Fox host Bill O’Reilly searched around for a reason to support Arizona’s harsh new immigration law, and seemed to settle on the fact that there is a crime wave in Phoenix (5/3/10):
Arizona had to do something. In the capital city Phoenix, crime is totally out of control. For example, last year New York City– with six times as many residents as Phoenix–had just 16,000 more reported crimes. San Diego is the same size as Phoenix. It has 60 percent less crime.
There are only three small problems with this explanation.
For one, there’s no evidence that immigrants are liable to commit more crimes than anyone else; in fact, most research suggests it’s exactly the opposite. So the link between a law to arrest more undocumented immigrants and crime is hard to fathom.
The crime rate in Phoenix has been dropping— so it’s not “out of control” at all.
And O’Reilly’s statistical sleight of hand is the other problem. New York City has 16,000 more crimes than Phoenix, but is six times larger. Well, what does that prove? If O’Reilly were trying to make any senseat all, he’d be talking aboutper capita crime rates. But making comparisons between cities based on theFBI’s crime data is something they explicitly warn people not to do:
Individuals using these tabulations are cautioned against drawing conclusions by making direct comparisons between cities. Comparisons lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents.
And it might be worth mentioning that one of O’Reilly’s pointshere wasto attack the “flat-out dishonest” media coverage of the Arizona law.
When they saw “simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions,” a researcher working for Bill O’Reilly must have said, “Bingo!”
Perhaps according to Mr. Bill’s mangled mentality, since illegal immigration is, well, illegal, each undocumented immigrant has committed a crime by dint of simply being in this country.
“Harsh new Immigration law” – Harsh???? lol – What, so you get pulled over you have to show proof of citizenship? Big deal!? – In Afghanistan you get shot if you cross the border, and talk about hypocrisy! In Mexico you get automatic 2 years in jail – a second offense gets you 10 years. I’d say that Mexico’s laws are a bit more harsh.
Gregg J Says:
May 7th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
“Harsh new Immigration law” â┚¬“ Harsh???? lol â┚¬“ What, so you get pulled over you have to show proof of citizenship? Big deal!? â┚¬“ In Afghanistan you get shot if you cross the border, and talk about hypocrisy! In Mexico you get automatic 2 years in jail â┚¬“ a second offense gets you 10 years. I’d say that Mexico’s laws are a bit more harsh.
So really Gregg J, we’re falling behind, eh?
Simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions?
In MY Fox News?!?!?
Bilious O’Reilly speaks with forked hemorrhoid.
(Dennis Jones Says: So really Gregg J, we’re falling behind, eh?)
Dennis,
If Mexico has the below policy in place then YES – America is behind. Mexico need to take the log from their own eye before they can pluck the splinter in America’s. Now the operative word is IF the have those measures in place, then what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander. Arizona has every right to protect their “Borders”, just as Mexico. IF the below information is true.
Article posted here >http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632
Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
* Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)
* Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)
* Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)
* The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)
We are a nation of immigrants. If you rant and rave about immigrants, it’s time for us all to return to Europe. Unless you’re a Native American Indian, then join me as we all head for airports/steam ship offices and get the hell out of here!
We keep forgetting: undocumented anybody is ILLEGAL. Illegal anybody, (or anything) means against the law. Being or doing against the law used to be a crime. A nation ignoring laws is doomed.
I look at it this way …
If my ability to provide for myself and my family had been destroyed by the avaricious machinations of bastards in El Norte, and I was faced with the choice of our survival or committing an “illegal” act, I don’t think I’d worry much about “the law”.
Would you?
Does that describe every undocumented immigrant?
No.
Does it describe the vast majority?
It does.
And until our laws reflect that awful fact, and are more focused on remedying their plight than on protecting corporate profits, then folks are going to continue to come.
They don’t want to, not like this. The journey is arduous and dangerous. People die.
That’s not to discount the real problems – as opposed to the racist fantasies peddled by O’Reilly, Beck and the rest of the flag-waving charlatans – that arise from this situation. Some undocumented persons have committed crimes. They should be dealt with – justly.
And ultimately, justice lies in giving these people the chance to live decent lives in their homeland, and in treating those here humanely.
You know, the whole Golden Rule thingie.
I know this won’t convince the Tea Party crowd and their ilk of a blessed thing. They seek scapegoats, and calls to empathy are useless, aren’t they?
But sooner or later they’re going to have to realize that we’re all in the same sinking boat, and start bailing it out together, or be doomed to drown beneath the waves of their own wilful ignorance and lack of common humanity.
