In the text you say that the law does indeed negatively impacts people of different nationalities/ethnicities.
Yes, but your formulation of this is trivial. All laws can negatively impact people of different nationalities/ethnicities. However, I take it you to mean that, in this case, there is a disproportionate impact on a specific nationality or ethnicity. If you do mean this latter statement (and that's the statement I was making above) then, yes, I agree this is true. There is a disproportionate impact on certain nationalities and/or ethnicities. To be absolutely specific, there is a disproportionate impact on Hispanics.
Treating negatively people of a different nationality/ethnicity is racism by definition.
Again, you're incredibly imprecise here, as that's not the definition under discussion nor is it part of any rational definition of racism. To clarify, you need to add 'because of'. Treating people of a different nationality or ethnicity negatively
because of their nationality or ethnicity is racism. Your over-broad construct would have all immigration laws be racist.
But, again, if we provide the benefit of the doubt and allow that you meant the 'because of' definition, then, yes, that's a perfectly valid definition racism and I will agree to it for the purposes of this discussion. Treating others negatively because of their nationality or ethnicity is racist.
But you say it isn't sufficient for you to call it racist.
Yes, considering the above, it is not sufficient for it to be racist. The law does not target ethnicity or nationality -- it applies to all persons equally. It does, however, have a disproportionate impact on Hispanics, so that needs additional scrutiny to see if there's a stealthy mechanism in the law that is aimed at that ethnicity, thereby making it have a racist basis. However, upon scrutiny, the reason the law has a disproportionate impact on Hispanics is that Hispanics make up the majority of illegal immigrants, and the law is challenging for some illegal immigrants. The reason for the challenge to illegals is specifically tied to the fact that they are illegal, not that they are Hispanic -- ie, the law would impact ANY illegal in the same way, not just specifically Hispanics. However, since Hispanics make up the majority of illegals in the US, it stands to reason that any law that makes it more difficult to be illegal in the US will have a disproportionate impact on Hispanics.
Still, even with all of that, a canny person could use that knowledge to hide a racist motive and have put this law into effect on that motive. That's tricky to find, so the next step is to consider if this law is the least restrictive way to enact the protections needed. If a better way can be found to both provide security to identity documents AND reduce the impact on Hispanics, then that's a much better choice. If such a solution exists (or many such solutions) and the law remains as it is, then I would strongly consider that the motivations are racist.
What this comes down to is that I strongly reject the idea that laws that impact illegals in the US are racist on their face. Those laws
may be racist, but having a disproportionate impact on Hispanic illegals because they're illegal isn't sufficient evidence of a racist motive.
The question is then what would it take for it to be sufficient for you?
The selection of this option over other options with less disproportionate impacts. As it stands, it may yet by racist, but there's not enough information to show that it is. In the meantime, it meets the clear definition of a government compelling interest and has not yet failed the least restrictive option tests.
