A. is in favor of B. frowns uponC. is indifferent to D.……

You might think they would have learned their lesson by now. At the end of 2005 Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a bill that cracked down on illegal immigration, while doing nothing to regularise the position of the 12m or so people, mostly of Hispanic origin, who were living and working inside the United States without the proper papers, or to create a mechanism for allowing in people from Mexico and other southern neighbours to work with temporary permits. The bill never became law, but its one-sided nature helped stamp the Republicans (92% of whom voted for it in the House) as an anti-immigrant party. In April 2006 Latinos organised a day of protests in more than 100 cities; more than 500,000 people marched in Los Angeles alone. In the 2008 election 67% of Hispanics voted for Barack Obama.
Now it is all happening again. Until now, the detection of illegal immigrants has invariably been a matter for the federal authorities.
Republican-governed Arizona has just enacted a tough new law of its own: it requires state police to check the papers of anyone whose immigration status they have "reasonable" cause to doubt. Opponents say this is sure to lead to racial profiling. The bill is popular with angry white locals, so much so that the previously reform-minded John McCain, who is running for re-election to the Senate in Arizona, has not dared to oppose it. But in a country that is turning Hispanic at a rapid rate (by mid-century white Anglos will be another minority), the Republicans are once again hellbent on being on the wrong side of demography. The backlash will surely last longer than any bump in popularity gained by looking tough. The marches have begun again: on May 1st, up to a million people across the country took to the streets, by no means all of them Hispanic.
For those who yearn for America to have a sensible immigration policy, the Arizona bill is a reason for both despair and hope. The first is easier to spell out. By any measure, Arizona’s offering is deeply illiberal. It would require all non-U. S. citizens to carry documents proving their immigration status, and would require police to check those papers in any contact with anyone who might be illegal. The obvious danger is that it would lead to the systematic harassment of brown-skinned people, including legal immigrants. As for illegals, it would simply drive even more of them underground. It would also criminalise anyone who shelters or helps illegals. Even the plan’s fans acknowledge that this is the toughest such bill ever passed in America.
Paradoxically, the reason for hope is much the same. The bill is such a shocker that it is restarting the national debate. The Arizona law passed largely because the government is failing to do its job. The border is not secure; employers can and do hire people who have no legal right to be in America; and cross-border crime is on the rise. Better enforcement is needed. But on both political and moral grounds, better enforcement can only he part of a comprehensive immigration reform. The 12m illegals cannot be wished away, but must be given a chance to earn their citizenship; a guest-worker programme is needed to match the demands of employers with the desire of Mexicans and others to work. Mr. Obama’s administration has talked a lot about an immigration bill. It is now long past time that they produced one. Otherwise, expect to see more Arizonas.
According to the passage, the author______Republicans’ move on illegal immigration.

A. is in favor of

B. frowns upon
C. is indifferent to

D. is concerned in