Truth-stretching about Arizona immigration law
By Bill Adair
Published on Monday, June 25th, 2012 at 11:32 a.m.
The Arizona immigration law has kept the Truth-O-Meter busy.
The law, portions of which were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, required that state law enforcement officers try to determine someone's immigration status when officers had reasonable suspicion the person was an illegal immigrant.
The law had been widely characterized as the toughest state immigration law in the country. President Barack Obama’s administration challenged it, saying immigration regulations were a federal matter.
In the past few years, we've ruled on many claims about the Arizona law, which is often described by its bill number, SB 1070. A sampling:
Racial profiling? Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a champion of the law, claimed in late April 2010 that late changes to the law "lay to rest questions over the possibility of racial profiling." We interviewed legal experts who said there were still many unresolved questions. We rated the claim Mostly False.
Overgrown lawns and barking dogs. We checked a claim by Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic state senator in Arizona, that investigations of minor crimes such as overgrown lawns or barking dogs could trigger immigration checks by police. Experts said she was probably correct, although there was no way of predicting whether police would use the full extent of their powers. We rated that claim Mostly True.
Did police need to suspect something illegal? John Huppenthal, a Republican state senator in Arizona, claimed that under the law, police can't stop someone to check their immigration status unless they think they see something illegal. We rated that claim False because the law leaves open several possibilities for police questioning individuals without seeing or suspecting a specific crime.
Support for the law. We found some accurate claims -- and some really inaccurate ones -- when people discussed public support for the law. Glenn Beck earned a Mostly True rating for his claim that 64 percent of Americans support the law. But we found Brewer, the Arizona governor, was exaggerating when she claimed law enforcement agencies in the state back the law. We rated that claim Half True. Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce was way off when he claimed that 60 percent of Hispanics support the law. Pants on Fire.
Impact of the boycott. The law prompted many groups to cancel plans for meetings in Arizona. As other states considered laws similar to Arizona's, the Anti-Defamation League said the law had cost Arizona $100 million in lost revenue for the hospitality industry. PolitiFact Georgia found some impact but not $100 million worth and rated the claim Half True.
Romney's comments. The Arizona law has been an issue in the presidential race. U.S. Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, D-Texas, claimed that Mitt Romney has said SB 1070 should be a model for a national law. PolitiFact Texas found that Gonzalez was misquoting Romney and rated the claim False.
See Truth-O-Meter items.
We want to hear your suggestions and comments.
For tips or comments on our Obameter and our GOP-Pledge-O-Meter promise databases, please e-mail the Obameter. If you are commenting on a specific promise, please include the wording of the promise.For comments about our Truth-O-Meter or Flip-O-Meter items, please e-mail the Truth-O-Meter. We’re especially interested in seeing any chain e-mails you receive that you would like us to check out. If you send us a comment, we'll assume you don't mind us publishing it unless you tell us otherwise.
Keep up to date with Politifact:
- Sign up for our e-mail (about once a week)
- Put a free PolitiFact widget on your blog or Web page
- Subscribe to our RSS feeds on Truth-O-Meter items
- Subscribe to our RSS feeds on GOP Pledge-O-Meter items
- Subscribe to our RSS feeds on Obameter items
- Advertise on PolitiFact
- Shop the PolitiFact store for T-shirts, hats and other PolitiFact swag