The recent Arizona immigration law (SB 1070) and subsequent media storm objecting to the law has really highlighted the way supposedly unbiased “news” media outlets manipulate facts. The new law has been dubbed the “papers please” law and likened to Nazi Germany. What commentators neglect to report is that Federal law from 1940 states that any immigrant in this country needs to have their immigration papers on their person while in the country (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)). This is no different than the law that Arizona just passed. What Arizona did was make the law a State law, not just a federal law, which enables State law enforcement officers to enforce the law. No matter which side of the debate you argue, the fact that the United States Federal government has required all immigrants to carry immigration papers on their person for the last 70 years is an appurtenant piece of information to the issue.
Rachel Maddow has an entire segment on her show titled “Papers Please,” which is completely misleading, but at least her show does not purport to be unbiased news. Maddow still should be held up to report all of the facts on an issue as she regularly requires of others. Its much worse that the large news sources, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, the Examiner, San Francisco Chronicle, (the list goes on) participate in this trend and pass off opinion as fact. The NY Times article referenced above does make brief mention of the federal law, but thats it, a brief mention in passing, and then an emphasis on all the people who object to the bill. This skewed presentation of the bill, doesn’t encourage readers to read all the fact and form an opinion, it tells the reader what their opinion should be. This is not news reporting.
The likening of Arizona’s immigration law to WWII Nazis is just outrageous. Besides the fact that US Federal law has had the so called “papers please” law on the books since the 1940s, the immigration law applies to all immigrants, regardless of gender, race or creed. While it is true that in Arizona and most states that border Mexico the immigration population are mostly Mexican nationals, not all immigrants in the state or the country at large are from Mexico. And the law applies to all immigrants. For major news sources to report this as fact rather than opinion or interpretation, is deceitful.
Mexico is also using the perception of an unbiased news media to spin their position on illegal immigration. Mexican officials released a statement not only renouncing the new Arizona law, but calling for boycotts. What the statement does not mention is Mexico’s own immigration policies. In Mexico to be an illegal immigrant is to commit a felony and infractions result in jail time. While the penalties for immigration infractions in Mexico were reduced in 2008, it was due to abuse of the law by law enforcement officials, not because of public outcry against racist and anti-immigration legislation. Pot, meet kettle, black is the new pink.
Media spin should not rule the political landscape of this country. Facts should. When our main sources of news–sources that present themselves as unbiased–leave out critical facts that reshape an issue entirely, we have a problem. Immigration is not the only issue in which the facts get left behind for the sake of juicy sound bites that make for entertainment, its just the latest hot topic.
I am not making an argument for or against the new immigration bill in Arizona. I am making an argument for main stream news sources to present facts not opinions.
Below are two articles I found that present some facts about SB 1070. Ironically, both are filed under “opinion.” I propose that you read all the facts and then decide for yourself what you think about the new immigration laws in Arizona, not be swayed by loud voices that claim to be unbiased, and are really not unbiased at all.
“What Arizona’s Immigration Law Really Says”
“Arizona Acts as Washington Dithers“
Related posts:
ITS REALY A QUESTION OF ENFORCEMENT. ARE NON-LATINOS GONNA BE FOUND TO BE REASONABLY SUSPICIOUS AT THE SAME RATE AND REASONS AS LATINOS? OF COURSE, THEY DONT HAVE TO BE, BUT WE NEED TO SEE WHAT THE BASES IN PRACTICE IS FOR FINDING A PERSON ESPECIALLY A LATINO REASONABLY SUSPICIOUS. IM LATINO NATURALIZED CITIZEN, LAWYER, PRINCETON-EDUCATED, DRIVE A NEW BMW VEHICLE AND RUN AT A NEARBY PARK VERY OFTEN; OFTEN I DO NOT CARRY MY LICENSE WHEN I RUN (PARK IS ONLY A MILE OR TWO AWAY, BUT TRAFFIC IS CRAZY AND ITS BETTER TO JUST MAKE SHORT DRIVE AND RUN 6 MILES AT THE PARK); THERE IS A COP WHO LOVES TO PULL OVER PEOPLE FOR FAILURE TO STOP AT A STOP SIGN LIBERALLY. AFTER HE STOPS ME, WHAT WOULD BE THE BASIS FOR FINDING ME REASONABLY SUSPICIOUS? MERELY THE FACT THAT I AM NOT CARRYING A LICENSE WITH ME LIKE SO MANY OF MY NON-LATINO FELLOW RUNNERS WHOM I KNOW? WOULD THEY GET ASKED? IF THE ANSWER TO THE LATTER IS NO, BUT TO ME YES, THEN THERE IS A 14TH AMENDMENT ISSUE HERE THAT SHOULD NOT SURVIVE SCRUTINY.
Much of your argument comes down to trusting our law enforcement. In the scenario you described, there are quite a few detail the officer can verify to make sure the information the driver provides is true. If the car’s registration is current, if the car is not reported as stolen, etc. If no other suspicion arise, we have to trust that the officer is just going to issue you, or any driver they pull over, a citation for driving without the physical driver’s license in the car, and move on. However, there is an issue with illegal immigrants who drive cars in the United States without a license. This is unsafe for the illegal driver as well the drivers around him or her. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Citizens of the United States are not just issued driver’s licenses when they reach a certain age, there is a process to prove that one is a capable driver. Much of the problem boils down to the Federal government ignoring the issues of immigration and how to process large groups of immigrants so that we have a record of the people in this country, who can be given the information they need to be successful contributors to the society in the United States. This goes right to my earlier argument about having a record of employees so that the government can ensure that employers are operating in accordance with the law and protecting employees.
Are there any news outlets that aren’t biased?
Absolutely the relating of a story is going to have some of the biases of its teller embedded within the story. However, journalism is supposed to be the telling of all sides of a story, not just one perspective. While a journalist cannot escape all bias, that should be the goal of the journalist, and therefore we should get as objective a story as possible. What is happening is that reporting the news has become reporting of opinions, many times as if those opinions are facts. With the new Arizona immigration law debate, there was so much opinion and emotion reported, that many of the facts got lost. If the news media only reports one side of a story, then we the reader get our opinions made for us, rather than having all of the information and deciding for ourselves.