Skip to main content

NPR: Arizona 'Dropped a Bomb' in Illegal Immigration Debate With SB 1070

Matthew Balan's picture

On Thursday's All Things Considered, NPR's Robert Siegel used violent imagery to underline the supposed extreme nature of Arizona's SB 1070 law targeting illegal immigration: "It has been of one year since the state legislature dropped a bomb into the national debate over immigration."

Siegel led the introduction for correspondent Ted Robbins's report on the controversial law with his explosive phrase. He continued that "the get-tough bill, known as SB 1070, was later signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer." After playing a clip from Governor Brewer, the host noted that "some of SB 1070's key components are on hold, but supporters call it a success, and opponents say it has been a disaster for Arizona's image and economy. Either way, NPR's Ted Robbins says it has changed the state."

Midway through his report, Robbins used slanted language as he highlighted the mass departure of illegal immigrants from Arizona after the law's passage: "The law, which helped create an unwelcoming atmosphere for illegal immigrants here, caused an estimated 100 to 200 thousand people to leave Arizona in the past year." He then turned to one of SB 1070's main supporters in the legislature, who touted other positive effects over the past year:

ROBBINS: [Arizona State Senator Russell] Pearce points to other measures of success: a sharp decrease in violent crime, 500 fewer inmates in state prisons than a year ago, and fewer children enrolled in schools, especially in some heavily Hispanic areas. Those numbers are not in dispute. Whether they're all the result of illegal immigrants fleeing is debatable.

The NPR reporter also turned to one of the law's opponents, Arizona State Senator Kyrsten Sinema, who bizarrely played up how communist Chinese officials critiqued the anti-illegal immigration legislation: "I was in China and members of the Chinese government were asking me questions about Arizona. That was unpleasant. That was very unpleasant. They were asking, like, what was wrong with our state?"

The full transcript of Ted Robbins's report from Thursday's All Things Considered:

ROBERT SIEGEL: And to Arizona now, where it has been of one year since the state legislature dropped a bomb into the national debate over immigration. The get-tough bill, known as SB 1070, was later signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer.

ARIZONA GOVERNOR JAN BREWER: With my unwavering signature on this legislation, Arizona strengthens its security within our borders.

SIEGEL: SB 1070 makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally, and it mandates that local police question the immigration status of anyone they stop for a criminal offense. (audio clip of protesters chanting in Spanish, "Si, se puede.") Demonstrations, boycotts and court cases followed. A year later, some of SB 1070's key components are on hold, but supporters call it a success, and opponents say it has been a disaster for Arizona's image and economy. Either way, NPR's Ted Robbins says it has changed the state.

TED ROBBINS: About a dozen opponents of SB 1070 have been regulars outside the Senate wing of the Capitol building in Phoenix. They are resolute, but low-key, compared with the thousands of protestors on the same spot a year ago. That could be because inside the building, legislators, like Republican State Senator Steve Pierce, now have other priorities.

ARIZONA STATE SENATOR STEVE PIERCE: To me, the number one thing we have in the state is our economy- finding jobs; we had to get the budget out, doing things for the economy. People are hurting and hurting bad.

ROBBINS: Steve Pierce voted for SB 1070 a year ago. He said Arizona's border security problem needed attention. This year, he and some other Republicans joined Democrats to defeat five new bills aimed at illegal immigrants. Among other things, the new bills would have required schools and hospitals to check immigration status.

PIERCE: The bills this year were just more piling on. It was about checking citizenship in a hospital, and I just don't see where checking the citizenship of somebody going into a hospital has anything to do with border security.

ROBBINS: The bills were defeated two days after 50 Arizona business leaders sent a letter to Senate President Russell Pearce, asking him to back off new state immigration laws. That gave some Republicans cover to vote against the bills. But Russell Pearce, no relation to Steve Pierce, is the architect and chief sponsor of almost all of Arizona's immigration laws. He isn't backing off anything.

ARIZONA STATE SENATOR RUSSELL PEARCE: We're not going to retreat. We will do what we have to do, and I personally will do what I have to do until this invasion is stopped.

ROBBINS: A year in, Russell Pearce says SB 1070 is a success. Federal courts have blocked Arizona from enforcing key parts of the law, but allowed other portions to take effect. The law, which helped create an unwelcoming atmosphere for illegal immigrants here, caused an estimated 100 to 200 thousand people to leave Arizona in the past year.

R. PEARCE: They were fleeing. I talked to a U-Haul man that has a large U-Haul company, and he said they're doing business better than they've ever done before in their lives, and they're one way: to Salt Lake City, to Colorado, to other parts of the nation.


