Police chiefs on SB1070, yet again

Police chiefs have come out against Arizona's SB1070, saying it will increase crime and make their jobs harder.  The first thing I wanted to know is, what do the rank-and-file police officers think?  They are, after all, the ones who will have to deal with the impact of any such law on a day-to-day basis.

Why not just take the police chiefs at their word?  Police chiefs are political animals.  Even in cases where the job is filled from the ranks of the police force, it will be filled with someone who has the support of the mayor, and thus supports him in turn.  I don't know how free a police chief is to disagree with the mayor who appoints him, and can very likely disappoint him.

"Jack Dunphy", a rank-and-file LAPD officer offers his take at Pajamas Media:

Chief Beck is an honorable man and is — so far, at least — respected within the ranks of the LAPD, but he is also a man who knows where his bread is buttered.  He is an appointee of the mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, who enthusiastically advocates amnesty for illegal immigrants, and it is inconceivable that Beck would have been named to the job if he could not be reliably counted on to parrot the mayor's opinions on a range of matters, most especially illegal immigration.

Beck was one of several police chiefs in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday who met with Attorney General Eric Holder to discuss the Arizona law. "This is not a law that increases public safety," said Beck, as quoted in the Washington Post. "This is a bill that makes it much harder for us to do our jobs.  Crime will go up if this becomes law in Arizona or in any other state."

Rubbish.

It is disappointing to see Beck joining the ranks of alarmists predicting all manner of calamity should the Arizona law take effect as scheduled on July 29.  It is all the more disappointing to see him do so by mischaracterizing what the law says.  The Los Angeles Times reported his statement thus:

Beck said that his officers are guided by a different set of rules than the ones laid out in the Arizona law. For more than three decades the LAPD has followed a policy that prohibits officers from initiating contact with someone solely to determine whether he or she is in the country legally.

Assuming the L.A. Times has accurately paraphrased Beck's statement, we can reach either of two possible conclusions: that he is misinformed on the language of the new law, or he is deliberately distorting the truth to serve a political agenda.  Neither choice is comforting.

It is no doubt true that some illegal immigrants are reluctant to speak to the police, but it has been my experience that they are less fearful of being deported than they are of being retaliated against by criminal gang members, a large number of whom are themselves illegal immigrants.  Yes, the new Arizona law brings the potential for error and even abuse, but that potential exists in every aspect of police work, and we don't ask police officers to ignore violations of the law because they might make a mistake.

My guess is that police officers in Arizona, when armed with this new law, will concentrate their efforts on those illegal immigrants whose criminal predations fall most heavily on their law-abiding neighbors.  Had such a law been in place in Texas a few years ago, Houston police officer Henry Canales might be alive today.  The men accused of murdering him last year, both  illegal immigrants with criminal records, are today on trial in Houston.