[StBernard] AP story how police feel about new Arizona law

[Westley Annis]

What's interesting about the below article is it misleads you into thinking
there is a "true" divide among law enforcement officers when nothing could
be farther from fact.  While there are always a few "oddballs" among police
and deputies who disagree with new Arizona law, the fact is a recent Zogby
poll performed with over 1,150 law enforcement officers participating
(protecting their identities) showed over 83% of Arizona officers are in
favor of the law.  In fact, among the small 17% who said they were not in
favor of the new law, it wasn't because they disagreed with it, but were not
in favor of it only because they felt it will be difficult to properly
enforce.  That leaves only a tiny percentage of Arizona law enforcement who
were actually against the new law.  Funny how the AP journalist conveniently
failed to mention the poll results.


I also support the State of Louisiana government supporting a boycott of ANY
city or state who has decided to boycott Arizona.  Furthermore, I think
there should be local rallies in Louisiana with people showing their support
and endorsement of Arizona's new law against ILLEGAL immigration.


- John Scurich


 


Ariz. immigration law divides police across US 


Arizona's tough new law cracking down on illegal immigration is dividing
police across the nation, pitting officers against their chiefs and raising
questions about its potential to damage efforts to fight crime in Hispanic
communities.

By JONATHAN J. COOPER
<http://search.nwsource.com/search?searchtype=cq&sort=date&from=ST&byline=JO
NATHAN%20J%2E%20COOPER> 

Associated Press Writer

PHOENIX - 

Arizona's tough new law cracking down on illegal immigration is dividing
police across the nation, pitting officers against their chiefs and raising
questions about its potential to damage efforts to fight crime in Hispanic
communities.

Two officers are challenging the law in court, while police unions that
lobbied for it are defending it against criticism from police officials.

Both sides are debating how a law such as Arizona's can be enforced, without
leading to racial profiling of Hispanics and without alienating residents in
Hispanic neighborhoods with whom police have spent years trying to build
trust.

"Before the signing of this bill, citizens would wave at me," said David
Salgado, a 19-year Phoenix police officer who sued the city and the governor
asking that the law be blocked. "Now they don't even want to make eye
contact."

Still, police unions say, many of their officers in Arizona, the nation's
busiest corridor for illegal immigration and smuggling, are tired of feeling
helpless when dealing with people they believe are in the country illegally.
Those officers want a tool to arrest them.

"Crime is not based upon skin color, it's based upon conduct," said Mark
Spencer, president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, the union
representing Phoenix officers that lobbied aggressively for the law.

It requires police enforcing another law to verify a person's immigration
status if there's "reasonable" suspicion they are in the U.S. illegally.

Several Arizona police chiefs and sheriffs say, as hard as officers try not
to profile, enforcing the law will inevitably lead to it. They say it will
end up taking time away from solving crimes in their cities and towns.

"When you get a law that leads a state down this path, where the enforcement
is targeted to a particular segment of the population, it's very difficult
not to profile," said Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris, a critic of the law.

On Monday, police bosses from Maryland and Nevada condemned the law, saying
that it could suck up vital resources and destroy delicate relationships
with immigrant communities if implemented in their own states. There are at
least nine other states considering similar legislation.

Police Chief Thomas Manger of Montgomery County, Md., in suburban Washington
said he doesn't have the resources or the desire to enforce federal
immigration violations by people who aren't disrupting the community.

"If they're not committing a crime here, frankly, I'm not sure how it
enhances public safety to target those people for removal," he said.

 <http://www.burstnet.com/enlightn/4990//461C/> 

Manger spoke on a conference call with the sheriff of Washoe County, Nev.,
and the retired police chief of Sacramento, Calif. The call was organized by
the Law Enforcement Engagement Initiative, which advocates immigration
reform.

Their criticism added to the chorus of opponents since the law's adoption
April 23. There have been calls for boycotts, and some state and local
governments have decided to stop doing business with the state in protest.

On Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People and the Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund filed the latest challenge to the law in federal court on
behalf of labor unions and others.

The law takes effect July 29 unless blocked by the pending court challenges.
Being in the country illegally would become a state crime, and Arizona
residents could sue an agency or officer they feel isn't enforcing
immigration laws to the fullest extent possible.

Arizona's legislation was passed in part with the lobbying muscle of the
unions. An association of police chiefs tried to defeat or soften it.

Tucson police officer Martin Escobar also filed a lawsuit, arguing there's
no "race-neutral" criteria for him to suspect that someone's in the country
illegally. Some say it would be impossible to enforce without relying on
indicators such as skin color, clothing and accent.

They worry Hispanic crime victims will be too scared to call for help, or
eyewitnesses will refuse to cooperate in murder investigations.

Supporters say there are plenty of indicators other than race that suggest
someone is an illegal immigrant, including a lack of identification and
conflicting statements. They say police have plenty of experience enforcing
laws without relying on physical characteristics.

If officers are empowered to decide when it's appropriate to arrest or even
to kill someone, they should be trusted not to profile based on race, said
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, a supporter whose jurisdiction includes
busy human and drug smuggling routes into Phoenix.

"We will do it without profiling," he said. "And any police chief or any
sheriff in Arizona will not tolerate profiling based on race or national
origin. That's unacceptable."

Gov. Jan Brewer insists racial profiling will not be tolerated. When she
signed the bill, Brewer ordered the state's police training and licensing
board to develop standards for enforcement that avoid profiling.

The board will meet Wednesday to adopt a framework for the training program,
which director Lyle Mann said would include digital instruction materials
for all of Arizona's 15,000 police officers.

Designing a training courses that prevents officers from using "the shortcut
of race" will be difficult, said Jack McDevitt, associate dean of criminal
justice at Northeastern University who studies racial profiling.

"No training you give police officers is going to change all of the
officer's behavior," McDevitt said. "Unfortunately, the shortcut will be:
'What does this person look like? What kind of accent does he have? And what
kind of car is he driving?'"