ROBBINS: Pearce points to other measures of success: a sharp decrease in violent crime, 500 fewer inmates in state prisons than a year ago, and fewer children enrolled in schools, especially in some heavily Hispanic areas. Those numbers are not in dispute. Whether they're all the result of illegal immigrants fleeing is debatable. Democratic State Senator Kyrsten Sinema points out that the makeup of most immigrant families is mixed.

ARIZONA STATE SENATOR KYRSTEN SINEMA: So, some of the people in the family are citizens, some of the people in the family are not citizens; but if one person is not, then the whole family may move, and then, we lose that revenue and we lose those future workers.

ROBBINS: So, she says SB 1070 has been bad for Arizona's economy: in lost workers and lost tourism and convention dollars from continuing boycotts against the state; plus, the hit to Arizona's image caused by negative worldwide media coverage.

SINEMA: I was in China and members of the Chinese government were asking me questions about Arizona. That was unpleasant. That was very unpleasant. They were asking, like, what was wrong with our state?

ROBBINS: Supporters say nothing's wrong with Arizona. In fact, SB 1070 was popular with voters in the state and nationwide. SB 1070 has had an impact. Whether you see the impact as positive or negative depends on which side of the issue you're on. Ted Robbins, NPR News, Tucson.

— Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.

Comments

#1 Any kind of action is perceived by the left as a threat

"Arizona 'Dropped a Bomb' in Illegal Immigration Debate With SB 1070"

Well of course it did. The left doesn't want action, they want debate, dialog, nuance, anything but getting something done (especially when they're in the wrong). Pathetic.

“It is almost impossible to distinguish a politician from a gangster.” (Will Durant, 1931)

I predicted tea parties would return. Now I'm predicting dueling will return.

#2 I don't have much of a problem with this report...

Matt, thank you for the summary.
I don't have much of a problem with Siegel's report. I think it's true that the law (figuratively) was a bombshell into the immigration debate.
Insofar as his slanted language about the law creating an unwelcoming atmosphere, it means all the difference to me that he said "illegal immigrants." If he'd said "undocumented workers," "immigrants" or even "hispanics," I agree that that would have been representative of the typical left-wing spin on the issue. But most liberal journalists won't use the term "illegal immigrants," and I think most loyal Americans would feel that a statute that creates an unwelcoming atmosphere for folks who are breaking the law is a good thing.
In short, I don't see much bias here.

#3 The AZ immigration "bomb" is that it's got broad support!

  •     "It has been of one year since the state legislature dropped a bomb into the national debate over immigration. "


Well, if it's so extreme, why does 70% of the nation support it?

The liberal Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found nationally that:

  •  Seventy-three percent said they backed a measure requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them,   
  • while 67% approve of allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify that they are in the country legally.

Further, it found that:

  • 25% supported Obama's handling of immigration policy, while 54% said they disapproved.

And, that even Democrats were evenly split on it, 45% to 46%.

Any reporter worth his/her salt would be interjecting that into any interview.  In an interview with Sen. Pierce, they should be noting how the people are supporting him, and they should challenge the fringe radical minority - including President Obama - on why they are not listening to the strong majority.

(;~/ gary

#4 closing our eyes not the border

IF.... the media reported the gang violence, drug and people smuggling that is going on at the border then the country would be DEMANDING the border be closed. But the MSM is doing their Liberal oriented task of representing all illegals as just poor souls looking for a better life who will do jobs that Americans won't.

   People are dying, drug cartels are controlling many areas of the border, border Americans are afraid in their own homes and the Liberals don't care.  Ideology trumps any concern for human life. The Soviet Union, China, and other socialist states have allowed millions to die when it was for 'the greater good'. 

#5 100 to 200 thousand people to leave Arizona

So, what's the problem? Sounds to me like the bill is working perfectly. Now, if only all the other states would adopt similar laws, the illegal aliens (NOT immigrants) would have to go back to their home countries for lack of any place else to go.

The only folks who seem to think there's a problem here are the libs who are against the bill because their voter base is being "attacked". I guess to them I'd simply have to say, "Too bad".

And, as for the comment the Chinese made... wonder what their response would be towards illegal aliens in their country.I'm sure, judging by their comment, they would welcome them with open arms.

#6 Why Are People In Arizona Hurting?

People in Arizona aren't hurting because of the immigration law. They are hurting for the same reason that people are hurting in every other state - because Obama is pushing socialism which has driven the US economy into a ditch.

Let NPR move it's headquarters down to the Arizona-Mexican boarder (preferably on the Mexican side) and see what the problem is.

#7 China's question

Maybe something was lost in the translation of the word state

I'll guarantee you that Beijing is more concerned about are exploding debt and the looming inflation of the dollar that will devaluate the US debt that China holds.

