On the May 10 broadcast of his 630 KHOW-AM show, host Peter Boyles suggested that “most” criticism directed at him is “baseless and senseless” and “comes from people that just politically disagree” with him. Boyles further suggested that his critics “manufacture problems.” Colorado Media Matters has documented numerous factual misrepresentations Boyles and his guests have made regarding illegal immigrants and immigration policy. In fact, Boyles made two such misrepresentations on his May 11 broadcast, one of which he has made in the past.

Boyles commented on the criticism he's faced while interviewing Carol Chambers, the Republican district attorney for Colorado's 18th Judicial District.

From the May 10 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Peter Boyles Show:

BOYLES: You know, it's interesting to watch criticism. And, of course, you know, I get criti-criticized all the time, critiqued all the time. And most of it is baseless and senseless, but it comes from people that just politically disagree with you. So then they manufacture problems. Is this much what you're seeing right now?

CHAMBERS: I think so. And I think that, that I've been told that I'm in the eye of another ethical controversy, but I'm not aware.

BOYLES: Yeah.

CHAMBERS: They haven't told me that there's an investigation. I don't even know of a complaint.

Although she claimed not to “even know of a complaint,” Chambers is under investigation again by the state Office of Attorney Regulation (OAR), which publicly censured Chambers in December 2006 for misusing her office to help a fellow Republican. According to an article in the May 3 edition of The Denver Post, public defender James O'Connor sent a letter to Chief Judge William Sylvester urging Sylvester to “not tolerate” what appeared to him to be “a veiled threat” contained in an April 17 email in which Chambers asserted there would be “docket control problems” in the division of a judge that “shows overt hostility” toward prosecutors in her office. The article noted that “a formal complaint will be filed” if OAR finds that Chambers violated any rule of professional conduct.

Boyles' remark about criticism directed at him is likely a reference to Colorado Media Matters, which has documented falsehoods Boyles and his guests have spread and which initiated a petition asking Boyles to stop using inaccurate or misleading information on his show. Additionally, Colorado Media Matters editorial director Bill Menezes cited Boyles' falsehoods in a guest op-ed published in the April 13 editions of the Post and the Rocky Mountain News. Boyles also has mentioned criticism by “Media Matters” -- including the petition -- during his broadcasts.

Boyles on his May 11 broadcast continued his pattern of misrepresenting pending federal immigration reform legislation. He asserted a provision in House Resolution 1645 -- sponsored by U.S. Reps. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) -- that would allow states to grant illegal immigrants in-state tuition to the state's public colleges and universities “would override” the laws of states that prohibit the practice. Boyles made the claim in an interview with Lance Cargill, the Republican speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives.

From the May 11 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Peter Boyles Show:

CARGILL: There was a bill passed a couple years ago. We, we have a new Republican majority in Oklahoma just in the last couple years. Under the old majority, you had bills passed to provide driver's licenses to illegal immigrants --

BOYLES: Now, you --

CARGILL: -- for example.

BOYLES: You had in-state too, didn't you? In-state tuition?

CARGILL: That's exactly right. Tuition benefits to illegal immigrants. And I think there was a cumulative effect of all these things. And the people essentially rose up and said, “That's enough!”

BOYLES: Yeah.

CARGILL: And so this year, we passed a bill, it's House Bill 1804. Two major components to the bill. Number one: It eliminates access to public benefits for illegals. So whether that's welfare benefits, in-state tuition benefits, scholarship benefits, et cetera, those types of benefits are going to get eliminated. You know, in Oklahoma, for example, college tuition has risen dramatically in the last few years. And the notion, again, that our own citizens are seeing their tuition perhaps even doubled over their four-year period in a college or university, while at the same time we're using taxpayer dollars to subsidize --

BOYLES: Yeah.

CARGILL: -- the educational costs of illegal immigrants is just patently unfair, and we're gonna put a stop to it.

BOYLES: By the way, just on a national level, have you read this proposed legislation, Flake-Gutierrez, that looks like -- carried by the Democrats, but many Republicans back it as well. It would be interesting to see, having seen the work that you've done that prohibits the illegals from getting the public services and/or in-state tuition, if Flake-Gutierrez passes through the House, the Senate, and, of course, George Bush wants this bill, that would override that, and it would allow for in-state.

Subtitle B of H.R. 1645 is called The DREAM Act of 2007. Section 623 under this subtitle (“Restoration of state option to determine residency for purposes of higher education benefits”) repeals a provision -- section 505 -- of a 1996 immigration law that discourages states from providing in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. A summary of the bill notes what the DREAM Act would do:

Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2007 or DREAM Act of 2007 -- Repeals the denial of an unlawful alien's eligibility for higher education benefits based on state residence unless a U.S. national is similarly eligible without regard to such state residence.

As the National Immigration Law Center noted in its summary of the DREAM Act, the legislation would restore to states the option of providing in-state tuition to illegal immigrants but would not require states to do so:

In-state tuition: Restore state option

The DREAM Act would also repeal section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), which currently discourages states from providing in-state tuition or other higher education benefits without regard to immigration status. Under section 505, states that provide a higher education benefit based on residency to undocumented immigrants must provide the same benefit to U.S. citizens in the same circumstances, regardless of their state of residence.

Since section 505 became law, ten states have enacted laws permitting anyone including undocumented immigrants who attended and graduated from high school in the state to pay the in-state rate at public colleges and universities. The ten states are Texas, California, Utah, Washington, New York, Oklahoma, Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, and Nebraska. These states all pay the section 505 penalty by providing the same in-state discount rate to current residents of other states who previously went to high school and graduated in the state. The DREAM Act would repeal this penalty. This would not require states to provide in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants, but rather would restore this decision to the states without encumbrance. (emphasis added)

Later in his conversation with Cargill, Boyles stated that immigration reform legislation passed during a special July 2006 session of the Colorado General Assembly “excluded” the private sector.

From the May 11 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Peter Boyles Show:

CARGILL: So it's jobs and benefits. And again, one state individually is not going to be able to change the overall complexion of illegal immigration in this country. But you can certainly take steps, I believe, as individual states not to be that beacon or that magnet for illegal immigration. I certainly encourage all your listeners to get online. Our website at the Oklahoma House of Representatives is OK House dot gov, OK House dot gov. And they can search for this bill. It's House Bill 1804. And I encourage them to email a copy of that to their state representative, their state senator, and require that they submit that type of legislation in, in their legislative body and start taking action on a state level to address these types of concerns.

BOYLES: Well, we have attempted that in the end of last session because of the outrage. And it was the outgoing Republicans lose their shirt here.

CARGILL: Mmm-hmm.

BOYLES: Rightfully so, with the governor changes to a new governor.

CARGILL: Right.

BOYLES: And then they make this big deal out of a special session. Well, it gets, when it gets down to nut-cuttin' time, they -- private sector gets excluded after a meeting takes place between some pretty powerful people. It falls down on the public sector.

Boyles similarly misrepresented the legislation, House Bill 1017, during his October 2, 2006, broadcast by saying, "[T]here was nothing in that about fining the private sector." In fact, as Colorado Media Matters noted, the law enacted July 31, 2006, penalizes employers up to $5,000 for an initial offense and up to $25,000 for each subsequent offense in which an employer “with reckless disregard” fails to submit documentation requested by state authorities that a new employee's immigration status entitles him or her to work in the United States.