On the November 14 broadcast of his 630 KHOW-AM radio show, host Peter Boyles, referring to critics who “monitor this show,” asked, “My God, why are you angry?” Colorado Media Matters has identified numerous instances in which Boyles and his guests have used false or misleading information while discussing issues related to immigration. Colorado Media Matters on October 16 also launched an online petition drive to “Tell Peter Boyles to apologize for ignoring the truth.” Further, Colorado Media Matters has identified new instances of Boyles repeating numerous falsehoods about illegal immigration-related issues during his broadcasts of November 13, 14, and 15, including inaccuracies about “sanctuary” cities, the immigration status of parents of so-called “anchor babies,” and recent polling about Americans' attitudes regarding illegal immigration.

From the November 14 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Peter Boyles Show:

BOYLES: What's interesting is how people are so angry that we talk about this. My God, why are you angry? You know, there's what -- God knows how many million people here in this country illegally coming up from south of the border? Most of them -- 99 percent of them? Have everything going your way! But you want to send the emails about, “You're a racist SOB,” and “I hate you,” and the rest of this kind of stuff. Hey, fine. But why are you angry? What are you mad at? The truth must hurt. It's the only, only thing I can come up with. The truth must hurt. And you so much -- they monitor this show, and they do these things. This is the only place you're hearing anything like this. You don't hear it in the Post. You don't hear it on other radio stations. You don't see it in the local news stations. You don't see it in the Rocky Mountain News. And so you're angry at KHOW morning show. My God, it's the only place that somebody's gonna say something different, and now it's a bunch of racist fill-in-the-blanks and the rest of this crap, and all your friends and the rest of this stuff. This is the only place. I don't know, you guys. I'm watching this happen.

Boyles's statement came during a three-show stretch in which he repeated numerous falsehoods related to illegal immigration:

FALSEHOOD #1: DENVER IS A “SANCTUARY CITY”

During the November 13 broadcast, Boyles launched into a discussion of “sanctuary policy” adopted by some state and local authorities to limit enforcement of federal immigration laws. Claiming that "[m]y source is the National Immigration Law Center," Boyles listed as sanctuary cities “San Francisco, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Washington, Alaska, Maine, and Oregon,” and stated, “And they go down, there's 50 cities and counties, and Denver's one of them.” In fact, the National Immigration Law Center's most recent (July 2004) listing of “Laws, Resolutions and Policies Instituted Across the U.S. Limiting Enforcement of Immigration Laws by Local Authorities” does not include Denver.

Boyles later read from a November 12 New York Times article, “Immigrant Protection Rules Draw Fire,” by Jesse McKinley. Quoting the article -- "[W]hile a federal proposal to punish sanctuary cities recently failed, some states have passed laws discouraging sanctuary" -- Boyles added, “not Colorado.” A caller corrected Boyles, asking, “Didn't we ... pass a law ... that they're supposed to report this to [Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)]?” As Colorado Media Matters has noted on numerous occasions in which Boyles falsely labeled Denver a “sanctuary city” (here, here, here, and here) Colorado on May 1 did in fact enact a statute prohibiting sanctuary policies, which the statute defines as “local government ordinances or policies that prohibit local officials, including peace officers, from communicating or cooperating with federal officials with regard to the immigration status of any person within the state.”

Boyles responded to the caller by suggesting that the law does not apply to Denver because “Denver's a home rule city.” Denver does operate under a home rule charter as provided by Article XX of the Colorado Constitution. However, Article XX states that Colorado law applies to a home rule jurisdiction except where such law conflicts with that jurisdiction's charter:

The statutes of the state of Colorado, so far as applicable, shall continue to apply to such cities and towns, except insofar as superseded by the charters of such cities and towns or by ordinance passed pursuant to such charters.

The Denver home rule charter does not contain any provision regarding sanctuary policy. Moreover, as Colorado Media Matters has noted, the Denver Police Operations Manual explicitly directs that “when a suspect believed to be an undocumented immigrant is arrested for other charges, a 'Refer to Immigration' charge will be added to the original charges. Sheriff's Department personnel will then notify the [Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (B.I.C.E.)] authorities according to their procedures.”

From the November 13 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Peter Boyles Show:

BOYLES: But on sanctuary policy, and it is interesting -- let me see if I can find this. But it's interesting -- here it is. I underline these things. How many cities. Here it is right now. My source is the National Immigration Law Center. Sanctuary cities: San Francisco, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Washington, Alaska, Maine, and Oregon. And they go down, there's 50 cities and counties, and Denver's one of them.

CALLER: Yeah.

BOYLES: Now. Now the fight will begin 'cause what sanctuary means -- and this is, this has been captured very well. Jesse McKinley's piece. And he says the -- these people have made announcements: “Sanctuary policy” -- and apply this to Denver -- “discourages the police from enforcing laws.” Conserv -- there's a movement by these legal groups and politicians -- “cities like Chicago have announced they will avoid” -- listen to this -- “they will avoid involving police in issues that smack of federal immigration enforcement.”

CALLER: Yeah.

BOYLES: "While a federal proposal to punish sanctuary cities recently failed, some states have passed laws discouraging sanctuary" -- not Colorado. But to say to a law enforcement official, if you encounter a foreign national who is in this country illegally, you believe that information could be of use and benefit to federal authorities -- you can't tell them.

CALLER: Didn't we -- didn't we pass a law? Didn't some of the municipalities around here? Maybe it's a state -- help me on this one -- that they're supposed to report this to ICE?

BOYLES: Well, indeed. But, as you know in Denver -- Denver's a home rule city and there's been -- I've seen nothing. And so, when --

CALLER: But I don't think that the other municipalities are that way.

BOYLES: Well, I haven't seen anybody do it.

