Skewed facts, figures, calculated to make its case that SB1070 irrelevant
If you know nothing else related to Arizona’s SB 1070, know this: News is being created — yes, created — daily — to fulfill a specific intent. It’s no coincidence that front page opinion pieces masquerading as news reports from the local newspaper tells us that there has been a “sea change” in the past two years since the signing of SB 1070, and asserting that interest in such laws has “waned.” Yesterday’s edition even used this catchy phrase ‘Some say having fewer immigrants has hurt Arizona’s economy.” Who those “some” are who say it remains a mystery.
This is classic Periódico de la República de Arizona (Arizona Republic) styling as it attempts to manipulate public opinion and perhaps even the justices as the issue of Arizona’s law reaches the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow. The case is Arizona v. United States.
Although the contrivances and creative writing are relentless, nothing could be further from the truth. Similar laws have already been passed by Alabama (HB 56), Georgia (HB 87), Indiana (SB 590), South Carolina, Indiana and Utah (HB 497) — all using Arizona’s law as a model. Eight other states Florida, Kentucky (SB 6) (SB 118), Missouri (SB 590) (HB 1549) Mississippi (HB488) (HB 56), North Carolina, Tennessee (HB 2191), Oklahoma (HB 1804) and Virginia (HB 1060) are seriously considering enacting such laws. Sixteen other states are giving strong consideration to similar legislation.
The newspaper is unable to write about Arizona’s SB 1070 without referring to our law as “controversial.” It is also called “anti-immigrant,” intentionally omitting the operative word “illegal.” Initially, it was referred to as the “Show me your papers” law — calculatedly and wrongly configured as Jim Crowish and anti-brown skinned people. For the past dozen or so years, we’ve been told the number of illegal aliens hovered around 10 million although thousands have been observed crossing the border weekly and the birth rate among those here in violation of our national sovereignty surpasses that of citizens. Yet truth takes a back seat when the agenda is open borders and the newspaper is pushing amnesty. One of our most popular links, titled “Lingo” provides assistance in deciphering the deceptive jargon the newspaper employs.
AZ Sen. Jon Kyl arrogantly bowed out of taking part in today’s Judiciary Committee hearing on our state law, saying the whole exercise — coming a day before the Supreme Court hears oral arguments — smacks of another effort to pressure the justices. Republican Kyl called it “strictly political theater.” He should know. He preferred to thumb his nose at Russell Pearce when his support would have been appreciated.
This Washington Post report, reveals activist scheming of Senate Democrats, led by New York liberal Sen. Charles Schumer, that is calculated to impact the presidential campaigns.
And so is what passes for news relentlessly emanating from the pages of the Periódico de la República de Arizona. The law it refers to as “controversial” is never called by its actual name, leaving many Arizonans unaware SB 1070 is actually titled “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.”