It must be awkward to have risen to the vigorous defense of legal language that even its authors, in the end, could not defend. But the law’s advocates are making the best of things out on their sawed-off limb. The law is now more “explicit” about its true intention. It is a “clarification.” But this isn’t a clarification; it is retreat. The authors of the Arizona law initially wrote it as broadly as they thought they could get away with. But they were caught. Their retreat does not confirm their intentions were good. It confirms that the original law was deeply flawed -- a dramatic, disturbing overreach.
Despite the revisions, Gerson admits that they "do not address all the problems and ambiguities in the law -- and are not likely to end the controversy surrounding it." Dara Lind agrees.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.