Police chiefs from around the country told Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday that immigration laws such as the one recently passed in Arizona will lead to an increase in crime. They argued that such laws would inhibit their ability to do their jobs because they would have to divert resources to enforce the new law.
They have a point. Laws create crime. Where there is no law against robbing banks, robbing banks is not a crime. Each new law creates a new offense. Each new offense requires police to investigate and apprehend those determined to have committed the offense. For police chiefs to publicly object to a law because it requires them to provide the manpower and resources to enforce it is unseemly. It is not their job to weigh the merits of the particular laws they are tasked to enforce or the legislation that created them. Certainly not in public. It is their job to enforce the law, not debate it.
Nevertheless, police will still have discretion in performing their job. Within limits, they do not have to arrest everyone they apprehend. Not every traffic stop results in a ticket. Sometimes a warning is enough. The discretion of local police officers to pursue people suspected to be in the U.S. illegally will be retained under the new law, even if it is not specifically provided for. Unless, of course, discretion is confused with license and it is forbidden lest racism rear it's ugly head.
When it comes down to it, to object to a law is to object to a crime. There is no trepidation in enforcing laws against burglary because there is consensus that burglary is a crime. There is trepidation concerning enforcing immigration laws because there is disagreement over what immigration policy should be. Many believe there is nothing illegal about illegal immigration. For them it is bad enough that there are laws against it. To enforce those laws is the very height of intolerance and chauvinism. To vigorously enforce those laws is an outrage.
It is the job of the police to enforce law, not debate it. If the job becomes too burdensome or objectionable, they are free to resign and find some other sort of work. They could even run for the statehouse if they feel strongly enough about the issue. In the mean time they should do their jobs and uphold the law: a job they are sworn to do. Citizens are not allowed to choose which laws to obey. Police are not allowed to choose which laws to enforce. Even less should police be allowed to choose which laws are worthy of enforcement, and which aren't. Discretion is one thing, disobedience is another.
On the bright side for pro immigration activists, Arizona's action is only a law. If they can gather the support, they can change it. They should be thankful the new policy was not implemented through the courts. If it had been, they would have a very different fight on their hands. As it stands, it is illegal to be in the U.S. illegally and there is a crime wave in progress. If you do not like the law, change it. Do not ignore it.
