In "Morals and the Criminal Law," Lord Patrick Devlin writes: "Nothing should be punished by the law that does not lie beyond the limits of tolerance.... I do not think one can ignore disgust it is deeply felt and not manufactured. Its presence is a good indication that the bounds of toleration are being reached. Not everything is to be tolerated. No society can do without intolerance, indignation, and disgust; they are the forces behind the moral law, and indeed it can be argued that if they or something like them are not present, the feelings of society cannot be weighty enough to deprive the individual of freedom of choice." (16-17) What exactly is Devlin saying here and how does it relate to the argument (s) of the essay? Do you find his views persuasive? How do you think he would have dealt with some of the problems associated with illegal immigration? For instance, would he have endorsed the efforts of some states to permit state law enforcement officials (police, sheriffs, etc.) to require proof of identify and immigration status upon request? What do you think?