I don't think that's the question. The question is about the new Arizona law (versus the status quo, and the status quo is NOT that we do not enforce drug and immigration laws).
Drug laws agreed. Immigration laws, disagreed, if "we" is the federal government.
ETA: In fact, 17 illegal immigrants have already been caught in this incident, and I suspect the new Arizona state law was no help whatsoever in making these detentions. I doubt state or local police were involved in the capture at all.
It looks to be a joint effort. Regardless, the law wasn't a help, considering it hasn't even gone into effect yet. The mind experiment to be played is--
what if the law had gone into effect 10 years ago--would this still have happened, or would the likelihood of it happening had been lessened? The answer is probably yes.
Exactly.
And even more, you have to determine whether the law's effectiveness is not outweighed by other legal considerations.
For example, the vast majority of murders and rapes are committed by men. Should we then consider being male to be sufficient reasonable grounds to suspect someone of being a murderer or rapist?
If 1 out of every 12 people in your state (the ratio of illegal to legal residents in AZ) were raping and murdering others every second for every day for every week for decades, I'd think a state of emergency would be declared, with martial law and the national guard checking everyone and incarcerating all rapists assuming a "is he a rapist" check would be relatively easy to perform. Ideally they'd check EVERYONE, as if they only checked men it would be "gender profiling". That might be where the AZ law erred, by not mandating immigration checks for every single person in custody/questioning. And/or in not creating an entirely new Arizona Citizen mandate and requiring all citizens of the state to register and get ID cards.
Should police collect DNA evidence from every male they encounter (say at traffic stops)?
If 1 in 12 males in the state are constantly raping people and such evidence would greatly curtail that, yes.
I suspect the net result of such a law would be to hamper efforts of police to do their jobs.
My analogy isn't totally accurate because immigration laws are not the responsibility of local, county and state police anyway.
Right, they're the responsibility of the federal government, which is shirking that responsibility. Let's say 20-30% of males in your state are constantly raping people, and the responsibility so happens by law to be on the state cops to find and prosecute them. Let's say they make a really half-ass effort, leading to 1 in 12 people to rape 24/7. Your particular town has gotten fed up and passes local ordnances against rape, and instructs its city cops to check to see if the people/men they stop are raping other people 24 hours a day. And if that check finds they are, they shall turn them over to the state. Then your state remonstrates your town and pressures you to repeal that ordnance, without ANY concurrent legislation that would finally reform their own terrible anti-rapist policies.
Let's see what happens then--your town gives in and repeals the ordnance, the state continues to do virtually nothing, and many of your neighbors and you are raped every day, and the % of rapists continues to go up...
or by virtue of your causing a stink about it the state legislature finally grows the balls to order their state police to enforce laws against rape, and to create new laws that are stricter on rapists.