As for making non-citizens feel uneasy, ask any American who has lived and worked in the PRC about the documentation and scrutiny required just to enter that country.

SB 1070 was a bold and Constitutionally sound step toward enforcing Federal laws that both Democratic and Republican Administrations have less than adequately enforced, and Arizona is already benefiting from it.

#8 We need a wall like Israel

We need a wall like Israel has along the Gaza Strip. We can get the labor from illegal alien criminals that are in our prisons in exchange for time served and a ticket back to Mexico. We also need to have a vote to change the 14th Amendment anchor-baby loophole. When your city becomes overrun like my city of Los Angeles, you will understand where I am coming from.

P.S. I am all in favor of granting a green card for anyone who takes the time out to learn good English and who have to criminal record. No gang aspirations would be nice too but that is asking to much, eh?

#9 I like,

Also citizenship for those who serve honorably in the Armed Forces

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty

#10 As a full-time resident of AZ...

I suppose it’s my NB duty to speak out on this issue.

The law works, and would work better if it hadn’t been misinterpreted by a judge (who IMHO) shouldn’t have been on the bench in the first place.

You cannot believe how nice it is to be able to actually order a cheeseburger and fries in the English language. On the occasions when the person on the other side of the transaction doesn’t speak English… there is at least a somewhat comforting feeling that perhaps they are here legally and are working towards full citizenship. Trust me… that alone make the law worthwhile.

The fact the law helps contribute to ‘excessive liberal angst’ is merely a side benefit. :o)

"I wish I had an answer to that because I'm tired of answering that question." - Yogi Berra, (Baseball Great and Philosopher)

#11 The "judge" you mentioned

The "judge" you mentioned was, and is, a political appointee chosen specifically for her personal political agenda.

It is done by both political parties, but the main difference used to be Republicans chose people that believed in, and supported the Constitution.

Now they just toss out a name in hopes the senate will approve the person without too much negative publicity from the media.

There are plenty of 'judges' that have proven the Constitution is of no value to them in their decision making that should be impeached for bad behavior and abuse of power, but we come back to the same old story of "But the media will yell at us and make us cry".

End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.

If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?

#12 Then there are judges that laugh at stupid Vattel birthers.

   Stupid Vattel birthers that cloak themselves in the Constitution when they make stupid Vattel birther arguments and insult the intelligence of everyone here.

#13 Spoken by my favorite troll.

Spoken by my favorite troll.

End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.

If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?

#14 Hello Mr. Johnson.

You have once again left us high and dry back in the other forum just like you did a year ago. Now, I requested a year ago you provide us with the answers after extensive sourcing and you chose to leave the site for 10 months. Once again, you have broached the subject, and I have again extensively sourced the truth. I feel cheated when you make unfounded accusations and then chose to cut and run. It is not fair to the community to pull actions such as those. So please explain ---

1. How is it the founders while writing the Constitution managed to consult a book that was not published until 10 years after the Constitution.

2. How is it that the term "natural born citizen" means something other than acquiring citizenship through birth, that is being naturally born into citizenship. Versus naturalization, that is being sworn into citizenship.

3. Why you choose to cut and run again and again after being shown that you are indeed either lying or bringing forward lies from someone else.

4. Why you think it is proper to call a judge that made a correct and rightful decision a political appointed judges to reword and rewrite documents used by the Founding Fathers when the decision was fair and just.

5. Why you think that lying to the community here is acceptable, and then it is further acceptable to insult and demean those that prove you wrong.

I once again await your reply. And urge you to kindly stop lying to the community and once again remind you that I will not forget. I did not waste my time a year ago asking you the questions above and I will not once again stop reminding you that lying, insulting, and ignoring well founded questions on your behavoir is not acceptable.

Sincerely,

A Veteran of A 1000 Psychic Wars.

The forum with the sourced proof of your lies still awaits you. You did not get away with it a year ago. You should not get away with it now.

#15 Why little trollish feller,

Why little trollish feller, you just hang in their and prove your alinski rules for radicals while I sit back and smile.

And please do not stop with the childish name calling, obscenities and vulgarities.

demeaning, dismissive attitudes, abusive activities, disruptive anti-social mannerisms, all straight out of "Rules for Radicals".

Good to see you act out the 'rules' in plain view of everybody.

End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.

If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?

#16 Please Mr. Johnson.

You might have missed it. There was no insults there. Whereas, you continue to lash out instead of providing proof of your assertions.

