view. The latter makes it clear that immigrants are welcome, as long as they go through the proper channels to come to America.
But for the broadcast networks, there’s no distinction between the two.
Two segments about Arizona’s new measure seem to indicate that reporters don’t understand illegal immigration was against the law before Brewer signed the bill.
“The bill makes it a crime to be in Arizona illegally,” reported CBS’s Bill Plante during an April 24 “Early Show” segment.
Plante’s colleague, Betty Nguyen, echoed him in her April 27 “Early Show” segment. “The law makes it a crime to be an illegal immigrant,” she explained.
J.D. Hayworth, a Republican challenger for John McCain’s Senate seat, was the only person to ask on broadcast news programs the basic question around which the immigration debate should revolve. “Do you think illegal aliens have done anything wrong by being in this country without authorization?” he asked Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez during a joint May 2 “Face the Nation” appearance on CBS.
Rather than focus on that question and recognizing that illegal immigrants are already breaking federal law by simply being in the country without authorization, CBS instead sympathetically reported on the plight of illegal immigrants under the new law.
Bill Whitaker focused on illegal immigrant Gerardo in his May 1 “Evening News” segment.
“Gerardo, who asked us to conceal his identity, crossed illegally from Mexico to Arizona four years ago. With the new law, he knows there’s a greater chance he will be arrested and deported,” reported Whitaker.
Gerardo told CBS, “I’ve got no papers, I’ve got different color,” before Whitaker continued, “He has a daughter, a state job, a home which his American born partner Jessica is packing up fearing they might have to flee.”
Jessica lamented, “He cannot stay here. It will be difficult for him to go to work, to go to the store, to even be with my daughter outside.”
All three broadcast networks mischaracterized the law in reports after the bill was first signed into law on April 23. ABC’s Mike Von Fremd picked up where his colleague Bill Weir left off in his April 24 “Good Morning America” report. “The new law here requires local police to stop and demand proof of citizenship from anyone suspected of being illegal immigrant,” he explained. That night on “World News,” Clayton Sandell toed the same line, noting, “The new law allows police to demand papers from anyone they suspect may be here legally.” NBC’s Lester Holt claimed on the April 24, “Saturday Today,” the new law “gives police broad new power to crack down on illegal immigration.” Over at CBS, Bill Plante reported the law “requires police to question people about their status if there’s reason to suspect they’re illegal immigrants.”
However, the reports missed a key part of the law: these checks of immigration status were to be done only upon “lawful contact.” That means if in the course of doing other police work – a traffic stop or the investigation of a crime – an officer has a suspicion, he or she can ask for documentation. Nothing in the bill even suggested the power to “round up” illegal immigrants.
The text of the bill states:
For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.
Joe Arpaio, sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona, rebutted the claims of mainstream reporters during an April 26 “Today” appearance, calling them “hype.” Host Matt Lauer asked him why the law wouldn’t allow “law enforcement officials walking up to people on the street, questioning them simply because of their appearance, because they appear to be Hispanic?”
Arpaio replied, “Pursuant to their duties, they’re not going to go on a street corner and grab people because they look like they’re from another country. We haven’t been doing that for the past three years and I know law enforcement officers will not do that. That’s hype. Those are the critics.”
No network reported on the specific changes made to the law on April 30. "Contact" was changed to the more explicit “stop, detention or arrest” and the clause “in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state,” was added to guard against any “rounding up” of people.
ABC’s David Kerley simply reported during the May 1 “Good Morning America,” “Just yesterday Arizona’s Governor signed some new changes to that law, which she says will prevent racial profiling.” CBS’s Bill Whitaker claimed the amended law “strengthen[ed] restrictions against racial profiling while giving police more latitude to stop suspects and demand proof of citizenship.” NBC did not note the changes to the law.
It seems odd that reporters wouldn’t at least discuss changes made to address their concerns of police abuse of power in his law.
******************************************************************Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 17:54:11 -0400
Subject: I'm Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen. I want to explain SB 1070
I thought that you may wish to hear the other side of the argumant
This is the part of the Arizona law that the media is not telling us
A very important statement!! The civil war looms ever closer. I'm Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen. I want to explain SB 1070 which I
voted for and was just signed by Governor Jan Brewer.
Rancher Rob Krantz was murdered by the drug cartel on his ranch a month ago. I
participated in a senate hearing two weeks ago on the border violence, here is
just some of the highlights from those who testified.
