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.

Did The Pope Read New Times' Cover Article On "Grinding Justice"?; Listen to NPR, Perhaps?; Vatican Calls For Suspension Of "Operation Streamline" At U.N. Forum

Earlier this afternoon, we reported on the draft report on the U.S.'s Universal Periodic Review (on human rights), and the recommendation that Arizona's S.B. 1070 anti-illegal immigration law be repealed or not enforced.  In preparing that story, we came across the following item of interest to Arizonans.

Hot on the heels of an extensive cover article by the Phoenix New Times and a three-part report on NPR about "Operation Streamline", the Vatican has used a United Nations forum to ask the United States government to suspend the program which tags captured illegal immigrants with criminal convictions.

Award-winning journalists have been reporting on the U.S. Border Patrol's "Operation Streamline" in the last several weeks.  Ted Robbins aired a three-part report on NPR's "Morning Edition" in September.  Stephen Lemons then published an extensive investigation on October 21 into how "Operation Streamline" was operating to push many illegal immigrants through the justice system. 

Fifteen days later, the United States was fielding compliments and complaints - questions and suggestions - about the status of human rights in the U.S. from the world community.  (Arizona's S.B. 1070 anti-illegal immigration law was one of the subjects brought up more than once.)

In the third segment of Friday's "interactive" session, a representative from the Catholic Church took the microphone to raise concerns about the U.S. program.  As the (draft) report - which came out today - states, "The Holy See noted that 'Operation Streamline' against irregular migrants should be suspended" while the U.S. debate about immigrants and their rights continues.

(Here is a link to watch the Vatican's statement and recommendations.)


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.

FACT CHECK FOLLOW-UP: U.S. Urged To "Repeal" Arizona's SB 1070; Human Rights Review Process Nearing End

On Friday, the world had a chance to compliment and criticize the United States' human rights practices.  Ecuador recommended that Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law SB 1070 should be "repeal(ed)".  The U.S. delegation noted that it is already in the courts and re-expressed "the commitment to advancing comprehensive immigration reform."

In August, the United States State Department filed its self-survey of the status of human rights in the U.S.  Near the end of that mostly-positive report, it noted the ongoing legal action surrounding Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law.  This upset Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who accused the Obama Administration of "trying to make an international human rights case" of SB 1070, and that it was "unconstitutional" and "internationalism run amok."  The State Department responded by noting that the federal court case (now before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) is a positive example of how a country should use the rule of law to deal with issues.

Arizona and SB 1070 did end up being discussed at the Working Group session on Friday, and thus being included in the (draft) report issued today.  The 228 recommendations and conclusions submitted by a large number of nations may be further responded to by the U.S. and will be forwarded to the U.N. Human Rights Council for rubber-stamping.  The U.S. will then act on some of the recommendations, reject others, and ignore the rest.  End of story.  There is no enforcement and there are no penalties.

Basically, the Universal Periodic Review ("UPR") is an opportunity to shine a light on every nation's human rights efforts and to give every nation and every NGO (non-governmental organization) a chance to sound off about each other.  For example, the United States made a number of recommendations when Iran was reviewed earlier this year; Iran rejected nearly all of them.

What happened on Friday? According to the draft report, "Mexico recognized the robust institutional infrastructure for the protection of human rights." (para. 19) There must have been some mention of Arizona in the first round of nation's statements, because the U.S. delegation virtually repeated its report word-for-word about SB 1070. (para. 37)

Discussion about racial profiling and immigration continued.  Later, the U.S. "assured delegations that it condemns racial and ethnic profiling in all of its forms, and is conducting a thorough review of policies and procedures to ensure that none of its law enforcement practices improperly target individuals based on race or ethnicity." (para. 72)  Regarding immigration, the U.S. stated that "it is committed to improving its immigration system", while noting that more than 9.4 million people have either become permanent residents (5.5M), naturalized citizens (3.5M) or resettled/granted asylum (nearly 425,000) in the U.S. in the past five years. (para. 73).

The draft report then turns to the recommendations and/or conclusions noted by the different nations.  Haiti urged the U.S. to ratify the 1990 "International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families". (para. 15).  A number of countries joined in on that suggestion, mainly from Central and South America.

Four countries then made recommendations which appeared to be referencing SB 1070.  Guatemala, Bolivia, Mexico, Uruguay urged the U.S. to attempt to restrain state initiatives which encourage racial profiling. (paras. 79, 101, 105, 108)  Finally, Ecuador came right out and urged the U.S. to "repeal and do not enforce discriminatory and racial laws such as Law SB 1070 of the State of Arizona." (para. 110)

Likely, the U.S. will respond to that entreaty by noting that the federal government can neither repeal nor prevent Arizona from enforcing the state law if the federal courts do not find in favor of the U.S. in the pending legal action. 

