local issue turns to national issue (M.3)

In Arizona, we're all aware of our state's controversy with illegal immigration.  I find this to be a good example of of a local issue that's gotten the national limelight.  After SB 1070 passed in our state, there are currently 5 other states that have enacted similiar bills:  Utah, Indiana, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina.  Countless other states have either thought about passing bills like SB1070, or they were defeated at the polls. 

In the article posted in in the Washington Post on 9/20/2011, titled "Obama administration widens challenges to state immigration laws" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-administration-widens-challenges-to-state-immigration-laws/2011/09/28/gIQA8HgR7K_story.html)
The main issue here is illegal immigration and whether or not the states have the right to pass such laws.  With this being such a debate on whether it's unconstitutional or not, special interests groups like the ACLU and the federal government has sued almost every state that has passed these laws.  While not the whole bill has been blocked in each of these states, certain key points have out of fear of discrimination against hispanics. 
Advocates for such bills to be passed would include the people who feel that the federal government has failed to do there jobs in protecting our country from illegals who continue to cross the border.  On the flip side, are the people who feel that these bills are inhumane and unconstitutional and lead to nothing but discrimination against hispanics (legal or not).  These advocates would include hispanics themselves, the ACLU, LaRaza, and other civil rights groups.  There position does appeal to local voters... that's what makes this debate so controversial.  Either people want the federal government to start doing it's job to get a handle on illiegal immigration, or others just want to be treated fairly.  One thing I hear over and over again in this debate is, we all have to remember that we are a country that's based on immigrants... what makes it different now?
Up until 2001, I never gave much thought to the statement "You can't believe everything you read in the newspapers ot see on TV".  Along with not giving it much though, I really didn't believe this statement was true.  Someone I know made one horrible mistake, and bam! she was splashed all over the news and the newspapers here in Phoenix.  This is someone who's never really gotten into trouble, worked many years in law enforcement to finding herself on the other side as the bad guy for something that took a split second and it had major reprecussions.  She was portrayed by the media as a monster who was nothing but a career criminal and wouldn't amount to anything.  She was labeled by many as a rich, snotty, stuck up white girl who always got her way.  When in reality she nor her family had money.  She grew up poor and her job is in the public service sector (we all know they don't make that muck money).  These thoughts were all based on appearances, because she took really good care of herself, and dressed nicely.  That's when this statement really hit me.  Important facts can be conviently "left out" of the new coverage, words and what really happened can get twisted at the drop of a hat.  Sometimes intentional, sometimes not.  But- for the general public, how are they supposed to know if they don't know the people involved personally?  All they have to go on is the facts that are in the media.