FACT CHECK FOLLOW-UP: As U.S. Presents, Today, Gov. Brewer's Anti-UN/Anti-White House/Pro-SB1070 Rant Proved False

It was 6 1/2 months ago that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer teed off on the Obama Administration for mentioning Arizona and the anti-illegal immigration SB1070 in its review of human rights in Arizona.  She decried the innocuous mention as "internationalism run amok and unconstitutional", and promised that Arizona would fight the attempt "to make an international human rights case out of SB1070". 

Today, the United States presents its response to the recommendations made by other countries, and will tell them that it flat out rejects the idea - made by Ecuador and echoed by others - that the U.S. should "Repeal and do not enforce discriminatory and racial laws such as Law SB 1070 of the State of Arizona."  And, that will basically be the end of that.  The report and the response will be approved, there will be no vote on whether the U.S. should be forced to repeal Arizona's law or sanctioned if it does not.  That is it.  An anti-climactic, yet completely predictable, end to something that the governor pretended was going to be an historic capitulation of the United States to the world.

The State Department released its response to the 228 recommendations made by other nations last week to little fanfare.  For most, the Administration expressed support, or rejected the rhetoric while supporting the principle.  However, the Ecuadoran recommendation was one of the 57 that the U.S. is flatly rejecting.  The comment: "(T)he Federal Executive Branch lacks the authority to repeal or refuse to enforce laws enacted at the State level."

The U.S. did respond favorably to other, more general recommendations touching on issues raised in the wake of SB1070.  For example, Guatemala, Bolivia, Mexico, Uruguay urged the U.S. to attempt to restrain state initiatives which encourage racial profiling and/or criminalizing people who cross the border without permission.  The U.S. response expressed support for the principle expressed in those recommendations in a very interesting way:

We will continue to both conduct human rights training and awareness campaigns and, where appropriate, bring civil or criminal actions regarding racial profiling, police brutality, and excessive use of force, and other actionable civil rights violations against immigrants. While unlawful presence in the U.S. is not a crime, and the federal government does not support state initiatives that aim to criminalize mere status, we cannot support the parts related to the “criminalization” of migrants, as certain immigration offenses are subject to criminal sanction, e.g., illegal entry. (emphasis added)

In August, we fact checked Gov. Brewer's letter and concluded that it was "completely misleading".  And, unless something completely unexpected occurs, today's proceedings will support that conclusion and prove to be a predictable anti-climax to the Governor's UN-and-Obama-bashing rant.


We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

State Department Explains Why It Mentioned Arizona In Report (full text and link below); Fox News Headline Misleading

[[Yesterday morning, we published our Fact Check Analysis on Gov. Brewer's "Indignant, Offended, Misleading" letter to (U.S.) Secretary of State Clinton demanding removal of the "unconstitutional" mention of Arizona's S.B. 1070 law.  In concluding that the letter was "COMPLETELY MISLEADING", we noted that it can only be seen as an effort to appeal to and motivate a segment of the electorate, to further endear herself to conservative media, and to foment misunderstanding and distrust of the federal government.  Well, Fox News was paying attention.]]

A reporter at the State Department's Daily Press Briefing stopped spokesperson Phillip Crowley just before he wrapped it up, and asked him about S.B. 1070's inclusion in the State Department's human rights Universal Periodic Review ("UPR").  (If you can identify this reporter, please let us know.)  She asked what the State Department's "motivation" was in the mention.
Mr. Crowley's response was as simple and low key as the original mention in the UPR (and was very similar to our postulation).  Here is the text (verified with the video)(text/video are at end of briefing, 35:18 in video):
 
QUESTION: Wait, P.J., can I get one question in? For Secretary Clinton’s UN report that was submitted August 20th, she talked about the Arizona immigration law. What was the motivation for putting that into the UN report?


MR. CROWLEY: Well, we had a process where teams went around the country, and during the course of the preparation of our report, the issue of the Arizona immigration law came up. And that’s the reason why it was included in the report.

We’re very proud of our human rights record. We think it’s second to none around the world. But the universal periodic review, we believe, can be a model to demonstrate to other countries – even other countries on the Human Rights Council – this is how you engage civil society. And where issues arise from a genuine discussion and debate within societies, there can be issues that are resolved under the rule of law. And the Arizona immigration law is a good example of how we are debating this as a society. There is a legal case ongoing, and this issue will be resolved under the rule of law.

QUESTION: Under federal law?

MR. CROWLEY: Under federal, yeah.



Fox News apparently gave this story heavy airplay yesterday, as well (I am guessing the reporter who asked the question of Crowley was thus a Fox reporter or producer.)  According to this article, Fox interviewed both Gov. Brewer and Republican state Sen. Frank Antenori (Fox misspelled Mr. Antenori's name; corrected here). 

Forgetting that Fox apparently did not feature a viewpoint different from Brewer's and Antenori's, the headline of Fox News' website article is that "State Department Stands By Decision to Include Arizona in U.N. Human Rights Report." (emphasis added)  That is a bit of a stretch.  Crowley was not asked to respond to Brewer's letter (or Antenori's equally-insulted remarks).  Crowley was not asked if the State Department would remove the mention from the report (as if that would keep someone else from raising the question).  He was asked to explain the back story, the motivation.  And, that is all that he did.