The subject of international immigration has been a topic in which anthropologists have historically shown great interest. Especially since 1970s and 1980s anthropologists in United States have studied dynamics of immigration and patterns of adaptation of immigrants from around world. In order to understand patterns and processes of immigration and emigration, it is often necessary to look at atmosphere of anti- or pro-immigrant sentiment in receiving area. Propositions initiated and passed, and laws suggested in legislatures, whether on or federal level in United States, reflect biases for or against immigrants. Sometimes, however, legislation is contradictory, or seemingly so. Seemingly contradictory polices become less paradoxical if it is remembered many immigrants are welcomed because they are cheap labor and because they fill jobs in what one author has called the underbelly of American dream (Annerino 1999:26)-jobs to which natives are not attracted to because they are dirty, dangerous, and/or underpaid. In following pages I will look at legislation in Arizona, as well as an apparently pro-immigrant initiative in order to show how capitalist economies are more ready to accept immigrants if they can avoid paying wages of unemployment and retirement benefits and medical and educational costs of immigrants' dependents. Anthropologists working with immigrant populations might wish to explore whether same constraints are apparent in group(s) they work with. Between 2004 and June, 2005, Arizona legislature sponsored 20 antiimmigrant bills (Veranes and Navarro 2005). More were to be introduced in following years. Seemingly in contradiction, in early 2008 legislature was also considering a guest-worker program due to shortage of labor. The first piece of legislation was passed by 56 percent of voters on November 2, 2004. Proposition 200, spearheaded by a group called Protect Arizona Now, in league with Federation for American Immigrant Reform (FAIR), known as an anti-immigrant organization with white supremacist ties (Veranes and Navarro 2005:1), was similar to California's 1994 Proposition 187 in several ways. First, in introduction to text of California's Proposition 187 it is declared that they have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by presence of illegal aliens in state (Proposition 187, 1994: Section 1). In introduction to Arizona's Proposition 200 it is stated: This finds illegal immigration is causing economic hardship to this and illegal immigration is encouraged by public within this provide public benefits without verifying immigration (Proposition 200, 2004: Section 2). Thus, both propositions identified undocumented immigrants as an economic problem, endorsing debatable assumption they take more out of economy than they put into it. Second, both propositions underscored use of public services by undocumented immigrants, including public social services (i.e. welfare), public funded health care services, and public primary, secondary and postsecondary educational institutions in California and all public agencies in Arizona (Proposition 200, 2004: Section 2). Both propositions also directed public service institutions to report undocumented status of attempted users to Federal immigration authorities, although only Arizona bill made it a class 2 misdemeanor if a public service employee failed to do so (Proposition 200, 2004: Section 6). Third, primary population was being targeted was dependent wives and children of undocumented workers-whose demographic characteristics made them especially in need of medical and/or educational services. One difference between California's Proposition 187, which was declared unconstitutional, and Arizona's Proposition 200, which was not, was latter was passed after 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Individual Responsibility Act, and Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of same year permitted states to take such actions. …