Kindly go back to the original thread where you stated President Obama could not be qualified for the Presidency because he did not have 2 American parents. I have proved he met the qualifications. You have dismissed my sources and never stated why, instead, you have gone on an extended insult tirade. Please source your assertions. Please source why my sources are wrong.

#17 You mean like this?

As so many scholars and commentators have asked, what does “natural born Citizen” mean? Why did the Framers distinguish in Article II between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen?” The Founders trusted the occupancy of the Office of President to those born on or inhabiting the soil of or to those who naturalized in the Colonies or new States, all of whom belonged to the original citizen class because, even though they were born subject to a foreign power, they had evidenced their loyalty and attachment to the United States by fighting for the American cause in the Revolution. Also, for those born “natural born subjects” of the British Crown, through the Treaty of Peace of 1783, England absolved its subjects of the natural allegiance that they owed to it. But the Founders knew that there would be other foreigners coming to live in America in the future. The allegiance and loyalty of these future foreigners would not have been tested or even absolved in some manner as had occurred under the Treaty of Peace of 1783. The Founders feared foreign influence infecting the administration of the government. It was the fear of foreign influence invading the Office of Commander in Chief of the military that prompted John Jay, our first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, to write to General George Washington the following letter dated July 25, 1787: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen” (underlying in the original). Note that Jay wanted a “strong” check that would prevent a foreigner from becoming the Commander in Chief. Hence, any definition of “natural born Citizen” must provide our nation with the strongest check possible on foreign influence invading the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. The Framers found the definition of “natural born Citizen” that would suit their purpose of protecting the future of and preserving the new nation not in the English common law and William Blackstone but in natural law and the law of nations as commented upon by Emer de Vattel, in his treatise, The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Laws of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, bk. 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (original French in 1758 and first English in 1759). This law became American common law. See my article entitled, 'The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law' as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is, found at:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html.

End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.

If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?

#18 Link don't work Mr. Johnson.

I requested you source your claims so I may verify them.

#19 Nice try Mr. Johnson.

You are repeating a claim I debunked already. I do believe I requested proof.

Mr. Johnson's unsourced claim: The Framers found the definition of “natural born Citizen” that would suit their purpose of protecting the future of and preserving the new nation not in the English common law and William Blackstone but in natural law and the law of nations as commented upon by Emer de Vattel, in his treatise, The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Laws of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, bk. 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (original French in 1758 and first English in 1759)

I already showed this is false. There were no time machines when the Constitution was written.


"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"

Those words, however, are quoted from a translation of de Vattel that first appeared in 1797, 10 years after the Constitution’s ratification.

Given that the phrase “natural born citizen” was not in the French, was it in the English translations available to the framers of the US Constitution? The answer is, “no”. The first English translation (thanks to Mr. Greschak for the images) in 1760 follows:

"The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens"

And the first American Edition (1787) issued the year of the Constitutional Convention also does not have “natural born citizen”.

"The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens"

So I ask, how can de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” define a term that it doesn’t even contain (except in translations a decade after the Constitution was ratified)? If the framers wanted to refer to de Vattel, then they surely would have used his words from the English translation they had, but “natives or indegenes” is not in Artile II of the Constitution.

This is now the 3rd time I have proved the framers of the constitution did not relay on Vattel for the term "natural born citizen"

#20 YUP!!! them dumb ol' Founding Fathers didn't have a clue.

They just dreamed up a phrase to confuse the functionally illiterate liberal, left-wing saul alinski followers.

Seems to have worked rather admirably.

End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.

If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?

#21 I hardly think sarcasm and insults is proof either.

I have shown you 3 times now, sourced, quoted, linked that the founding fathers could not have brought the phrase "natural born citizen' from Vattel's book as it was not in any copy available at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

Getting snarky about the founding fathers proves notihng. Insulting me gets you nowhere. Now, once again, I will not stop asking you to back up your statements. Just like over a year ago. I don't abide by people that come here with false information, that I prove is false information, insulting me rather than facing up to the false information they have posted here and then thinking the have the right to just run from the conversation.

I will ask you again. You stated The Constitution REQUIRES both parents to be CITIZENS. Kindly prove that is the truth. It bothered no one of consequence in the run up to the election that President Obama only had one citizen parent. You have made an uncommon statement I have shown to be false. Now, kindly back it up. That you insult and abuse my good character only gives me resolve not to let this go.

So, once again, I patiently await your proof of your statement.

Sincerely,

A Veteran of a 1000 Psychic Wars.

#22 That was not a very good idea Mr. Johnson.

You brought a quote from a link that did not work.

The Framers found the definition of “natural born Citizen” that would suit their purpose of protecting the future of and preserving the new nation not in the English common law and William Blackstone but in natural law and the law of nations as commented upon by Emer de Vattel, in his treatise, The Law of Nations...

