Recently, there has been a controversy concerning the Arizona’s 2010 immigration law as written in the article by Liptak Adam on April 25, 2012 titled “Justices Seem Sympathetic to Central Part of Arizona Law.”
The article was about the controversy surrounding the Arizona law stating that any illegal immigrant should be prohibited to work. However, the lawyers represented in the case seemed to incline to it today. Even one of those opposed to the Wednesday’s argument, Mr. Verilli, agreed that the law had nothing to do with ethnic or racial profiling. Justice Verilli and Paul D. Clement, both represented the healthcare previously, were here to represent the Federal government and Arizona respectively. The last doubt Mr. Verilli had seemed to be the question how the illegal immigrants would be identified. Justice Sotomayor answered that currently all names are to be legalized. The law intends to take legal action against illegal immigrants who work or try to do so.
The author supported his claim well by drawing arguments from both sides of the lawyers and also stated the decision by Justice Sotomayor. The writer gave good examples of previous cases such as Obama’s healthcare reform and indicated how other states had passed such laws, for instance, Utah, Alabama, Indiana, and Georgia. Obama’s government represented by Verilli intended to block the law, but Verilli seemed to be able not to give solid arguments against it.
The article is generally good. It is well-organized into presentable paragraphs. However, the author’s points were not clear. He mixed many ideas concerning other previous cases thus losing focus on the main current issue. He ought to have dealt with each point at a time, and paraphrased some of the direct quotes for a good flow and continuity. In addition, the article lacked a conclusive statement concerning the case. The author ought to have improved it by stating the final decision of the Justices on the new case.