There are 2 problems here.

It is racial profiling, and it is not the states place to enforce federal laws. 

We can't have state troopers enforcing with the same laws as federal border agents.  Of course it is going to be more strict on the border, legal citizens should not be hanging out right by the border and wonder why they are under suspicion. 

I am totally against the law if it goes into law, but i am also for the law for 1 reason.  It forced the federal government to enforce their laws.  We can't have 50 different immigration laws in 50 states, that would be insanity, but I think it's good for states to have a way that they can pressure the federal government into doing their job.  In response there have been thousands more border agents sent to the borders and immigration reform is on the table.  I would much rather see some kind of way to prevent legals from getting jobs like having strict penalties for employers who hire illegals rather than having a law that will get you up to 2 years in jail if you don't have your papers when the police ask for them.  

another thing i don't like about this is that this was not a huge issue before, now it is suddenly is even though there are far more border agents.  I'm not saying it's not an issue but it seems to be something that conservatives want to exagerrate in order to make the president look like he isn't doing his job.  Fact is that illegal immigration is actually down.  It is down because the job market is down. 

Sorry, but everything in the post is just false. There are so many thing to counter, I will just do it in bullet form

• The federal law allows more for racial profiling then the state law. The state law is less strick.
• Any state can make a law the mirrors the federal law, and enforce it. Every state does it all the time. Arson, murder, grand theft, etc... All these are both federal and state laws, that a state is allowed to enforce. In fact, the federal government encourages states to do so. This is the only law the baulk at. They baulk at it because the feds don't want to enforce it. Tuff shit feds, you don't get to pick what laws you like and just enforce those. If you don't wants states mirroring this law and enforcing it, change the law.
• We can absolutely have 50 different immigration laws in 50 states, as long as none of them infringe on the federal law. Arizona does not require additional papers, or there own passport. They don't limit how long you can be in the country on visa. There legal requirements to be in the country are the same as the feds.
• You don't go to jail for two years for not having papers. The worst that will happen to you, is the state of Arizona will turn over anyone they find that is illegal to the federal immigration office. The feds then can do whatever they want with you.

This law is really no big deal. It's just been blown up in the media.

There is a VERY strong chance that if you see 30 day laborers standing on a corner waiting to be picked up for work, that at least 10 of them are illegal. A cop, even though he knows this, will not be allowed to investigate, because they have not broken any laws.

Just an example.

If you have any kind of ID including a Drivers Liscense it wouldn't matter if you spoke no english and had a shirt that said "I'm here illegally."

It wasn't a huge issue before?  Are you kidding me?   Hell it's the number 1 issue pretty much every rightwing person had with Bush.

It was a GIGANTIC deal that had all sorts of news station coverage and complaining during the Bush presidency.  Didn't you watch any TV?   EDIT: Oh your from the UK.  Well suffice it to say, your just wrong.  It was a big deal during the ENTIRE Bush presidency, and if anything had less coverage once the market went down.

It's the biggest diversion between Bush and the rest of the party because Bush wanted to get Hispanics to vote Republican, since outside of Immigration they pretty much have completly republican values, but vote democrat because of the Republicans immigration stance.

no its not racal profiling and yes states can inforce federal laws:

Gonzales v. City of Peoria

“Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens.” .... “state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.”  ......“that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions” ...

United States v. Salinas-Calderon

“[a] state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”

United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez

“this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.”

United States of America v. Jose De Jesus Santana-Garcia Gonzalo Alonso

“that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit ‘have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,’ and that federal law as currently written does nothing ‘to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.’  On the contrary, the Court said, “federal law ‘evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.’”

need anymore?

Not a huge issue? If you don't live in a border state its not a huge issue, But I am 25 now, and all I can remember through my adult life is the immigration debate. (So cal resident)

What landscape is different? How has America changed so dramaticaly that americans do not want immigrants to asymilate? Its called the melting pot for a reason.  The qoute seems to be the perfect fit to be honest. Instead of calling it asinie maybe you could dispute what he has said. What is wrong in his qoute?

As for me by the way...  I'm kinda confused about this law.

I mean, if someone is caught committing a crime or are suspected of committing one aren't they required to show proof of identification anyway?

I mean, you'd want to make sure it was the right guy i'd think.  Even if it's something that's just tickatble.  I mean... you ticket someone who has no ID.  What are the chances that gets paid?