The people who live within 60 to 80 miles of the Arizona/Mexico Border have
for years been terrorized and have pleaded for help to stop the daily invasion
of humans who cross their property . One Rancher testified that 300 to 1200
people a DAY come across his ranch vandalizing his property, stealing his
vehicles and property, cutting down his fences, and leaving trash. In the last
two years he has found 17 dead bodies and two Koran bibles.
Another rancher testified that daily drugs are brought across his ranch in a
military operation. A point man with a machine gun goes in front, 1/2 mile
behind are the guards fully armed, 1/2 mile behind them are the drugs, behind
the drugs 1/2 mile are more guards. These people are violent and they will
kill anyone who gets in the way. This was not the only rancher we heard that
day that talked about the drug trains.
One man told of two illegal's who came upon his property one shot in the back
and the other in the arm by the drug runners who had forced them to carry the
drugs and then shot them. Daily they listen to gun fire during the night it is
not safe to leave his family alone on the ranch and they can't leave the ranch
for fear of nothing being left when they come back.
The border patrol is not on the border. They have set up 60 miles away with
check points that do nothing to stop the invasion. They are not allowed to use
force in stopping anyone who is entering. They run around chasing them, if
they get their hands on them then they can take them back across the border.
Federal prisons have over 35% illegal's and 20% of Arizona prisons are filled
with illegal's. In the last few years 80% of our law enforcement that have
been killed or wounded have been by an illegal.
The majority of people coming now are people we need to be worried about. The
ranchers told us that they have seen a change in the people coming they are
not just those who are looking for work and a better life.
The Federal Government has refused for years to do anything to help the border
states. We have been over run and once they are here we have the burden of
funding state services that they use. Education cost have been over a billion
dollars. The healthcare cost billions of dollars. Our State is broke, $3.5
billion deficit and we have many serious decisions to make. One is that we do
not have the money to care for any who are not here legally. It has to stop.
The border can be secured. We have the technology we have the ability to stop
this invasion. We must know who is coming and they must come in an organized
manner legally so that we can assimilate them into our population and protect
the sovereignty of our country. We are a nation of laws. We have a
responsibility to protect our citizens and to protect the integrity of our
country and the government which we live under.
I would give amnesty today to many, but here is the problem, we dare not do
this until the Border is secure. It will do no good to forgive them because
thousands will come behind them and we will be over run to the point that
there will no longer be the United States of America but a North American
Union of open borders. I ask you what form of government will we live under?
How long will it be before we will be just like Mexico, Canada or any of the
other Central American or South American countries? We have already lost our
language, everything must be printed in Spanish also. We have already lost our
history it is no longer taught in our schools. And we have lost our borders.
The leftist media has distorted what SB 1070 will do. It is not going to set
up a Nazi Germany. Are you kidding. The ACLU and the leftist courts will do
everything to protect those who are here illegally, but it was an effort to
try and stop illegal's from setting up businesses, and employment, and
receiving state services and give the ability to local law enforcement when
there is probable cause like a traffic stop to determine if they are here
legally. Federal law is very clear if you are here on a visa you must have
your papers on you at all times. That is the law. In Arizona all you need to
show you are a legal citizen is a driver license, MVD identification card,
Native American Card, or a Military ID. This is what you need to vote, get a
hunting license, etc.. So nothing new has been added to this law. No one is
going to be stopped walking down the street etc... The Socialist who are in
power in DC are angry because we dare try and do something and that something
the Socialist wants us to do is just let them come. They want the
"Transformation" to continue.
Maybe it is too late to save America. Maybe we are not worthy of freedom
anymore. But as an elected official I must try to do what I can to protect our
Constitutional Republic. Living in America is not a right just because you can
walk across the border. Being an American is a responsibility and it comes by
respecting and upholding the Constitution the law of our land which says what
you must do to be a citizen of this country. Freedom is not free.
BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).
He is not eligible
because he was not born of
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH
as required by the Constitution.
Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:
‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “
The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:
Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.
Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS
“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”
If you really want to understand the difference between the technical terms natural born citizen, native born citizen, naturalized citizen and just plain citizen, go to:
And if you really want to understand why it is necessary for a man to be a natural born citizen of the United States in order to be President of the United States, read the essay by Leo Donofrio at:
And if you did not know that in additional to Obama being ineligible to be president because of his nationality, did you
know that he is a Muslim: