A controversial 2010 Arizona law gave local law enforcement officials the authorization to...
a. subject defendants to enhanced interrogation tactics. b. maim suspected terrorists. c. use undercover operations to identify suspected illegal immigrants. d. shoot people attempting to cross the border into the United States. e. question anyone they believe to be an illegal immigrant.
As with all multiple choice questions, if there is a base text or base set of readings that guides the course, I would cross check any findings from here with that. Yet, with this in mind, I think that the best answer from the options present would be the last choice. The law was sweeping in its broad approach and widened scope of power granted to local law enforcement in their pursuit of illegal immigration:
The law which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.
The other options present do not really strike at where the primary intent of the law lies. The law seeks to give powers to the local authorities and state government in enforcing the issue of illegal immigration, something that it perceives the federal government at having failed to effectively restrict or control. The use of "enhanced interrogation tactics" or the focus on terrorists do not strike at the essence of the law. Certainly, the law does not enable people to shoot at those crossing the border. The law does not directly speak to the idea of using undercover operations, as it is primary a direct blanket intended to protect local authorities to doing their part in restricting what they perceive to be illegal immigration.