After "so what" to racial profiling, Cafferty highlights and justifies racially charged rhetoric
Blog ››› ››› JEREMY HOLDEN
After responding to concerns about racial profiling in an Arizona immigration law with a "so what," CNN's Jack Cafferty asked viewers to weigh in on a question: "[W]hat should be done about border security if almost 20 percent of illegal immigrants entering Arizona from Mexico have criminal records?" He then chose to highlight five responses out of "several thousand" he received, including the sentiments that only "far left Latino whiners" opposed the policy -- which he permissively characterized as "racial profiling" -- and that "illegals" had turned "beautiful" and "prosperous" neighborhoods into "horrendous" "bordertown slums." He then proceded to defend and justify the emails he read.
Discussing an immigration law recently passed by the state senate in Arizona, Cafferty stated:
The state senate has passed a tough new immigration law that will force police to arrest people who can't prove they're in the country legally.
Now critics say that would lead to racial profiling.
Well, so what?
The state's governor has five days to either veto the bill or sign it into law.
Do the right thing, governor.
Cafferty then asked viewers to weigh in on a question: "[W]hat should be done about border security if almost 20 percent of illegal immigrants entering Arizona from Mexico have criminal records?"
Cafferty later stated that he received "several thousand" responses to his question. Of those, he selected five to share with CNN's audience. One of those appeared to oppose the policy; four supported the policy. Among those he highlighted that supported the policy was a response that included the claim that, "[t]he segment of society that's howling about the potential for some real immigration oversight is the far left Latino whiners who don't want to be profiled simply because massive numbers of their illegal voters might be asked to leave the country that they have entered illegally." Another response Cafferty chose to share complained about "previously prosperous neighborhoods being turned into bordertown slums by illegal immigrants who have absolutely no investment in this country." Cafferty concluded his sample:
And Sam writes from California: "I lived in a small town on the eastern slope of the high sierra for 30 years. It was beautiful. We didn't lock our doors. There was no crime. Until the illegals came to town. They are now over half the total population, living 20 to a house. Now there is crime. The hospital's about to go out of business because of the cost of providing care to the women who bear five or six children as quickly as they can. It is horrendous. Illegals have taken advantage of America, and it must stop now."
At this point, Cafferty actively justified these sentiments. After host Candy Crowley cited the "theory, everybody's theory, probably, that people say things in an e-mail that they probably wouldn't say to you sitting on TV," Cafferty stated:
Well, you know, I don't know. They -- they talk to me in what I'd like to think are pretty honest tones on both sides on most of the issues, but this particular issue has a lot of people fed up, for wont of a better phrase. The government won't address it and there are communities that have been destroyed economically and socially by the influx of people who are shouldn't be here.