The furor over Arizona's new immigration rules proves that populism overrules pragmatism any time in this country. Arizona's new law is supposed to be ''fascist,'' ''Nazi-like,'' ''draconic,'' and ''racist,'' to use the milder epithets, because it allows police and other law-enforcement agencies to ask for, and check the documents of people they suspect to be illegal immigrants. The law has come under severe criticism from different parts of the country and the world, and it is currently under review by the U.S. Justice Department for determining its constitutional validity.

So, why did the elected people's representatives of Arizona take such a step? The accounts show everything is positive and as good as it can be. Compared to 1.2 million immigrants apprehended in 2005, only 541, 000 were apprehended in 2009. The statistics, though it gives no account of how many got in, does prove that population has decreased on the other side of the border and the desire of people trying to illegally enter U.S. has dropped almost 50% (where's my smiley?). The statistics also shows that federal agents seized 1.65 million kg of drugs along the Arizona border as of March 2009, though again there is no account of how much got through. However, if we apply Pareto's 80:20 rule, it is possible that 20% was apprehended and 80% got through in each of these cases. Arizona's new law can threaten that invisible 80% that gets past the border. It would be a cause of concern for interested parties.

The Mexican government is concerned, and it has warned its citizens to use extreme caution, if visiting Arizona. The Mexican state of Sonora is concerned, and it has announced that it will not attend the Sonora-Arizona Commission held every year for the past four decades. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors in California is concerned and it has called for a boycott of Arizona. Many organizations and politicians in the state of California are concerned and they have urged California to sever its economic ties with Arizona. And as Dennis Burke, U.S. Attorney for Arizona told The Arizona Times, ''The President clearly has concerns.''

It is possible that the citizens of Arizona in their bid to find a remedy for their problems passed a law that can be held unconstitutional. That is for review by the U.S. Justice Department. But how fair is it to boycott an U.S. State, disregard the needs of its citizens and its sovereignty, and support a movement that in the name of liberalism makes it safer for illegal immigration and drugs smuggling?