Look, I'm a libertarian. But I'm also a pragmatist. I may not agree much with the immigration hawks on the Right who complain a lot about illegal aliens and the alleged problems they bring to this country, but I do not find it productive or necessary to refer to them as "racists" simply because they want to enforce the law and secure the borders. Yes, a few of them are racists, but I highly doubt that most of them care whether the aliens are from Eastern Europe or Latin America. Give the American people a little credit.
I personally believe our immigration system should be much looser (for various reasons), but first and foremost, we must secure the border. Now, a lot of libertarians like to espouse an open borders ideology. However, that leaves it open not only to hard-working, law-abiding Hispanics and others with visas, but it also allows folks with deadly communicable diseases, terrorists, and criminals to sneak through. I don't want to take that chance.
So when Arizona's government decided to do something about the negative effects of illegal immigration in that state, I quietly applauded. If the federal government is not going to man up and do its job, the states have every right to enforce those laws! Why should Arizona wait for the federal government to finally start doing its job? This is why the recent federal court ruling that imposed an injunction on SB 1070 makes no sense.
Now, regarding the actual content of the law, I'm kind of with the pro-1070 people on this. I've skimmed it a little myself. From all that I've heard from several sources, a great portion of the Arizona law came verbatim from federal law, and there are specific statutes which are intended to minimize racial profiling. The law does not encourage cops to round up every person who "looks Hispanic." In fact, a person can only be asked about his immigration status during "legal contact", which I assume refers to situations such as being pulled over or arrested by a cop. The bill is actually, if I recall correctly, 70 or 80 pages long! It seems to me that the people who wrote it tried to hammer out the difficulties with proper enforcement as much as possible.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, among many, many other critics, has compared this to Nazi Germany requiring the Jews to show "your papers, please." However, what the judge forgets is that Nazi Germany ostracized, attacked, demonized, rounded up and even killed countless Jews. This is not what anyone has proposed with the Arizona law at all! Besides, when you are pulled over by a police officer, what's the first thing he says? "License and registration"! This is not much different from that scenario. I fail to see the connection to Nazi Germany.
So what is all the whining and moaning for? Enforcement of laws that the majority of people think is reasonable regarding immigration status? Yes, there is the potential for abuse by zealous or racist cops, but the potential for abuse exists with any law or public official! Why are opponents of this law so outraged now?? Do they just assume that all cops in Arizona are racists who will jump at the chance to "snag some beaners"? That's pretty prejudiced. The outrage is a little silly, in my opinion.
I say let the law stay in effect for the next 6 months to a year. Let's not be too hasty. After that time is up, do a thorough report and see if it has violated the civil liberties of several Americans, or if it has lived up to its goals. If it has been abused in such a manner, then Arizona should change its approach. But griping about a law that has hardly yet been enforced and has not lived up to your worst fears is brainless!