FALSEHOOD #2: “ANCHOR BABIES” EXEMPT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS FROM DEPORTATION

On November 13, 14, and 15, Boyles falsely suggested that a child born in the United States to an illegal immigrant -- a so-called “anchor baby” or “anchor child” -- exempts the parent from deportation proceedings. As Colorado Media Matters has noted, anti-immigration activists contend that such children -- who are U.S. citizens at birth under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- “anchor” illegal immigrant families to the United States and qualify them for access to some government services. However, the birth of a child in the United States does not affect either parent's status as an illegal immigrant; federal law 000-.html" title="http://colorado.mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001151000-.html blocked::http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001151000-.html">stipulates that U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants must wait until they are 21 to petition for their parents to be given legal status.

Boyles made the argument while discussing a November 12 Denver Post article by staff writer Bruce Finley that describes the experience of an illegal immigrant named Eloina Meza who turned herself in to federal immigration officials in Denver. According to the article, Meza had sought permission to remain in the United States legally with her 8-year-old, U.S.-born son Edgar, who is ill with a serious heart ailment, but Meza was turned away without a hearing. Boyles said of the article, “What Mr. Finley isn't telling you is they can't, she cannot be deported. She has an anchor child.”

The article did report that according to Robert Deasy, a spokesman for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, “Meza probably 'is entitled' to stay in the country with her son under immigration-law provisions that grant legal status to people in the country illegally for more than 10 years who also can prove an exceptional humanitarian need.” But such a special, qualified provision of immigration law is quite different from Boyles's assertion that authorities “can't throw her out” simply because she has a U.S.-born child.

From the November 13 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Peter Boyles Show:

BOYLES: There's a piece by Bruce Finley this morning -- front page of The Denver Post. Big pictures. A woman who's in the country illegally, has a son who has Downs, and the kid's an anchor because they say she's come in illegally. But it says her son Edgar, 8, a U.S. citizen, because he's an anchor, suffers from Downs and heart trouble. Here's -- here's an amazing question: Where's the baby's father?

CALLER: Right.

BOYLES: Number two: Who -- and apparently she turned herself in and, again, this is in Denver, which makes the case. “After 12 years Menza musters her courage,” writes Finley, “and approaches immigration agents in their offices. 'I saw the security at the place, the cameras up and around the room' -- and tried to surrender. Instead, she wanted to turn herself in, have a judge review her case so she might stay legally in Denver.” What Mr. Finley isn't telling you is they can't, she cannot be deported. She has an anchor child.

CALLER: Right.

BOYLES: So to use all this as, “I am here illegally and they won't take me in.” You have to understand -- they can't throw her out.

CALLER: Nope.

BOYLES: The baby's an anchor.

CALLER: But we're not a sanctuary state, Peter.

BOYLES: No, of course not. But --

CALLER: We're not.

BOYLES: But what's interesting is, it says that she crossed the border in 1994.

CALLER: Um-hum.

BOYLES: Now what this whole thing -- “Case exposes odd twist: Feds usually reject those who surrender” -- no. She has an anchor child.

CALLER: Exactly right.

BOYLES: And so, what is it that The Denver Post doesn't understand this morning?

CALLER: Well, they're not gonna understand anything, Peter, until it's too late.

BOYLES: Well, I don't know. I mean, I looked at the piece, I read the piece, and I thought to myself about the surrender. The woman, the woman lawyer may approach ICE agents again.

CALLER: Um-hum. May.

BOYLES: May.

CALLER: Um-hum.

BOYLES: But the bottom line is, she has an anchor baby. To Mr. Finley and to The Denver Post, to Mr. Moore, to Dean Singleton -- she ain't goin' anywhere.

FALSEHOOD #3: GALLUP POLL SHOWED 60 PERCENT “THINK WE SHOULD DENY 'ILLEGALS' ACCESS TO SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS”

On his November 14 broadcast, Boyles repeated another false claim that according to “a Gallup poll done in April ... 60 percent [of the American people] think that we should deny illegal[] [immigrants] access to schools and hospitals.” As Colorado Media Matters has noted, Boyles apparently was distorting the results of an actual Gallup poll that he also discussed on his September 19 broadcast. The poll's Question 20 asked respondents if they thought that “not allowing illegal immigrants to use American schools and hospitals” would be very effective, somewhat effective, not too effective, or not at all effective “as a way to reduce illegal immigration to the United States.” Among those responding, 60 percent said it would be “very” or “somewhat” effective." It did not ask whether respondents supported or opposed denying illegal immigrants access to American schools and hospitals.

Boyles similarly misrepresented respondents' assessments of the effectiveness of other measures queried in Question 20 -- such as increasing the number of officers patrolling the borders, instituting tough penalties on businesses, and building a wall -- as advocating those measures. Boyles also distorted the response to Question 14, which asked respondents, “How important is it to you that the government takes steps this year to ... [c]ontrol[] U.S. borders to halt the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S.[?]” and offered five responses: extremely important, very important, moderately important, not that important, or no opinion. Boyles apparently added the percentages who replied “extremely important” (43 percent), “very important” (36 percent), and “moderately important” (17 percent) to declare that “96 percent of the American people believe that controlling U.S. borders ... is the most important.”

From the November 14 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Peter Boyles Show:

BOYLES: This is a Gallup poll done in April. I kept it. Eighty-one percent of the American people believe illegal immigration is out of control. Ninety-six percent of the American people believe that controlling U.S. borders to halt the flow of illegal immigrants in the United States is the most important. Sixty percent think we should deny illegals access to schools and hospitals. Eighty-one percent think we should significantly increase the number of officers patrolling the borders. Eighty-four percent want to institute tough penalties on businesses. Now, 48 percent at that time believed the wall was a good idea.