As I was saying

Crime? What crime?

Some highlights from the crime database

"Violent crime — murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault — is down in Arizona for the third consecutive year. Not only has it plunged 15% from its peak in 2006, but it’s 12% lower than it was when the Department of Public Safety started putting crime reports online in 2002. So the current decline isn’t just a regression to the mean after a spike in crime, but evidence of a continuing trend of decreasing violent crime in the state. The trend even holds up along the border: sheriffs for three of Arizona’s four border counties reported less violent crime in 2009 than they did in 2002. (The sheriff’s office for the tiny county of Santa Cruz went from six violent crimes in 2002 to fifteen in 2009 — hardly a significant sample size.)" - It's possible that crimes have gone unreported (this is the reported crime rates, not the actual arrests or convictions). But many of those that would go unreported would be in...immigrant neighbourhoods like those in Maricopa county.

Which doesn't look like it's under-reporting at all:
"And since 2002, as violent crime has fallen 12% across Arizona, it’s risen under Arpaio by a staggering fifty-eight percent." - This, of all things, could explain some of the disconnect. Except that it's only the part that Sheriff Joe has direct control over. Phoenix, which is in the same county, has it's own police force. And crime is down.

This probably explains more of the disconnect: "For years, Arpaio has been earning notoriety for putting immigration enforcement ahead of other law-enforcement priorities — a policy which will become the law of the land for all Arizona police once SB 1070 goes into effect at the end of July." - Focusing on immigration patrols and sweeps happens at the expense of actually going out and finding, I don't know, murderers, rapists and car thieves. To their credit, they do have a kidnapping task force which has reduced those. But they also may be operating in an atmosphere which is decidedly less cooperative than previous. For example, witnesses who could be deported themselves for popping up on the police radar when testifying are probably not going to come forward to provide evidence. Neighbours and relatives under the same duress aren't likely to help either.

I'm sure if you must have immigration enforcement by local officials there's a way to do it. But there are trade-offs, as with any public policy choices. There's only so much money and time for police work. Public safety and relative street peace is probably not worth sacrificing just to try to round up a few thousand expired visas. But if you have to have a corner solution, this is your price: giving up a trendline of lower crime in exchange for one with rising crime. Which also means less tourism (less money), less business development (higher costs), and a departing immigrant population to boot (also higher costs). And all that without boycotts, which I think are probably symbolic, useless, and, based on this, ultimately unnecessary.

I'm skeptical that any of the various lawsuits against this law will be won on Constitutional grounds, but the bigger question isn't the legality of passing bad laws, it's how quickly people recognize they've got a bad law on their hands. One could be charitable and assume this was passed to get attention focused on the problem back in DC. I'm not so charitable simply because I don't think anyone expects anything to be resolved when DC finally moves on this issue. Certainly it won't be resolved in a manner that the public and Arizona's (non-Latino) residents and citizens seem to want (increased racial profiling and trampling of civil rights of actual citizens). So it might be better to inquire what exactly they think they want, because the fake reasons of "higher crime" or "they're taking all the welfare dollars" are patently false. White elderly people, who are often modestly well off on private means and assets, are generally the ones taking much of the welfare dollars, as they are intended to. Whether they should be or not is a very different question, but there isn't some great wave of illegals, much less legal immigrants, siphoning off many billions of public dollars and resources through social welfare programs.

So. Until further notice, that want is to be described as "whiter constituency" or some sort of "preservation of 'American culture'"; never mind that "American culture" has been historically a melting pot of diverse cultures united mostly by a common interest in some of the highly regarded ideals upon which the nation is founded and has, however imprecisely, attempted to practice for over 200 years.

(I realize there's a few morons who think they're reconquering "Mexico" by moving here, but they'd be utterly foolish to actually want to install Mexican governance over a "Mexican society" which is living in the United States. At best I think these nationalistic sentiments will simply mean some vigorous Cinco de Mayo celebrations in some parts of the country. Which given that plenty of non-Irish people vigorously celebrate St Patrick's Day, I'm not sure it is such a great public loss to surrender another day up for imbibing adult beverages.)

Oh, and those 1200 National Guard troops? I can think of better uses than having them patrol several hundred miles of border. Given that it appears the police are doing quite well enough on their own to limit and reduce any criminal actions and hence some sort of "terrorist" or national security issue.