Fear and Bloviating in Arizona

A very interesting post from http://www.numbersusa.com/ about Arizona's 1070. This follows this post about Senators who are doing nothing to stop bringing in immigrants to compete against unemployed Americans. This follows this post about Freshmen Congressmen who have not yet kept their immigration enforcement promises. This follows this post about Barack Obama's Amnesty Edict. This follows this post about the Black Caucus hurting Black Americans with their immigration stand. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read this very interesting book HERE!

Fear and Bloviating in Arizona






By Jeremy Beck - posted on NumbersUSA



In the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on Arizona's local immigration enforcement law, the executive director of the ACLU "said the group and its allies have amassed an $8.7 million war chest to fight state immigration enforcement," according to the Washington Post ("Supreme Court Ruling Fuels Fear in Arizona Hispanics as Challenges Loom").



In an email, the ACLU wrote, "When local police can stop and detain anyone they perceive as "foreign" because of their skin color, their accent or their surname, it is a watershed moment for civil rights." That description doesn't resemble anything in Arizona's law, but it distracts people from talking about immigration's impact on American workers. Anti-enforcement politicians quickly joined in the misinformation campaign:



President Obama: "No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like,” said Obama. ("Supreme Court Ruling Does Little to Quell Illegal Immigration Debate," New York Times);

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada: "Laws that legalize discrimination are not compatible with our nation's ideals and traditions of equal rights." ("Reactions: Members of Congress Weigh In," National Journal);

Rep. Joe Baca of California: "some Americans will be forced to prove their citizenship based on the color of their skin while others will stand little or chance of being affected" ("IMMIGRATION: Supreme Court upholds part of Arizona law," Press-Enterprise);

Arizona's law (you can read it here) prohibits racial profiling in four different places. Racial profiling played no part in the Supreme Court case, which was about federal preemption. However, as the media has widely reported, the Supreme Court's decision "does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect," as Justice Kennedy wrote.



Enforcement opponents have seized on that opening to make their claims. But Justice Kennedy also wrote that it would be "inappropriate to assume" that the upheld sections of the law "will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law." The media can do a better job of reporting that, which would go a long way to quell the fears and hysteria bred by the false claims from anti-enforcement camp.



Again, Justice Kennedy:



Three limits are built into the state provision. First, a detainee is presumed not to be an alien unlawfully present in the United States if he or she provides a valid Arizona drivers license or similar identification. Second, officers may not consider race, color or national origin . . . except to the extent permitted by the United States [and] Arizona Constitution[s]. Ibid. Third, the provisions must be implemented in a manner consistent with federal law regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens. (Emphasis added)



Opponents seem to be saying that the men and women tasked with enforcing Arizona's law - or any local law - will be either too inept or too corrupt to carry out their duties according to the law. Journalists must do a better job of clarifying that for readers while giving rank and file officers an opportunity to defend their reputations.



We have to wait to see what will happen in Arizona, but the results from Prince William County in Virginia, one of the early laboratories for local enforcement, prove that racial profiling rarely if ever comes into play.



Prince William passed a final version of their local enforcement ordinance in 2008, two years before S.B. 1070. The county's ordinance and Arizona's law are not copycats of each other, but they both elicited the same predictions that they would lead to rampant profiling.



The University of Virginia studied the effects of Prince William County's ordinance for three years, and the authors’ final report found that "most of [the possible] negative consequences did not occur..."



There was "no evidence of overzealous or inappropriate immigration enforcement actions by police."

The "flood of costly racial-profiling litigation that some had feared....never materialized."

There is "no evidence that its effectiveness [of the Police Department] has been hampered"

When reporters talk to enforcement opponents, they should keep this excerpt from "Look Before You Leap," by JJ Miller (National Review, May, 2010), in mind:



"One of the enforcement policy’s most outspoken critics is Nancy Lyall of Mexicans Without Borders, an immigrant-rights group. Since 2007, she has attacked Prince William’s tactics with a fervor that others have devoted to Arizona’s. When I asked whether she could identify a single case of a citizen or legal permanent resident, Hispanic or otherwise, who was mistakenly brought into custody because of racial profiling, she paused. Then she made a reluctant confession: 'No.'"



In "Latinos returning to Pr. William after immigration crackdown, but scars remain," the Washington Post noted that as of June 26, 2012, "just one complaint of racial profiling has been logged against the county and police department, and that it was dismissed in court."



The anti-enforcement crowd is like the boy who cried wolf. They strike fear in the hearts of people they claim to be concerned about. The media can either inform or provide a bullhorn.



Hispanic satisfaction with police and quality of life plummeted after Prince William County initially passed its ordinance. But after a couple of years, it had completely rebounded and equaled that of non-Hispanics. The media's negative coverage likely contributed to the initial drop. The University of Virginia authors noted that "Press coverage was continuous and sometimes shrill....There can be no doubt that this visible and rancorous community conflict played a role in the subsequent responses of some residents."



JEREMY BECK is the Director of the Media Standards Project for NumbersUSA



NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.