_____
Arizona's Politics wishes to commend the ACLU for posting the draft report and for quickly responding to its media inquiry.




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.

A New Anti-UN Wave Is Starting To Break In Arizona; Let's Check The Facts

On the KPHO 10pm newscast tonight, a report on the UN criticizing Arizona today was featured.  Considering that Arizona's Politics did a Fact Check and a follow-up on Gov. Jan Brewer's August letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, accusing the Obama Administration of taking an "unconstitutional" action by mentioning Arizona's SB1070 law in a report, the KPHO story (not yet up on their website, kpho.com) got our full attention.

The two-minute package, by reporter Jason Barry, made it appear that the UN was condemning Arizona.  It included interviews with Arizonans-on-the-street, two of three saying that the UN should not be involved in our business. Near the beginning of the report, video of a protest was featured.

Here is what I could ascertain at this late hour:

There is no evidence on the internet of ANY demonstrations.  The KPHO report seems to be based chiefly upon this Reuters' story headlined "U.N. Warns States On Illegal Immigrant Rights". Datelined Geneva, it does include Arizona and the French (and Italian) expulsions of Roma in the first paragraph: "The United Nations said on Thursday governments must respect the rights of all migrants, in a statement apparently targeting measures including Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants and French expulsions of Roma."

By the use of the word "apparently" in the lede, Reuters is accurately signaling that the statement does NOT mention Arizona (or the Roma).

Here is the entire two page statement released by the Global Migration Group (an interagency working group focusing on the many different areas relating to migration).  There is NO mention of Arizona - or any other nation.  There is nothing particularly controversial.  Perhaps this is the money quote - the part in bold is the part that was used on KPHO:

"Too often, States have addressed irregular migration solely through the lens of sovereignty, border security or law enforcement, sometimes driven by hostile domestic constituencies. Although States have legitimate interests in securing their borders and exercising immigration controls, such concerns cannot, and indeed, as a matter of international law do not, trump the obligations of the State to respect the internationally guaranteed rights of all persons, to protect those rights against abuses, and to fulfill the rights necessary for them to enjoy a life of dignity and security."

Part of the hype of the Channel 5 report appears to be based upon a possible misunderstanding of two of the terms used in the statement (and the Reuters account). Barry appears to believe that the term "States" is referring to "Arizona and other states" considering tough anti-illegal immigration laws; however, the statement is using "states" to mean governments, or nations.   Both the package and Sean McLaughlin's pre-commercial tease also seem to make much of the term "irregular migration" - that the U.N. is trying to re-define and soften what many Arizonans consider to be "illegal immigration" and a threat to our safety;  however, the Reuters report defines the term as including illegal immigrants and those who do not have a legitimate claim of asylum.  In other words, the statement is addressing a broader range of people than illegal immigrants, diminishing KPHO's claim that the statement targets Arizona.

The only other news agency that has apparently filed a report on this statement is AFP.  Its account makes it clear that a reporter had to ask the U.N.'s Navi Pillay about Arizona's law to draw SB1070 into the discussion.

Asked about Arizona's new immigration law, which allows local police to question and detain anyone they believe may be an illegal entrant, Pillay said it was "topical."


"The stopping and searching of individuals we have said is discriminatory and can lead to prejudices and xenophobia," she added.

(AFP).  Reuters' reporter summarized the Arizona question/answer this way:

Pillay said Arizona's new immigration law, passed to expel nearly half a million illegal immigrants from the state and stem the flow of human and drug smugglers over the border from Mexico, was certain to be raised at an international conference on migration in Mexico on Nov. 8-11.


The South African jurist said the Global Forum on Migration and Development, an annual U.N. initiative, would discuss the measure, which U.N. officials have already denounced as discriminatory because it allows police to stop and search individuals on the suspicion they are illegal immigrants.

(Reuters).  Although Pillay apparently did not acknowledge it, she likely knows - from the U.S. mention of SB1070 in its August report - that the key provisions of Arizona's law are not in effect pending legal review (now before the U.S. Court of Appeals).

It is highly likely that Pillays comments will start another wave of chest-thumping anti-UN (and anti-Obama) comments, and that KPHO is simply catching the wave early.  They got an anti-UN quote from Gov. Brewer spokesperson Paul Senseman, and a Brewer statement and letter is probably being polished up for a Friday release.

