Like I said before, your problem is that you automatically equate the enforcement of immigration laws with racism for some reason and you also don't understand constitutional law. A rule of interpretation is that when arabiguous, you read laws in such a way that aren't unconstitutional. Here, the only thing unconstitutional about the law is that it allows stops "for any reason", which would be constitutional if it said "for any lawful reason". A judge could just read "lawful" in there, as is the nature of our common law system, or the legislature could just rewrite it to comply. If that's the only thing "blatantly" unconstitutional (and it isn't really blatant), what do you have left after that? That has nothing to do with the substantive objective of the law. Can you look in the legislative notes and see that the legislators based the law on racist reasons? That's the only other way to support your regurgitated argument that the law is "blatantly" unconstitutional. Can you predict the future and see that police officers will disparately enforce this law only against those of a certain race relative to their respective portion of the total illegal immigrant population?
Plenty of people are for illegal immigration. Progressives with white guilt and the major political parties being the chief supporters.
They are sucking the system dry and there's no denying that. Under the current system everyone sucks the system dry, but some have the right to do so because they are citizens of this country and some don't have that right because they're here illegally.