Tough job lighting a bulb missing a filament but I'll give it a shot.
Number 1: States are soverieign and have the ability to exclude from their borders anybody they please unless forbidden to do so by federal statute or constitutional provision. No such happenstance exists here but if there is a brilliant guy like yourself should be able to direct us to that law.
Number 2: There are no conflicts between existing federal statutes and the law written in Arizona. All the legalese in the majority not withstanding. But go ahead and post one in common sense ordinary language. