clinton appointed judge ignores the constitution and settled case law, who would have thought that could happen? Oh well, it will be settled at the supreme court. Altough, barry gets to gloat for a yr.

what happens if you are just visiting and get pulled over for something? 

many bad things are happening in arizona, this is just one bad thing that is trying to correct all of the other negative factors happening there. the world is obviously imperfect and atleast somebody is trying to do something to make the problems better. unfortunately this wont end well.

You show them your drivers liscense and your fine?   Really, I wasn't a fan of this law at first... looking at it though, I don't see anything that shouldn't arleady be done. 

 I mean, if someone comits a crime that has a penalty you should need to confirm their identity... so you make sure they pay the price.

And if it turns out they are an illegal alien... they should be turned over to immigration.

I mean, there isn't anything reall controversial about it.

They should just remove the "If there is reasonable suspison" part since it might lead to illegal candadians, british etc from slipping through the cracks.

and an illegal person couldnt do that? 

An illegal person shouldn't have a drivers liscense... except maybe from California.

but they could have one from mexico just as i would have one from canada.

The requirements for a license are more specific than "show one, and you're off." They will only accept licenses from states that require a check before issuing one. (Obviously, AZ is one of them, so they will accept their own licenses.) A license from another country does not prove eligibility to be here, and thus, would not be accepted for this. It would let you avoid driving without a license, though...

It is funny how many people call on the Constitution to actually defend the Arizona Law.  The law is unconstitutional as in it is in violation of what the Constitution states.  Article 1 of the constitution grants Congress with exclusive powers over Immigration in various forms. Then it also grants implied powers throught the Necessary and Proper Clause.  And then the Constitution expresly provides with a Supremacy Clause.

So, no matter what good intentions or reasons Arizona may have, it is still agaisnt the Constitution of the United States to make such a law.

I read some arguments here that in "other countries you have to..." but you need to keed in mind that the US is not your typical Republic where there is a single government.  No, the US is a federation, so there are many governments working together.  So while Federal law says that if you are an alien you have to carry your passport or permit at all times, a state police officer has no right to demand it; only a federal officer can.  Sounds dumb, but that is just the nature of having two separate governments.  Just like state governments don't like the federal one to interfere in its affairs, so does the federal government.  The constitution gives it some powers and it is not going to allow the States to usurp it.

The whole argument about "well the Feds are not doing it so we have to..." is also invalid.  The reason we have elections is to have the power as a people to vote for officials that represent the views and opinions of the people.  So if you believe your opinion is in the mayority then the elective body should represent that opinion; but if it is not the mayority then you lost.  So the solution to that argument is to vote out the persons currently in power and vote in person who will actually do something about the problem.

So you want a police officer to say the following.

"Excuse me, sir, you were going 5 miles an hour over the speed limit. Can I see your green card please?"

Also, why the hell would anyone from Canada or Britain go to Arizona of all places? Both are among the wealthiest countries per capita in the world. Hell, Canada has a higher development index than the United States, and Britain is 0.009 points lower.