On The O'Reilly Factor, guest host Laura Ingraham discussed the June 25 Supreme Court ruling striking down several parts of Arizona's immigration law. While talking to Chuck Rocha of the American Worker Latino Project, Ingraham used phony statistics to smear immigrants as criminals and fearmongered about an immigrant invasion that isn't happening.
While talking to Rocha, Ingraham implied immigrants commit more crimes than native-born Americans, citing anecdotes about crimes committed by undocumented immigrants and concluding with the dubious claim that "13 or 12 people a day" "are killed under DUIs by illegals":
INGRAHAM: A lot of these people just say, you know, look, my kids' school has crowded classrooms. Our health care costs are still ballooning. We just had this case just a few months ago in Chicago -- this guy wasn't deported. He ended up running over a 66-year-old insurance salesman -- 66-year-old man dead because this illegal immigrant was not reported to ICE, and he was never deported. We have people killed all over this country. Girls raped, little baby girls raped in Escondido, horrible story over the last six months. What do you say to those families?
ROCHA: I say to those families that you are talking about just a small portion of the immigrants who are here.
INGRAHAM: Doesn't feel small to the mother whose daughter was raped by an illegal immigrant, does it?
ROCHA: That's right. That person should be deported and should be dealt with by every extent of the law.
ROCHA: Let's be clear that we have 12 million immigrants that are in this nation. There's going to be a small portion of that just like a small portion who are here legally, who were born here --
INGRAHAM: Right, but the point is, they were born here. And crime is crime. But when people weren't supposed to be here in the first place, that crime would have never been committed. Isn't that the case?
ROCHA: That is the case to a certain extent.
INGRAHAM: No. To a -- that is the case. Is it not?
ROCHA: No, no. No, it's not the case. We have a broken system.
INGRAHAM: So the people -- the 13 or 12 people a day who are killed under DUIs by illegals -- those people would be alive if our immigration laws were enforced.
This would be indeed be shocking if true, since it would mean that almost half of DUI fatalities in the United States were caused by undocumented immigrants, who make up an estimated 4 percent of the population.
Fox News reacted to news that the Supreme Court struck down most of Arizona's controversial immigration bill, SB 1070, by citing arguments that the one provision that was not immediately thrown out is "the heart of the entire bill," while Fox Nation claimed the decision was a "defeat for Obama." Fox's attempt to find a silver lining is unsurprising, as it has long been a staunch supporter of the statute. But the court's decision was overwhelmingly against the bill and the remaining provision could eventually be overturned.
In their decision today, the Supreme Court invalidated sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of SB 1070, ruling that Arizona did not have the authority to make status as an undocumented immigrant a state crime, to make it illegal for them to work in the state, and most importantly, that state law enforcement officials cannot arrest any individual on the sole basis that they have probable cause to believe the individual is in the country illegally. The one provision, 2(B), that was not immediately thrown out, allows law enforcement to check the immigration status of people arrested for other crimes, but left open the possibility that the statute could be invalidated at a later point. In his opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted:
There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced. At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law.
This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.
SCOTUSblog explained that the ruling of the court means that 2(B) can be invalidated later if enforced in a unconstitutional way:
Police Checks. Section 2(B) of the law requires the police to check the immigration status of persons whom they arrest before releasing them. It also allows the police to stop and arrest anyone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant. The Court held that the lower courts were wrong to prevent this provision from going into effect while its lawfulness is being litigated. It was not sufficiently clear that the provision would be held preempted, the Court held. The Court took pains to point out that the law, on its face, prohibits stops based on race or national origin and provides that the stops must be conducted consistent with federal immigration and civil rights laws. However, it held open that the provision could eventually be invalidated after trial.
This morning Fox Nation and Fox News Latino once again provided dramatically different views of the same immigration news story, demonstrating the palpable tension between the two Fox websites and their audiences. The far-right, anti-immigrant Fox Nation declared the Supreme Court's ruling today on Arizona's immigration law a "defeat for Obama" because the ruling supposedly "upholds part" of the law, while Fox News Latino's headline focused on the court "strik[ing] down 3 of 4 provisions" of the law.
Fox News initially claimed that the United States Supreme Court's ruling on Arizona's immigration law was a "defeat for Obama," linking to an article from News Corps. wire service, Newscore:
This article no longer appears on Fox Nation, having been replaced by a June 25 Wall Street article that Fox Nation titled "U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Controversial Part of Tough Arizona Immigration Law."
Fox News Latino, by contrast, headlined their report "Supreme Court Strikes Down 3 of 4 Provisions of Arizona Immigration Law." The article also explained that the Court "left standing...the 'check your papers' provision of the law." The article included the below image:
After President Obama announced that the U.S. will stop deporting certain young immigrants, Fox News figures have accused President Obama of undercutting Republican Sen. Marco Rubio's attempt to pass legislation reportedly similar to the DREAM Act. In fact, Obama and Democrats attempted to pass the DREAM Act in 2010, before being blocked by Senate Republicans.
