Given the comment, it should be noted that Arizona’s law is weak compared to the requirements to prove citizenship in Mexico, EU, etc. when a perpetrator is stopped for a crime or traffic infraction. A person illegally in the EU or Mexico is at a minimum going to be deported. If the person was stopped for a traffic infraction, it’s probably a fine. If stopped in a crime, then jail time if sentenced, and then deportation. .The idea that it’s even debated is more evidence of how the Rule of Law is dead in the U.S., with race, gender, nation of origin, political party, and other respect for persons are given, rather than treating all under the law the same way..If a person was stopped for running a stop sign or was stopped in committing a felony in the E.U or Canada, would it even be debated that they would have to identify themselves? That is what Arizona’s law did when it was in force. Citizens have to identify themselves to police when they break traffic laws or commit misdemeanors/felonies, so why not people from other nations who do so?.The U.S. is the only nation that has allowed 60+ million, that is to say 1/3 of the total Mexican population of 180+ million (110 “official”), to simply cross the border and to give them the benefits normally attributed to citizens. There has been no movement of people since the world began of similar magnitude, not even after WWII. .No other nation ignores its own constitution (or charter) in order to allow those of another nation to simply walk in and take over, breaking 4 of the 10 commandments merely by coming here. .International laws don’t allow it either..The media in their usual dishonesty, tried to make it like it was something unfair. Hardly. Anyone else must ID themselves in a traffic stop or a criminal investigation. Why not those illegally here?