You'd have to show increased crime to show " It's a law to curb the incredible crime rate being conducted by illegal aliens." If you can't show an increased crime rate, then you're wrong. From what LR says, the FBI stats say you're wrong, and the FBI stats are generally regarded as the gold standard in the field, aren't they?
Apparently, that doesn't stop you from trying to say it again in the hopes that somebody will overlook reality and accept what you say is fact. If you can give me some neutral and authoritative figures, I might be inclined to believe you myself: Where are they?
Actually, it was not Governor Brewer who wrote the law. It was FAIR, and lawyers working for FAIR. Fair is an organization that has in the past funded and backed Eugenics and racist organizations. The current President in an interview on the Rachel Maddow Show Denied spending a dime to fund and organization called PAN, involved in Arizona Politics around Immigration issues a few years back. The Head of PAN had to resign when she acknowledged that she was a member of a European Rights organization that preached racial segregation. Alas for the current President of FAIR, his organization was listed with Arizona as having contributed several hundred thousand dollars to FAIR. Links go much further and deeper than that. Those are the authors of the bill.
Should you wish to research Mr. Pearce, the sponsor of the Bill in the State Senate, you will find that he sent around some antisemitic news releases to his constituents last year, and there are pictures of him with members of the local neo-nazis. Governor Brewer still doesn't know how you'd identify somebody as looking like an illegal immigrant, which was the law she signed.
The law's provision that demands that officers get identification from those who look like illegals still demands that they make some sort of determination as to what an illegal looks like, which is an open demand for racial profiling, and provides an avenue for those officers to be sued if they don't do so to the satisfaction of whoever may be looking on and thinks that they should have done so more thoroughly.
That is going to cost the state money, both to defend the police, and to pay for the prosecution, which the law demands that they do. So much for not costing anything.
My dislike for the law has nothing to do with my generally positive feelings for the police.
If your feelings for the police were as generally positive as you say they are, you wouldn't be taking the position you are. You rob them here of potential witnesses to crimes that they might otherwise count upon. You turn parts of the community against them that might in other cuircumstances be neutral, and you range their anxiety level in everyday policing. Furthermore, you put them at the mercy of people on both sides of the political spectrum who feel that they may be overstepping their bounds by either being too active or not active enough in doing their jobs. You make them a target of public hostility when they need increased public cooperation. If you were actually a real ally of the police instead of a Republican partisan who's willing to use the police as a pawn in his cynical partisan manoevers, you'd be on the other side of this, and you'd be working on some way of getting a fair and decent law written that doesn't put the police in such a dangerous position. They need a safer environment with a more cooperative public and closer community relations, not the reverse.