Fox News has resorted to advancing an old falsehood to criticize President Obama's recent immigration policy change, claiming that his administration has failed to enforce immigration laws. In fact, the Obama administration's immigration enforcement policy has been so effective in the last three years that the New York Times recently remarked: "Mr. Obama's record on deportations has not been matched since the 1950s, with nearly 400,000 foreigners removed in each year of his term."
Indeed, during Obama's three years in office, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported more than 1.1 million undocumented immigrants. The annual average number of deportations under Obama is twice the annual average from President Bush's first term, and 30 percent higher than Bush's average when he left office. The removal of undocumented immigrants has steadily risen since Obama took office.
More specifically, deportations of undocumented immigrants who have criminal convictions have risen 89 percent since 2008.
But since Obama announced the immigration policy shift, Fox has conveniently ignored these facts in favor of amplifying the Republican message that under Obama, the United States is "the only country in the world that does not enforce its immigration laws," as Sen. Marco Rubio claimed last night on Fox News' Hannity.
Funny thing about the Daily Caller: they've never been wrong.
That seems to be their official stance, at least. Even when they are spectacularly in error -- something that happens to every news org now and again -- Tucker Carlson and his retinue will get right in your face and tell you nope, you're wrong, we're right.
Consider the flap over Daily Caller reporter Neil Munro's absurd outburst during President Obama's June 15 statement on the new immigration policy. Nearly every observer, regardless of ideology, agrees that Munro acted unprofessionally, and disrespected himself and his organization. But not Tucker Carlson: "A good reporter gets the story. We're proud of Neil Munro."
Standing by your own is one thing, but this goes beyond merely circling the wagons. Carlson is arguing that Munro behaved as a reporter should -- that he "got the story." This praise is belied by the actual story Munro wrote, which contained little substance, barely touched on the policy at issue, and lacked detail (probably because Munro didn't do any actual reporting while he was at the White House).
Acknowledging miscues is part of the professional news business, but this screw-the-world counterfactual stubbornness is the Daily Caller's go-to response for those moments when they cross the line.
Last September, Daily Caller reporter Matthew Boyle wrote a piece claiming that the Environmental Protection Agency is "asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats -- at a cost of $21 billion -- to attempt to implement" new greenhouse gas regulations. Boyle's source, a court brief filed by the EPA, actually said the exact opposite: the EPA had issued a rule in May 2010 that allowed the agency to avoid that scenario. Boyle misread the document and got the story completely wrong.
After various media outlets weighed in and confirmed that the Daily Caller had botched the report, executive editor David Martosko penned an editorial note lashing out at critics and declaring: "Our news story was well reported, carefully sourced, and solidly written. Despite the criticisms that some have offered, we haven't changed a word." Defiance notwithstanding, his rationalization for not correcting the story didn't hold up.
Defending the story to Politico, Martosko argued, essentially, that the story had to be right because the EPA is government and government is bad: "What's more likely: that the Obama administration's EPA wants to limit its own power, or that it's interested in dramatically increasing its reach and budget? Anyone who has spent more than a few months in Washington knows the answer."
From the June 19 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Loading the player reg...
In April 2011, the New York Times detailed the connections between John Tanton, the notorious kingpin of the current anti-immigrant movement in America, and two anti-immigrant organizations -- the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) -- famous for their powerful influence over immigration-related legislation at the state and federal levels. Despite finding that Tanton "nurtured" FAIR and CIS into power and documenting Tanton's extensive connections to white supremacists, the Times continued to look to these groups for contributions to the immigration debate.
A recent Media Matters study found that anti-immigrant groups with strong ties to white supremacist organizations, FAIR and CIS among others, were cited by the nation's top five newspapers, as well as the Associated Press and Reuters, over 250 times as sources for immigration-related stories.
The New York Times in particular cited these groups 46 times as sources for their news stories since the introduction of Arizona's controversial immigration law, SB 1070, in January 2010. However, in April 2011, the Times changed course and published two exposés detailing the extensive ties between many of these groups and the aforementioned Tanton. From The New York Times:
One group that Dr. Tanton nurtured, Numbers USA, doomed President George W. Bush's legalization plan four years ago by overwhelming Congress with protest calls. Another, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, helped draft the Arizona law last year to give the police new power to identify and detain illegal immigrants.
A third organization, the Center for Immigration Studies, joined the others in December in defeating the Dream Act, which sought to legalize some people brought to the United States illegally as children.
"One of my prime concerns," he wrote to a large donor, "is about the decline of folks who look like you and me." He warned a friend that "for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that."
