By Bradley J. Fikes
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa gave a press conference on April 29 that contained a string of lies, non-sequiturs and an eye-popping gaffe about Arizona’s new immigration law.
He began in the spirit of Joe McCarthy by calling the law “unpatriotic” and “un-American”. He also called it “unconstitutional.”
The latter charge was a bit rich coming from Villaraigosa, who failed the bar exam four times and is not an attorney.
Villaraigosa went on to charge that the law required police to “stop anyone suspected of being in our country illegally”. The text of the law (PDF) says no such thing. It says that in any “lawful contact” (since clarified to “lawful stop, detention or arrest”), a police officer must check the status of anyone they have a “reasonable suspicion” of being in the country illegally, “if practicable”.
Villaraigosa’s biggest howler was to criticize the law because it “allows law enforcement to make arrests without a warrant.”
Just read that over and let it sink in. On the John & Ken Show at KFI in Los Angeles, John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou had a great time tearing the whole statement to shreds.
You can listen to an abbreviated sound clip I made, about 30 seconds, here. Listen to a longer clip, about 2 minutes, here.
For the entire John & Ken podcast about this (8.5 megabytes), click here.
Most of the media reported Villaraigosa’s egregious falsehoods without challenging them. Here is one such story from Southern California Public Radio.
Digression alert
Here’s a “fact check” Twitter post from KPBS border reporter Amy Isackson, saying the Arizona law “compels AZ police to ask people for their documents if police have any suspicion the person might be in the US illegally.”
I don’t know where Isackson is getting that from, certainly not from the law itself. I Tweeted a question to her about that, and she replied: “SB1070 Section 2.B talks about how police must attempt to determine a person’s immigration status”
Let’s take a look at the pertinent passage (this includes the “lawful contact” provision that has since been clarified). I am boldfacing key words:
FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
So let’s see, “lawful contact” . . . “reasonable suspicion” . . . “reasonable attempt shall be made when practicable” in the bill becomes in Isackson’s version “must attempt” on “any suspicion”. The term “any suspicion” isn’t even found in the bill.
I fact-checked this on the blog Patterico with an attorney, and click here for the entire reply.
The use of the term “shall be made” is mandatory, not permissive, but IMO the qualifiers (”reasonable attempt” and “when practicable” and “except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation”) make this largely a matter of law enforcement discretion.
If Isackson has some other source for her opinion, she didn’t provide it.
Worst of all, Isackson labeled the tweet “fact check.” If a reporter presumes to do a “fact check”, the facts had better be unquestionably right.
Now back to J&K
The traditional media looks down on John & Ken because of their admittedly histrionic and at times over-the-top antics. But J&K also challenge the lies and misrepresentations that most of the media won’t.
They’ve pointed out the boycott hype (brief MP3 clip) over the Arizona law. That hype involves the city of LA making threats it probably can’t carry out, such as breaking contracts with companies in the state. One of those contracts provides electricity for the city’s Department of Water and Power.
So here’s another sound clip from John & Ken, challenging the media to do better on the Arizona law.
We need real reporters, not inaccurate sob-storytellers and stenographers.
UPDATE: Here’s another example of less-than-stellar journalism, from the Associated Press.
The article, by John S. Marshall, describes vandalism at what he called an “immigrant’s rights march” in Santa Cruz. Nowhere in the story is the word “illegal” or even the absurd euphemism “undocumented” even used to describe the illegal immigrants the protest was held for.
This post represents my personal opinion, and not necessarily that of my employer, the North County Times.