The U.N. group's statement and the original news reports provide needed context in order to properly assess the wave. After the jump, the U.N.'s statement is set forth in full. It is that short and simple to read. 

Fox News Hands Drum To Rep. Trent Franks; He Adds Signature Beat To The Tune (video)

Fox News continues to parade Arizona politicians on its programs to ask about the State Department's mention of Arizona's S.B. 1070 in its human rights Universal Periodic Review ("UPR").  It is obviously the kind of drum the network beats until the skin breaks - Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton, United Nations, immigration, border security. 

Today, Rep. Trent Franks was asked on to talk about the arrival of National Guard troops on the Arizona border today (too little, Administration does not understand the national security issues, and more).  But, the anchor did not "want to let you get away without asking about this, because I think this is going to get a lot of attention in the coming days."  She then characterized the mention as the State Dept recommending that S.B. 1070 "be evaluated" at the U.N.*
Franks professed to being "dumbfounded."  Not at the question, of course, but because: "this Administration is the most pro-abortion administration in the history of the nation.  They want abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy for no reason, for any reason, they want taxpayers to pay for it, and they want to export this experiment across the world.  Human rights issues is (sic) the last thing they should want to be talking about."

Franks did proceed to echo Gov. Brewer's criticisms of the UPR, and of the interviewer's characterization.  Finally, he reiterated his frank dumbfoundedness:  "I'm just astonished that this Administration would apologize before the United Nations for protecting our borders."

The anchor promised to keep on this story, Franks thanked her for covering it, and went to commercials.  Because this stuff DOES sell.  And, given that our Fact Check Analysis of Gov. Brewer's outraged comments concluded that it was "completely misleading", we will continue to keep on Fox's keepin' on.


* Question (and answer) enters the conversation at approximately 2:28.

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.

FACT CHECK ANALYSIS: Gov. Brewer Judges U.S. State Dept. Report "Unconstitutional"; She Is Indignant, Offended, Misleading (links to Brewer letter, State Dept. report)

On Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer decided to attack a U.S. State Department overview on the United States' positions and progress on human rights.  She sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. 

In doing so, she declared her "indignation" and stated that it is "downright offensive" that there was a brief mention of the not-so-secret legal action surrounding Arizona's SB1070 law.  Fine.  However, she incorrectly asserted that the federal government is "apparently... trying to make an international human rights case out of S.B. 1070" and that inclusion of Arizona in the report is "internationalism run amok and unconstitutional." 

The "Universal Periodic Review" is a process whereby each nation can submit a report, self-surveying the positives and negatives of efforts in the ever-developing area of human rights.  As the U.S. report indicates, the Declaration of Independence was a key step in furthering human rights and that the United States has been a leader in promoting human rights awareness elsewhere. (paragraphs 1-5)  The U.N., other nations or NGO's may submit reports on their own.  In November, the UPR Working Group will meet and make comments, recommendations, etc. on reports from the U.S.  - all of which can be accepted or rejected by the U.S. 

The United States (and 15 other nations) are part of the ninth group of the 192 member nations being reviewed - the 4-year cycle will be completed next year.  Examples of the reports of some of the other nations' reviews may be enlightening:  here are reports on the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and Iran.  Safe to say that the report on the U.S. in November will look more like the U.K.'s than Iran's. 

It would be silly for anyone to think that simply because the U.S. self-review did not mention S.B. 1070, that noone else would bring it up.  So, the State Department politely tip-toed around the subject.  Here is what the report stated:  "95. A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."  No braggadocio about the federal government filing an action and arguments which convinced Judge Bolton.  No asking that the international community issue a decision on the human rights aspects of the law.  Not even an insinuation that the law is offensive to human rights at all; simply a note that it is being included because it "has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world," and that it is in the judicial process.  We have it under control, World, and our institutions are working.

Gov. Brewer insists that this is "downright offensive", that it is piling on and making "an international human rights case" on top of the federal lawsuit.  (Note, use of the word "already" conflating the UPR and federal suit.)  And, while she (barely) conditions her sentence by stating that "The idea of our own American government submitting...,"  she calls this report "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" (and "internationalism run amok").  

Such comments made with full knowledge that there is no sliver of an argument to be made that the UPR - and participation in the voluntary and non-binding UPR process - is against any provision of our beloved U.S. Constitution 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.

For her posturing, accusatory letter, Gov. Brewer earns a "COMPLETELY MISLEADING"