Dr. Tanton acknowledged the shift from his earlier, colorblind arguments, but the "uncomfortable truth," he wrote, was that those arguments had failed. With a million or more immigrants coming each year -- perhaps a third illegally -- he warned, "The end may be nearer than we think."
He corresponded with Sam G. Dickson, a Georgia lawyer for the Ku Klux Klan, who sits on the board of The Barnes Review, a magazine that, among other things, questions "the so-called Holocaust." Dr. Tanton promoted the work of Jared Taylor, whose magazine, American Renaissance, warned: "America is an increasingly dangerous and disagreeable place because of growing numbers of blacks and Hispanics." (To Mr. Taylor, Dr. Tanton wrote, "You are saying a lot of things that need to be said.")
Despite publishing this article on April 17, 2011, and another on April 30, 2011 (explaining that soon after its first piece, Tanton's name was scrubbed from FAIR's list of board members), the Times did not stop citing these organizations -- and the paper's subsequent references to the groups fail to note the organizations' affiliations to Tanton and the pro-white movement, according to a Media Matters analysis of coverage between January 13, 2010, and May 25, 2012.
In fact, after publishing these exposés, the Times cited FAIR and CIS more than 15 times during the next year. Instead of explaining these groups' unsavory connections, the Times opted for more generic characterizations such as "a conservative group" and "a group that seeks reduced immigration," essentially whitewashing the groups' troubling records which the Times had dedicated two articles to exposing.
It's unlikely the Times would cite white nationalist organizations as credible sources for their news stories on immigration policy, so why are they allowing FAIR and CIS a pass?
For details on the methodology and other information in the Media Matters report, click here.
As anti-immigrant legislation has flooded state houses from coast to coast over the past two years -- culminating most notably with the Supreme Court's review of Arizona's controversial SB 1070 -- the nation's print media have given voice to the anti-immigrant special interest groups cheerleading (and in some cases orchestrating) these initiatives. Many of these groups have ties to white nationalist organizations and racists, and at least one has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. These extremist ties have not prevented the nation's most respected newspapers, as well as the Associated Press and Reuters, from citing the institutions as authorities on the immigration debate.
In fact, a Media Matters analysis of news coverage since SB 1070's introduction in January 2010 has discovered that the nation's top five newspapers (New York Times, L.A. Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post), the Associated Press, and Reuters have cited these groups over 250 times. Over that period, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia, among other states, have introduced strict immigration bills that -- by their introduction alone -- have been met with a measure of success.
If print media plays a part in shaping public opinion, isn't it fair to ask whether the normalization of these extremist groups in the pages of America's daily papers has advantaged the ability of anti-immigrant measures to reach fruition?
For details on the methodology and other information in the Media Matters report, click here.
Arizona's controversial immigration law, SB 1070, was introduced in January 2010. Since then, in their coverage of immigration issues America's top five newspapers and the Associated Press and Reuters newswires have cited anti-immigrant organizations with ties to white supremacists and racists -- including one that has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center -- over 250 times.
Following the Obama administration's announcement that it will grant certain undocumented immigrants the chance to be exempted from deportation, Fox News claimed President Obama had issued the decision as an executive order, implying he did so to circumvent Congress. In fact, the change is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion that is consistent with the current law and has decades of precedent.
The Department of Homeland Security announced a change in immigration policy on Friday that will potentially exempt certain undocumented immigrants from deportation and afford them the ability to work here legally. The change will largely affect some 800,000 immigrants who first entered the country as children provided they meet certain requirements of education or military service. While the change was greeted with a fair amount of criticism, mostly directed at President Obama, Fox News used the opportunity to dehumanize undocumented immigrants.
A Media Matters review of Fox News' June 15* coverage of the policy change found that the network repeatedly used the racial slurs "illegals" and "illegal aliens" in their reports or discussions on the change. We also found one instance of a Fox News host using the word "aliens" while commenting on the issue.
The Obama administration has announced that it will allow some young undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States. In response, right-wing bloggers are falsely suggesting that this policy change is evidence that President Obama is "putting politics above national security and the rule of law" and "acting like a king." In fact, the change is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion that is consistent with the current law and has decades of precedent.
Today's announcement that the Obama administration "will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives" (per the Associated Press) offers an excellent glimpse at how that tension plays out.
Republishing the AP write-up, Fox News Latino used the staid headline "Obama Administration Halts Deportations for Undocumented Children," and attached a photo of a DREAM Act activist in front of the Capitol:
Fox Nation also republished an AP write-up, but their headline and photo selection* spoke to a different tone and audience:
*UPDATE: Fox Nation has since removed the photo from the article, though the photo still appears on their main page.
This Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court will decide if portions of Arizona's controversial immigration enforcement law, Senate Bill 1070, are inconsistent with federal law and therefore must be struck down. Fox has taken this opportunity to push misleading talking points about Arizona's immigration enforcement law and to continue to fearmonger about crime in Arizona.