Tag Archives: arizona law

Networks Offer Scant Coverage of Liberal DREAM Act, Frothed Over Arizona Immigration Bill

For much of the spring and summer, the big broadcast networks threw staff and airtime at covering Arizona's attempt to control its borders against rampant illegal immigration. Liberals detested Arizona's “harsh” new law, so the media elite reflexively treated it as a scandal in their coverage.

Crash! Inconvenient Facts Demolish Rachel Maddow’s Premise on Rationale for Arizona’s Anti-Illegals Law

Rachel Maddow has nothing but contempt for the so-called Southern strategy by which Republicans have allegedly courted the votes of Southern white males through veiled or overt race-baiting. Which makes it all the more peculiar for Maddow to engage in a Southwestern strategy of slandering Republicans as racist toward Latinos in order for her to garner votes for Democrats. Here is the most recent example of Maddow doing this, on her MSNBC show Aug. 12 and 13. On both nights, reporter Morgan Loew of the CBS affiliate KPHO in Phoenix was one of her guests. On her Aug. 12 show, Maddow described how three inmates escaped from Arizona State Prison in Kingman, the latest in a string of break-outs from privatized prisons in Arizona stretching back to 1996. Maddow then segued to saying this (first part of embedded video) — MADDOW: After this incredible record of achievement, after all of these prison escapes from private prisons, how did the state of Arizona decide to proceed with the issue of prison privatization? Even as prison privatization declines around the country, even as state budget cuts make it so that many states are closing facilities or reducing their sentencing guidelines so that fewer people are in prison altogether, how did the state of Arizona decide to proceed? As Maddow says this, the graphics on screen show a photo of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a map of Arizona and the capitalized word “INCARCERATION,” with “INC” set off in red font. MADDOW: Last year Arizona state officials moved legislation to try to privatize the whole state prison system! Arizona planned to seek bids from private companies for nine of the state’s 10 prison complexes. It was the first effort by a state to put its entire prison system under private control. Great news for the private prison companies, right? Great news in particular for Corrections Corporation of America, which is the single largest private prison company in the country. CCA already runs six detention facilities in Arizona. They hold prisoners from other states at their facilities in Arizona. They also hold the federal contract to hold federal detainees in the state. Here’s where Maddow makes her shabby insinuation, one that backfired after what Loew would soon reveal — MADDOW: So, you know what would be awesome for a company like that? You know what would be awesome, it would be really awesome for the shareholders and everybody? If the state of Arizona started producing a whole lot more federal detainees, people detained on federal issues. Federal issues like, I don’t know, say, immigration violations? Footage is then shown of Brewer signing SB 1070, Arizona’s anti-illegals law, as Maddow says … — MADDOW: Imagine the boon to the private for-profit prison company that has the contract to house federal detainees in Arizona if Arizona came up with a wacky plan to arrest a lot