In a standard civil case, it is error for the trial court to admit evidence of immigrant status when the Plaintiff is arguing future lost wages. The evidence was barely probative given the number of illegal immigrants who don’t get deported. A brick not being a wall, the evidence is probative enough to meet the ER 402 relevancy requirement. However, the evidence was extremely prejudicial:
We recognize that immigration is a politically sensitive issue. Issues involving immigration can inspire passionate responses that carry a significant danger of interfering with the fact finder’s duty to engage in reasoned deliberation. In light of the low probative value of immigration status with regard to lost future earnings, the risk of unfair prejudice brought about by the admission of a plaintiff’s immigration status is too great. Consequently, we are convinced that the probative value of a plaintiff’s undocumented status, by itself, is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.