NYT's Preston Again Points to Protests to Suggest AZ Immigration Law Unpopular, Ignoring Actual Poll Data
Just as she did on Wednesday, the New York Times's pro-amnesty immigration reporter Julia Preston portrayed Arizona's popular crackdown on illegal immigration (now before the Supreme Court) as controversial in "A Hearing And Rallies Over a Law In Arizona." Thursday's edition also featured an above-the-fold front-page photo of a stoic Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer passing "opponents of her state's immigration law outside the Supreme Court."
Hundreds of chanting demonstrators filled the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court on Wednesday, denouncing an Arizona immigration law that was under debate inside, saying it would spread fear among Latinos in the state.
Protesters from Latino communities in Arizona, carrying crosses and images of the Virgin of Guadalupe, the patroness of Mexico, called on the justices to strike down the disputed provisions of the law, warning that they could unleash a wave of discrimination in the state.
But while the protesters, who also included labor and religious groups, denounced the civil rights abuses they said the law would bring, inside the court questions asked by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. early in the arguments clarified that the case did not directly concern racial profiling or other rights claims.
Preston used scattered protests to suggest the act was unpopular, though a recent Quinnipiac poll shows voters by 62-27 percent think the Supreme Court should uphold the law.
In Washington and around the country, protests against Arizona were far more numerous than public actions in support. Demonstrators in Washington chanted civil rights-era songs, and clergy members in white robes from several faiths led a silent march around the court building.
Georgina Sanchez, a protester who came from Phoenix, said families there that included illegal immigrants were worried the court would uphold the law. “The children live in fear that their parents will not come home one day,” she told the crowd.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
it is the New York Times
Submitted by John21 on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 1:37pm.
The New York Times demands that its journalist quote the DNC/Liberal talking points on all reports even if they are total fabrications.
Well, it is a controversial issue
Submitted by HockeyKid on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 1:49pm.
in the NYT newsroom, anyway.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
62 VS 27
Submitted by ROSSMAN on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 1:50pm.
THOSE #S SAY GO TO HELL YOU PUKING LIBERALS
Preston used scattered
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 1:50pm.
Preston used scattered protests to suggest the act was unpopular, though a recent Quinnipiac poll shows voters by 62-27 percent think the Supreme Court should uphold the law.
Who are you going to believe, Mr. Waters...Preston or that actual lying poll?
Liberals know the truth. The facts are a conspiracy.
Never, Never, Never
Submitted by rockyracoon on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 1:59pm.
Let the facts get in the way, and disrupt our agenda.
Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.
Wait!
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 2:09pm.
Religious groups?
Protesting the law?
You mean like the pro-life groups?
Aren't they evil?
This is the NYT peddling
Submitted by celator on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 2:10pm.
This is the NYT peddling false "news", as per usual. And they wonder why they are losing their shirt every week they publish that rag.
Chief Justice Roberts is correct
Submitted by MissMinPhx on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 2:24pm.
"But while the protesters, who also included labor and religious groups, denounced the civil rights abuses they said the law would bring, inside the court questions asked by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. early in the arguments clarified that the case did not directly concern racial profiling or other rights claims."
The court is not focusing on the potential for civil rights abuses or racial profiling because those are completely made up issues - they aren't real. SB 1070 clearly states that racial profiling is not allowed, spells out when it is acceptable and when it is not acceptable to ask for further clarification of someone's legal status. Officers are not allowed to determine suspicion based on a person's accent, skin color or even their clothing - suspicion is determined by a person's actions, for example, not providing police with a drivers license or id when pulled over, jumping out the car and running from police, etc.. The issue of the law leading to racial discrimination, fear, and unfair treatment of Hispanics is a purely made up issue - the law says just the opposite of what the protesters are claiming. Some of these protesters, I feel sorry for. They obviously have not read the bill, don't understand it and have been unfairly manipulated by people with an agenda. Some of these protesters actually believe police will be conducting deportations .... it's sad really that their misunderstanding of the bill is so deep and that their passion centers on a lie.
The truth is but a speed bump on the road to Progressiville
Submitted by powers2be on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 5:09pm.
Well stated MissMinPhx but in the 20th Century, truth stood on the side of the road of Progressive Way. It wasn't until talk radio and Fox News that truth began to present the Left with pesky traffic obstructions on their journey toward totalitarian control.
Naw, AZ bil is "populist." Holder's actions are controversial
Submitted by Gary Hall on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 3:54pm.
From day one, the Arizona illegal immigration enforcement bill was a very popular measure; in fact - let's call it populist.
In the heat of the moment - when the the radical fringe minorities were marching, when the liberal city councils around the country were threatening boycotts, when the White House, Obama, AG Holder and the Democratic leadership, and when their friends - the national MSM were spewing their race baiting vitriol, the very liberal/progressive Pew Center went right out polled the the people -- nationally.
Pew did what the national media had not done; they actually summarized those supposedly two most contentious measures in the bill (the ones Holder had not read and subsequently sued to blocked - the ones that the boycotts were over) and found that nationally:
• 73% said they backed a measure requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them,
• while 67% approve of allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify that they are in the country legally.
And
• just 25% support President Obama's immigration policy, which includes legalizing millions of unauthorized migrants
What the White House did - what Eric Holder did - those were the controversial actions.
The national media's coverage of the issue, from the fringe radical left, is even more controversial.
(;~/ gary
Ongoing lies
Submitted by Fredy on Thu, 04/26/2012 - 11:12pm.
The people that are seriously protesting the Arizona law are the ones that have yet to see through the lies of the Obama propagandists.
Of course, these propagandists include many of the people at the NYt.
For a dose of reality, NONE of the media, or public Obama, complaints have actually been discussed in the supreme court hearing.
We have reached the point that the protesters on the outside have no knowledge of the actual hearing being conducted on the inside.
The truth is that this is one of the saddest days in history of the US media.