more people for suspected immigration violations. Imagine how awesome a law like SB 1070 would be for an industry like the for-profit private prison industry in Arizona. Maddow proceeded to air a report by Loew for KPHO in Phoenix, detailing how Brewer’s deputy chief of staff, Paul Senseman, is a former CCA lobbyist whose wife still lobbies for the company; and Brewer policy advisor Chuck Coughlin owns High Ground Public Affairs consulting, which represents CCA. (To see the Maddow segment in its entirety, link here ). In Loew’s report, Brewer was quoted as saying that Senseman “does not advise the governor on these issues”; CCA stated that it “did not lobby at any time … anyone in Arizona on the immigration law.” To remind viewers of her insinuation about Brewer’s rationale for signing SB 1070, Maddow added this — MADDOW: Then again, why would you need to lobby when two of the governor’s top people are your lobbyist, your former lobbyist, and/or married to your lobbyist? But after Maddow introduced Loew, and Loew rehashed the details of his reporting on Senseman, Coughlin and CCA, Loew mentioned this awkward fact right at the end of his interview with Maddow (second part of embedded video, starting at 1:56) — LOEW: In addition, in Arizona we have a mindset among a couple of key legislators that privatizing the prison industry is a good thing. As you mentioned, they tried to privatize the entire system last year. The governor did veto that after the state corrections director sent her a letter saying, look, we can’t imagine having death row inmates in private prison systems and having death row inmates being taken care of by the lowest common bidder. Excuse me, did you say “the governor” — by whom you mean Jan Brewer, correct? — vetoed the bill to privatize nearly all of Arizona’s state prisons? Shortly before she signed SB 1070, the law that would create vast penal colonies of suspected illegal immigrants? Apparently Brewer missed the memo on this fine-tuned, lucrative conspiracy. Maddow’s flimsy premise having been demolished before her eyes — by a simpatico guest, no less — she invited Loew back the next night to harrumph about links between Republican state senator Russell Pearce, a major backer of SB 1070, and the private prison industry. (full segment from Maddow show linked here ). Once again, Loew served up an inconvenient fact right at the end of his discussion with Maddow (third part of embedded video, starting at 2:28) — MADDOW: Morgan, am I also right that in thinking that Russell Pearce was the man behind the effort last year to privatize all of Arizona’s state prisons? LOEW: He was. He sponsored that legislation and we looked through his legislative record and it looks like as far back as 2003 he was pushing legislation that was calling for the privatization of state prison beds, I think 1,000 beds back in 2003, another 1,400 before that. But the biggest one is the bill that you just referred to, which would have handed over our entire prison system to the private prison industry. Now, that bill was vetoed but another bill passed that essentially did the same thing. Last year, our prison system would have, in a sense, most of it, would have been handed over to the private prison industry, but none of those companies would come forward to bid on them. Once again, this fine-tuned, lucrative conspiracy — thwarted by the alleged conspirators. 

