At the beginning of this past summer, I’ll bet none of you knew who Susan Bolton was. I sure didn’t.

Before July 28, Bolton was carrying on as most federal district judges do – anonymously. That was the day she decided to block a major portion of Arizona’s recently passed illegal immigration bill, which allowed law enforcement to request identification from anyone they suspect to be in the state illegally. Spirited debate on this issue has not let up.

Since the block was administered by Bolton, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has attempted an altered version of the bill that may be deemed as more acceptable by the federal government.

I fail to see how this is even a questionable issue. Surely, states are be able to protect their own citizens from those who choose to act outside the parameters of the law, right? Thanks to faulty reasoning and political correctness run amok in both our courts and federal government, that is not the case. Hordes of young people, often a mix of Hispanic immigrants and activist college students, have held marches in opposition to the law since the spring. One such march caught my attention near the beginning of this debate.

In May, the Associated Press published a photo of a march in Los Angeles, with a group of immigrants holding a banner that read, “We are not Criminals, We are Humans!”

Newsflash: If you did in fact cross the United States border illegally, you are a criminal. The sign is at least half right. Everyone toting the banner was a human being. Opposition to this law has been as widespread among more liberal circles as it has been misguided.

So the law makes being an illegal immigrant a state crime. What’s wrong with that? My only response is “What took so long?”

Millions have come across the border illegally in recent years. But the most vociferous opposition to the law is the law’s provision for Arizona law enforcement to request identification for suspected illegal immigrants. Opponents blast this provision as prejudicial and discriminatory – which is where many of the law’s opponents place their credibility in question.

This may be a surprising fact to some, but the majority of illegal immigrants in Arizona are Hispanic. So yes, most of the people questioned for immigration papers are probably going to be Hispanic. Yet that does not make it in any way a racist law. There are many policies in this country that are based on this principle, and it does not make those who make those policies bigots.

I suppose I should have filed a lawsuit against my auto insurance provider for billing me at ridiculous amounts when I began driving because I was a young male. No, that doesn’t make them sexists or ageists. That makes them good actuaries.

I guess I should have pitched a fit when being stopped at a sobriety checkpoint while driving through a lively area of St. Louis city on a Friday night. After all, why should they check me? Who cares that a large percentage of people in my specific demographic are intoxicated behind the wheel at that approximate location at that approximate time? I’m being discriminated against. I’m a victim!

The only unfortunate aspect of this law is the fact that it had to be brought about by a single state, and not the federal government. President Barack Obama denounced the law as a “shortcut” to fixing the nation’s problems with illegal immigration, “instead of fixing the problem.” Perhaps it is a shortcut. Maybe it doesn’t address every problem with illegal immigration. But it certainly is a good first step – a step the federal government has shown itself to be either unwilling or unable to achieve.

Obama continues to preach a more comprehensive version of immigration reform, a package that will include paths to citizenship for immigrants illegally in the U.S. This would not even be considered in any other venue. When criminals are found to have robbed banks in years previous, there is no path allowing them to keep a portion of the money. They’re criminals, and are dealt with as such.

Creating an immigration law that does not include this particular provision doesn’t make Arizona governor Jan Brewer a bigot. Rather, the Arizona legislature simply wants to ensure that those who came to its state illegally must come through the front door to receive the benefits of those who have acted legally. The side window will not do. There will always be consequences for actions taken. Holding a status of “human being” does not protect anyone from that.