As for me …
Gimme a goddamn bucket.
emily horswill: “A nation ignoring laws is doomed.” Conveniently overlooking the the crimes of corporate America and presidents past and present:
Russel Mokhiber, editor of the Corporate Crime Reporter, estimates that white-collar crime costs the nation’s businesses and individuals at least $100 billion each year. (A sum, incidentally that is more than 10 times greater then the combined total from larcenies, robberies, burglaries, and auto thefts committed by individuals.) If you count other corporate underhandedness, such as monopolistic price fixing and the sale of faulty goods, the price tag jumps about $200 billion more. And the Justice Department estimates that â┚¬Ã…“taxpayers lose $10 to $20 billion when corporations violate federal regulations.â┚¬Ã‚Â
Corporate crime is so commonplace according to Mokhiber, that roughly two thirds of the country’s 500 largest companies were involved in some form of illegal behavior over a 10-year period. Despite such lawlessness, the white-collar detectives at the FBI do not track corporate crime regularly. â┚¬Ã…“The government can tell the public whether burglary is up or down in Los Angeles for any given month, but it cannot say the same about insider trading, midnight dumping, consumer defrauding, or illegal polluting.â┚¬Ã‚Â
Gen. Taguba: Bush Administration Committed War Crimes
The Army general who first investigated the abuse at Abu Ghraib has accused the Bush administration of committing war crimes. Retired Major General Antonio Taguba made the comment in a new report about US torture practices. Taguba wrote, â┚¬Ã…“The commander in chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture.â┚¬Ã‚ Taguba went on to say, â┚¬Ã…“The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.â┚¬Ã‚Â
Bush’s war, however, is a war of aggression. The U.S. policy supporting
the war is not the rule of law, but the rule of force. No UN resolution
and no Congressional resolution can legalize an illegal war. With pen to
paper and votes of support, they can only commit to willful
ratification, complicity and responsibility for illegal acts by
endorsing a criminal enterprise.
A war of aggression violates the United States Constitution, the United
Nations Charter, and the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal. It
violates the collective law of humanity that recognizes the immeasurable
harm and unconscionable human suffering when a country engages in wars
of aggression to advance its government’s perceived national interests.
Neither Congress nor the President has the right to engage the U.S. in a
war of aggression and any vote of endorsement, far from legalizing or
legitimizing global war plans, serves only as ratification of war
crimes. Under the principles of universal accountability established at
Nuremberg, “The fact that a person who committed an act which
constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or
responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility
under international law”….
Wednesday 16 June 2004
A group of more than 450 professors of law, international relations, and public policy – led by Harvard Law School faculty members – today sent a letter calling on Congress to hold accountable, through impeachment and removal if appropriate, civilian officials from the top of the Executive Branch on down for policies developed at high levels that have facilitated the recent abuses at Abu Ghraib.
Christine Desan, another organizer, stated: “As the letter emphasizes, there can be no doubt that the acts of abuse in Abu Ghraib prison constitute violations of both the domestic and international legal obligations of the U.S. and its agents. Executive Branch officials have admitted as much.”
08 August 2005 Issue
An FBI agent warned superiors in a memo three years ago that US officials who discussed plans to ship terror suspects to foreign nations that practice torture could be prosecuted for conspiring to violate US law.
Date: 2/24/2009 9:07:37 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: action@votersforpeace.org
Also this week, the International Commission of Jurists issued a report on counter-terrorism tactics and their impact on human rights. The highly respected Commission held 16 hearings in 40 countries in all parts of the world. The report described what it called “shocking” evidence of violations of law in the name of the “war on terror” that undermine human rights. The Commission pointed to “notorious counter-terrorism practices such as torture, disappearances, arbitrary and secret detention, unfair trials, and persistent impunity for gross human rights violations in many parts of the world.” While acknowledging the need to respond to terrorism, the report notes that established law is “being questioned and at times ignored, not only by regimes whose record for doing so is well known, but also by liberal democracies that used to be in the forefront of promoting and protecting human rights” – a reference to the United States.
As to right wing ranting about crime to justify the Arizona law:
Date: 5/7/2010 9:52:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Since the start of the debate over the immigration law, numerous conservatives have cited violent crime in Arizona as a reason the new law is important.
As Media Matters documented, Phoenix police chief Jack Harris rejected the conservative argument, pointing out that it’s not “true” that “the new law provides a tool for local law enforcement.” Others in law enforcement officials agree that the new law could distort police priorities. Additionally, despite the prevailing narrative among conservative media figures, crime rates in Arizona are at their lowest point in decades.
Promoting conservatives’ fearmongering over crime and immigration, Fox & Friends ran with an absurd “estimate” from Family Security Matters that there are “2,158 killed by illegals every year.” The “crude” statistic relied on baseless assumptions about immigrants’ crime rates. As we noted, less ridiculous studies have found that immigrants in general are less likely to be incarcerated, and there is no credible evidence that undocumented immigrants commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Other than that, though, it was very responsible of Fox News to run with this “estimate.”