See the rest here:
Crash! Inconvenient Facts Demolish Rachel Maddow’s Premise on Rationale for Arizona’s Anti-Illegals Law

CBS: ‘Tough’ Pennsylvania Immigration Law, Like ‘Controversial’ Arizona Law, Faces ‘Fierce Opposition’

On Saturday’s CBS Evening News, anchor Jeff Glor reported on an immigration protest in Boston: “…hundreds opposed to Arizona’s controversial immigration law protested the presence of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer at a meeting there.” One protestor held a sign that read: “Jan Brewer is a Bigot.” Glor then turned to a report on a similar immigration law proposed in Pennsylvania.   Correspondent Elaine Quijano explained how a CBS News poll showed 52% of Americans support the Arizona’s immigration law and that “other states are preparing to follow Arizona’s lead”: “In Pennsylvania, bipartisan measures to compel construction companies to check worker’s status are moving swiftly through the legislature.” She then warned: “Republican state representative Daryl Metcalfe wants to go further, introducing a tough measure modeled after Arizona’s law.” She went on to declare: “Metcalfe’s proposal is already facing fierce opposition.” Quijano described one source of that “fierce opposition,” the Democratic mayor of Philadelphia: “Michael Nutter says the solution lies with the federal government, not the states.” Nutter repeated Obama administration talking points on the issue: “We should not have a patchwork of immigration policies for every state in the United States of America. That’s insane.” Quijano added: “Nutter believes the law could create problems for law enforcement, making illegal immigrants afraid to report crimes to police.” In addition to highlighting Nutter’s objections to the proposal, Quijano began her report by describing the plight of one illegal immigrant from the state: “Every day 23 year-old Jose fears he could be deported. His parents brought him to America illegally from Mexico when he was two.” Quijano lamented: “He grew up in Pennsylvania, feeling every bit American, but it wasn’t until high school that he realized what it meant to be an illegal immigrant. That he could not pursue his dream of joining the Air Force.” While Quijano’s report featured five sound bites from Nutter and Jose, it only included two from state representative Metcalfe. She described how “Metcalfe argues illegal immigrants strain city and state budgets by siphoning off health and social services that Americans pay for.” In the clip that followed, Metcalfe argued: “For decades in the past the federal government has been AWOL in securing or borders and protecting American lives, liberty, and property, so we at the state level need to join together to do so.” Quijano concluded the segment by observing: “As politicians grapple with these issues, people like Jose wait and worry.” Jose remarked: “I don’t remember Mexico. To me this is my only home.” Quijano added: “A country that continues to struggle with this divisive issue.” Here is a full transcript of the July 10 report: 6:38PM JEFF GLOR: In Boston, hundreds opposed to Arizona’s controversial immigration law protested the presence of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer at a meeting there. The law’s facing legal challenges from the Justice Department. Arizona was the first, but likely will not be the last. Dozens of states right now are considering enacting similar immigration laws in the coming months. Elaine Quijano has this report from Pennsylvania. JOSE: We want to come out of the shadows. ELAINE QUIJANO: Every day 23 year-old Jose fears he could be deported. His parents brought him to America illegally from Mexico when he was two. He grew up in Pennsylvania, feeling every bit American, but it wasn’t until high school that he realized what it meant to be an illegal immigrant. That he could not pursue his dream of joining the Air Force. JOSE: I lost all hope. I said I can’t join the armed forces, I can’t get a good job. So basically I got pushed into the shadows like any other undocumented.      QUIJANO: Jose is one of the country’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, whose status is sparking heated debate. Debate and demonstrations have also interrupted over a new Arizona law allowing police to check the immigration of status of anyone suspected of being involved in crime. A recent CBS poll found a majority of Americans, 52%, support the law. Now other states are preparing to follow Arizona’s lead. In Pennsylvania, bipartisan measures to compel construction companies to check worker’s status are moving swiftly through the legislature. Republican state representative Daryl Metcalfe wants to go further, introducing a tough measure modeled after Arizona’s law. DARYL METCALFE: As a nation, we have to set a no amnesty policy and we have to be very black and white about that. That there’s no reward for violating our border. QUIJANO: Metcalfe’s proposal is already facing fierce opposition. Here in Philadelphia, where more than half of the immigrant population is illegal, Mayor Michael Nutter says the solution lies with the federal government, not the states. MICHAEL NUTTER: We should not have a patchwork of immigration policies for every state in the United States of America. That’s insane. QUIJANO: Nutter believes the law could create problems for law enforcement, making illegal immigrants afraid to report crimes to police. NUTTER: We do not want to send the wrong message to victims or witnesses. QUIJANO: But Representative Metcalfe argues illegal immigrants strain city and state budgets by siphoning off health and social services that Americans pay for. METCALFE: For decades in the past the federal government has been AWOL in securing or borders and protecting American lives, liberty, and property, so we at the state level need to join together to do so. QUIJANO: As politicians grapple with these issues, people like Jose wait and worry. JOSE: I don’t remember Mexico. To me this is my only home. QUIJANO: A country that continues to struggle with this divisive issue. Elaine Quijano, CBS News, Philadelphia.

Read more from the original source:
CBS: ‘Tough’ Pennsylvania Immigration Law, Like ‘Controversial’ Arizona Law, Faces ‘Fierce Opposition’

Dude, Where’s My Discrimination? Jake Tapper Notes Lack of Discrimination Charge in Arizona Lawsuit