There is a reason your link did not work. Mr. Apuzzo has walked it back. I repeat. Mr. Apuzzo no longer claims this. I say again. Mr. APUZZO has admitted he was wrong.

In the 1797 English edition, the translator replaced the word “indigenes” with “natural-born citizens.” Hence, it read: “The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

Now, once again, I ask you to back it up. Kindly knock it off with the insults, the cutting and running, and back it up.

Or you can admit that the term "natural born citizen" is simply what it says. A citizenship acquired naturally through birth. Exactly that and no more. And President Obama acquired his citizenship at birth rather than some other means.

#23 awww... poor little non-vet,

awww... poor little non-vet, after calling me every obscenity and vulgarity you thought you could get away with on this board, you want me to stop making you look like a fool?

Why do you keep claiming that de Vattels book was not interpreted until 1797 when the Founding Fathers used the 1759 interpretation into English?

ANOTHER LIE you keep pushing to bolster your position?

"Vattel clearly distinguished between “citizens” (“citoyens” in French) and “naturals” (“naturels” in French). His title for Section 212 is “Des citoyens et naturels” (“Of citizens and naturals” which the English translators called "Of the citizens and natives"). He referred to the “citoyens” who were translated to “citizens” and “naturels” who were later translated to “natural-born citizens.” The “naturels” were the children of the “citoyens.” He therefore saw that there is a difference between the two types of citizens. He explained that difference thus: “The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”. Id. bk. 1, c. 19, sec. 212. In the 1797 English edition, the translator replaced the word “indigenes” with “natural-born citizens.” Hence, it read: “The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Hence, while the definition of a “natural born citizen” never changed in Vattel’s texts, the term to express it was changed from “indigenes” to “natural-born citizens.”

I do hope this helps clarify the issue to you.

End 'gun violence in America' - Require training and MANDATORY "Shall Carry" by every Citizen.

If harry reid is the best person to lead the senate, what does that say about the other 99 senators?

#24 Uh, Mr. Johnson....

  Sorry. You have a serious problem there Mr. Johnson. Serious. Now you are personally calling me a liar. Is that nice?

Willis_Leon_Johnson: Why do you keep claiming that de Vattels book was not interpreted until 1797 when the Founding Fathers used the 1759 interpretation into English?

Did I say that? This is a public website. Everything I have written is visible. Where did I say that? Source. Prove it. You are now LYING about me. I never stated that. Ever. Nothing I source stated that EVER. Now. You need to back that up as well.

Not going very well for you at all Mr. Johnson. First, you make insanely false claims, then insult and run when I show them to be false. Now you think it is OK to LIE about other users. This is your idea of how to shake someone that has been insulted by you?

For the record - I have pasted links and stated the term "natural born citizens" was not in the TWO TRANSLATIONS of Vattel's book prior to the writing of the Constitution. I NEVER CLAIMED THERE WAS NO TRANSLATION PRIOR TO 1797.

Willis_Leon_Johnson: Why do you keep claiming that de Vattels book was not interpreted until 1797 when the Founding Fathers used the 1759 interpretation into English?

I NEVER CLAIMED THERE WAS NO TRANSLATIONS PRIOR TO 1797.

Willis_Leon_Johnson: Why do you keep claiming that de Vattels book was not interpreted until 1797 when the Founding Fathers used the 1759 interpretation into English?

I NEVER CLAIMED THERE WAS NO TRANSLATIONS PRIOR TO 1797
 

Here for ALL TO SEE is the  blogs I have mentioned this. Here.  Here.  And an old woodshed post.  Everyone here can see EXACTLY what I said.

 Let's see. Mr. Johnson cannot quote me accurately but we are to believe he has the big lowdown on how the ENGLISH framers of the Constitution used a book by a Swiss guy written in French to use a phrase in English, "natural born citizens", that was not translated into English until 10 years after the Constitution was written.

Back it up. Prove I said it. Now.

Prove it.

You can't.

It is a lie.

This is how you prove your case? By lying about another poster?

Prove I said.

Or cut and run. Whatever. You do that so well.

#25 Gotta love liberals. When

Gotta love liberals. When their old excuses aren't flying they just pluck a new one out of the air. Apparently the new one is "..well, if one member of the family is legal, they have to move too, along with their illegal extended familia... and we lose that revenue from that one person of course.." Oh, the horror!! So is she admitting we do have a bunch of illegal immigrants not paying any taxes? That's gonna contradict some of the other lies about illegal immigration she's, no doubt, spun. Oh well, when you're a lib, one contradictory lie after another doesn't even make you flinch.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.