The short answer is that doesn't always work because the U.S. is different in important aspects (and this doesn't mean necessarily claiming American exceptionalism).

I think there are some problems when you bring in the "Why don't you ask every other country?" argument. For one, not every country has the same protections that the U.S. carries in the Bill of Rights. This is why you can't, for example, use this defense when it comes to banning intolerant speech even though it may be done elsewhere.

I think the generous interpretation is this law feels like a "show me your papers" statute which the United States generally has a philosophical angle against. It would be comparable in some people's eyes to a "Show me your vaccine card" enforced by the State. Pragmatically, the ID law may also create de facto racial profiling. Although I think the opposite side of this feels the issue is more about State vs. Federal immigration enforcement than really striking down the "show me your papers" provision.

You misunderstand me - I am not saying that the law is needed/not needed. I'm not on any particular side of the argument.

What I am saying is that presenting the argument as a clear-cut case of $PARTY wants to limit voter participation from certain demographics is disingenuous - it is NOT clear-cut at all because more countries require voter registration than not.

So no one should be attacking labeling a proponent of this law as a Nazi just because they support it - the majority of the world's voting democracies can't be Nazis, now can they?

I agree, but I am saying the “other countries think this is obviously fine policy” is a flawed argument. There are many good and bad reasons a policy is acceptable in one country and not another. That’s not to say the fascism argument is a good one either, just that there are more principled points to make.