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. — Thomas Jefferson, The United States Declaration of Independence. Oops! So what happened to all that discrimination and violation of civil rights that the Arizona immigration law was supposed to cause? Apparently the federal government decided it was so lacking that they didn’t include it in their lawsuit against the Arizona law. Jake Tapper of ABC News notes the distinct lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit: As widely anticipated, Attorney General Eric Holder today filed a lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer over the state’s immigration law. The suit seeks a preliminary injunction to stop the law from being implemented. The court filing states that Arizona law is pre-empted by federal law and therefore violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. The filing makes no assertion that the law is discriminatory or risks being applied in a discriminatory fashion, as the president and other officials said they feared would be the case. Interestingly, this suit makes no civil rights charges against the Arizona law. Huh? So what was all that liberal thunder about how discriminatory the Arizona immigration immigration law supposedly is? Apparently the U.S. Justice Department was unable to find such discrimination to use in its lawsuit. Instead, the federal government is taking the King George III approach when the states attempt to enforce laws neglected by the Crown, oops, I mean the Obama administration. The Associated Press also notes the embarrassing lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit: PHOENIX — The federal lawsuit against Arizona’s tough new immigration law focuses heavily on a question that has been in the spotlight repeatedly the past decade and dates back to the Founding Fathers: The right of the government to keep states from enacting laws that usurp federal authority. The lawsuit filed in Phoenix federal court on Tuesday sidestepped concerns about the potential for racial profiling and civil rights violations most often raised by immigration advocates. Experts said those are weaker arguments that don’t belong in a legal challenge brought by the White House to get the measure struck down. Weaker arguments? You can bet that if discrimination could have been detected in the Arizona immigration law, it would have been front and center in the federal lawsuit. So how are other MSM outlets handling the very notable lack of a discrimination charge in the federal lawsuit against Arizona? Very gingerly. The Washington Post article on this lawsuit is an example. The embarrassing absence of any discrimination charge is only mentioned towards the end of the story: Although the lawsuit cites potential “detention and harassment” of U.S. citizens and immigrants who do not carry identification documents, it declines to make a legal argument that the law would lead to racial profiling. But a senior Justice Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that if the law takes effect, “we will monitor it very, very closely, and if we become aware of any racial profiling or civil rights violations, that’s something that we would take action on.”  Shh! Let’s not focus on the lack of a racial profiling charge in the federal lawsuit against Arizona.

The rest is here:
Dude, Where’s My Discrimination? Jake Tapper Notes Lack of Discrimination Charge in Arizona Lawsuit

Arizona Writer Latest Journalist to Pass Through Media-Democrat Revolving Door

Investigative journalist John Dougherty of Arizona deserves a hand from everyone concerned with liberal media bias, because he has given it up. Dougherty, pictured right in a photo from his website, has, shall we say, crossed the border from being biassed to seeking the Democratic nomination for US Senate . In the late 80’s he was involved with uncovering Charles Keating’s use of campaign contributions to five senators-including John McCain, whom Dougherty would most likely face in an election-in exchange for putting pressure on banking regulators. He also investigated Governor Fife Symington, polygamist leader Warren Jeffs and Sherrif Joe Arpaio. Whatever else he has done in the past, Dougherty has already succesfully morphed into a politician, writing a blog for the Huffington Post on illegal immigration and its relationship to crime that directly contradicts the conclusions he reached in an article he wrote for the High County News. Dougherty told Jilted Journalists that, if elected, he would hire investigative reporters as his staff to investigate other politicians and that he “can’t wait to hold hearings at the US Senate.” He also said that he shares much of the Tea Party’s frustration with government, although “‘Government is not the problem, corrupt government is the problem,’ he said, blaming lobbyist spending for putting corporations and special interests ahead of people. Government needs to be ‘much more aggressive,’ ‘strong,’ and ‘tough,’ he said.” If elected, Dougherty would join a long line of journalists who sought public office: Senators Harry F. Byrd (both Senior and Junior), President Warren Harding, Clare Boothe Luce, Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes, William Randolph Hearst and even McCain’s challenger in the Arizona Republican Primary, JD Hayworth. As one of the most famous journalists ever to run for public office, Dave Barry once wrote: “And of course the most agonizing question is: Why, really, do I WANT to be president? Is it just so that I can have a limousine and a helicopter and a big plane and a huge staff of boot-licking lackeys waiting on me hand and foot? Yes.” That just about sums up the attraction of journalists to politics.

Read more:
Arizona Writer Latest Journalist to Pass Through Media-Democrat Revolving Door

