Andrew Malcolm's write-up of a polling about the new Arizona law directing police to question the immigration status of those they stop crystalizes my concerns with the way that law has been described in the media.

Malcolm describes the law as “Arizona's tough illegal-immigrant law” -- a loaded description that I fear could skew public attitudes about the law.

First, “tough” generally has positive connotations in this kind of context. It isn't a neutral term, just as “draconian” wouldn't be.

More importantly, labeling the measure an “illegal-immigrant law” isn't really accurate. The law doesn't merely address how Arizona treats those who are in the state unlawfully; it addresses the state's treatment of everyone, fourth-generation Arizonans included.

If there was a law that instructed police to conduct nightly searches of every home in America to look for murder weapons, I sure wouldn't call it a “murder law,” and hope nobody else would, either.

Describing the Arizona law as an “illegal-immigrant law” falsely implies that it only affects those who are in the state illegally. And that likely skews public opinion since, for better or worse, there is likely a sizable chunk of the population that supports treatment of “illegal immigrants” that they would not want to be applied to fourth-generation Arizonan citizens.

Malcolm's post is based on a Pew poll that, he writes, “finds fully 73% of the country thinks police requesting immigration status documents is fine, while 67% think detaining someone for a status check is OK.”

But the Pew poll primes respondents to favor the law. Here's how Pew's questionnaire (PDF) introduces the topic:

The state of Arizona recently passed a law dealing with illegal immigration. As I describe some parts of the law, tell me if you approve or disapprove of each. (First/Next) do you approve or disapprove of …

That first sentence tells respondents that the law is a measure “dealing with illegal immigration” -- that presumably primes them to be supportive of what follows. Again, it isn't a law “dealing with illegal immigration” -- it's a law that “deals with” everyone in Arizona. And “deals with” suggests that the law is effective -- something many Arizona law enforcement officials, among others, dispute. Given the way Pew sets the question up, it's no wonder they found support for the law.

Clearly, Malcolm's “illegal-immigrant law” phrasing is loaded and misleading. So how should the media describe the law? “Immigration law” is a far better description -- and Media Matters has used it, as have I -- but it still seems imperfect. It obscures the fact that this is a law that affects all Arizonans. If anyone has better suggestions, I'd love to hear them.