Examining the Truth Behind North Carolina’s Immigration and Attorney General Policies
The Associated Press article covering North Carolina Republicans’ legislative efforts raises critical questions about policy shifts in the state. However, some claims require further scrutiny to determine the accuracy of the reported context.
Understanding the Historical Context
Immigration policy has long been a contentious issue in North Carolina, particularly with Sheriff’s offices’ cooperation with federal immigration authorities under programs like 287(g). Previous administrations have faced similar legislative battles regarding executive power and the role of the Attorney General in challenging federal directives.
Fact-Checking Key Claims
Claim #1: The bill forces state law enforcement agencies under Governor Stein to participate in the 287(g) immigration program.
The article states that the new bill mandates certain agencies to participate in the federal 287(g) program. However, the legislative text does not explicitly state full mandatory participation. Instead, it expands the level of cooperation but still allows some discretion at the agency level. Verified legal experts suggest this distinction is crucial in avoiding misinterpretation.
Claim #2: The attorney general would be completely barred from challenging presidential executive orders.
The bill does impose restrictions on the Attorney General’s ability to unilaterally challenge executive orders. However, it does not entirely remove the AG’s power to engage in legal disputes against federal directives. Similar measures exist in other states where AGs require legislative approval before filing multi-state lawsuits. While restrictive, this does not translate to an absolute prohibition.
Claim #3: North Carolina voters overwhelmingly support Trump’s immigration policies.
Sen. Buck Newton argues that Trump’s victory in North Carolina reflects a strong mandate for tougher immigration policies. While Trump did win the state, exit polls and voter data show mixed support for immigration crackdowns, particularly among younger and urban voters. Claiming uniform support lacks nuance and omits polling complexities.
Claim #4: Similar laws existed in Iowa, requiring the state attorney general to obtain permission before suing out-of-state.
The article accurately references a 2018 Iowa law requiring its attorney general to secure gubernatorial approval before joining lawsuits. This establishes precedent but does not necessarily predict identical outcomes in North Carolina, where legal experts debate potential constitutional challenges.
Final Verdict:
The article conveys genuine concerns regarding executive power shifts in North Carolina but lacks critical nuance in several claims. The phrasing in some sections could lead to misinterpretation rather than providing a fully objective view. While many factual aspects are correct, some statements lack supporting evidence or overgeneralize public sentiment.
Stay Engaged
For a deeper dive into fact-checked news, download the DBUNK app and follow us for more updates.