David Weigel Explains Away Journolist E-mails by Claiming to be a Jerk

Former Washington Post writer David Weigel has attempted to explain away his Journolist e-mails attacking conservatives by claiming he was a trash-talking thoughtless jerk. If you think that self-damnation was bad, at least it was much better than admitting something even closer to the truth which would be that he deviously allowed people to think of him as a conservative. In fact, he is still lamely making that conservative claim in his Big Journalism article but first the jerk confession: …I treated the list like a dive bar, swaggering in and popping off about what was “really” happening out there, and snarking at conservatives. Why did I want these people to like me so much? Why did I assume that I needed to crack wise and rant about people who, usually for no more than five minutes were getting on my nerves? Because I was stupid and arrogant, and needlessly mean… Unfortunately, Weigel proved that he still remains a jerk by continuing to claim that he was somehow conservative: I interned at the libertarian Center for Individual Rights in the summer of 2001. I supported the Iraq War and crashed an anti-war protest on my campus. I voted in Republican primaries in 2002 and 2004. (Since I was in Illinois, I voted in 2004 for Jack Ryan to get the GOP’s nomination for Senate, to oppose Barack Obama. I’m better off than one of those guys.) Weigel still tries to convince us of his one-time conservative credentials despite the fact that in the three presidential elections since 2000 he voted for Nader, Kerry, and Obama. Gee! What a “conservative!” Despite his pretend conservatism, Weigel just can’t seem to understand why people think he has misrepresented himself: Still, this was hubris. It was the hubris of someone who rose — objectively speaking — a bit too fast, and someone who misunderstood a few things about his trade. It was also the hubris of someone who thought the best way to be annoyed about something was to do it publicly. This is the reason I’m surprised at commentary accusing me of misrepresenting myself. Except that liberal Journolist was supposed to be private and Weigel wrote there in the expectation that it would remain so. Dave’s misrepresentation mode continues. 

Read more here:
David Weigel Explains Away Journolist E-mails by Claiming to be a Jerk

Once Again, ‘Many Peaceful’ = ‘Some Violent’ When It Comes to Leftist Protesters in the NY Times

Violent protesters set fire to police cars and shattered store-front windows at the Group of 20 economic summit in Toronto this weekend. How did the New York Times, so skittish about the hypothetical threat of non-existent Tea Party violence from the right, react to actual violence committed by political protesters by the left-wing and anarchist groups? With more snort-worthy apologias for left-wing protesters being overwhelmingly “peaceful” in numerical terms Reporter Randal Archibold made a similar claim in his April 24 story from Phoenix at a protest against Arizona’s anti-immigration law, claiming that “hundreds of demonstrators massed, mostly peacefully, at the capitol plaza.” Local news in Phoenix reported three people were arrested during the immigration rally, including two seen throwing water bottles at police, and videos showed more lawlessness on display. The same defensive tone is present in Monday’s Business section story from Toronto, with the ludicrous headline ” Police in Toronto Criticized for Treatment of Protesters, Many Peaceful ,” by Ian Austen. Austen’s story is illustrated with a photo from the European Pressphoto Agency showing two policemen arresting a woman, but not photos shown elsewhere of burning cars, like the Associated Press photo by Frank Gunn above. Austen managed to fault the police both for initial passivity and subsequent overreaction: An escalation of aggressive police tactics toward even apparently peaceful protests at the Group of 20 summit meeting led to calls for a review of security activities . After allowing a small group of people to burn police cars and smash windows unimpeded on Saturday afternoon, many of the 20,000 police officers deployed in Toronto changed tactics that evening and during the last day of the gathering. There was a notable increase in both the numbers of police officers who surrounded demonstrations as well as more use of tear gas and rubber or plastic bullets. At the same time, there was a visible drop in the number of demonstrators in the city streets. As a result, the violence by some demonstrators that marred the opening of the Group of 20 meeting did not reappear on Sunday, and more than 600 people were arrested Saturday and Sunday. The Times seemed to miss the obvious connection: More police and more arrests = less crime. It’s one the Times has missed before, most notoriously in this headline from September 28, 1997: ” Crime Keeps On Falling; but Prisons Keep On Filling .” Unlike Archibold’s Arizona coverage, Austen didn’t ignore the violence on display in Toronto, though he did offer the same ludicrous apologia to this group of left-wing protesters that Archibold did to the ones in Arizona, writing that ” the overwhelming majority…were peaceful .” The violence was not exceptional compared with problems at previous international meetings, like the World Trade Organization’s gathering in Seattle in 1999 . Toronto’s shopping district sustained the greatest damage but quickly became something of a tourist attraction. But it was nevertheless extraordinary for Toronto, a city with little history of violent protests. David Miller, the city’s mayor, was among the many who swiftly condemned it. “Does today send signals about Toronto that I wish weren’t sent?” he said on Saturday evening. “Absolutely.” …. William Blair, the city’s police chief, did not respond directly to the widespread criticism over the lack of police response during the period of violence. But at a news conference, he suggested that officers were deliberately held back. The protesters, the overwhelming majority of whom were peaceful , promoted a variety of causes. Many were challenging the legitimacy of the Group of 20 and proposing that governments work through the United Nations. Others championed specific issues, particularly in relation to human rights and the environment.

Link:
Once Again, ‘Many Peaceful’ = ‘Some Violent’ When It Comes to Leftist Protesters in the NY Times

On Networks, ‘Controversial’ Law Means Conservative Law

Liberals may like to boast of fighting the establishment and taking on the status quo, but it’s conservative laws that are 30 times more likely to be deemed “controversial” – at least by the mainstream media. In the past five years, when ABC, CBS, or NBC news reporters claimed a law was “controversial,” they were most likely referring to legislation backed by the right. This analysis looked at 110 news transcripts dating back to 2005 where the term “controversial” fell within three words of the term “law.” Of these transcripts, 62 referred to policies that were clearly liberal or conservative. Of the 62 ideologically identifiable “controversial” laws, 60 were conservative and only two were liberal. Whether it was NBC’s “Today” on Jan. 2, 2008, referring to the “controversial new law in Arizona [where] businesses can be shut down if they intentionally hire illegal immigrants,” or ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Dec. 23, 2005, discussing the “extension of the Patriot Act just days before the controversial law was set to expire,” conservative policies seemed to be more hot-button issues for the media than liberal policies. Arizona’s illegal immigration reform act was by far the law most frequently described as “controversial” by the news networks. Though the Arizona law was passed just two months ago, it was described by networks as “controversial” in 56 percent of the liberal or conservative transcripts studied. But the “controversy” over the law is largely media-driven, according to Bob Dane of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Dane said the media have often mischaracterized the Arizona law. “I would say that the media has focused on all the wrong aspects of [the immigration law]. The criticism of the bill has been far more extreme than anything that is in the bill,” he said. Despite media claims that the law is “controversial,” polls show that Americans are solidly in favor of theArizona policy. After referring to “Arizona’s controversial new immigration law,” Brian Williams of NBC “Nightly News” on May 26 went on to report that “In our new NBC News/MSNBC/Telemundo national poll on this issue, we found 61 percent of people support the Arizona law, 36 percent oppose it.” By comparison, the networks branded few liberal laws as controversial. The recent health care reform law, which 55 percent of likely voters would like to see  repealed , wasn’t labeled “controversial” once. Neither was the auto bailout package, which 53 percent of Americans believe  was a bad idea. The only two liberal laws described as controversial in the transcripts were Oregon’s assisted suicide policy, which ABC’s “World News Tonight,” called controversial on Oct. 5, 2005, and a California law requiring serial numbers on bullets, which ABC’s “World News Sunday” called controversial on Oct. 14, 2007. Other conservative laws deemed controversial by the media included No Child Left Behind, a law banning partial-birth abortion and a law allowing oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Methodology: This study reviewed the transcripts of all 110 ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news transcripts, as well as NBC’s “Meet the Press” between June 1, 2005, and June 21, 2010, in which the term “controversial” was used within three words of “law.” Duplicate transcripts and those not referring to U.S. laws were excluded. Other transcripts were discarded for the following reasons: The term “controversial” did not modify the law or parts of the law referred to, or The transcript did not mention the name or a description of the law, or The law was called controversial by a guest or interviewee as opposed to a reporter, anchor, or host. The transcript referred to a law that was considered politically neutral (such as a driving regulation inConnecticutand laws banning certain dog breeds in various states). Of the 62 transcripts included in the final results of the study, all referred to policies that were clearly liberal or conservative. Sixty of the times reporters labeled a law controversial, it was a conservative policy and just two of the times it was a liberal policy.   Like this article? Sign up for “Culture Links,” CMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter, by  clicking   here.

See the original post:
On Networks, ‘Controversial’ Law Means Conservative Law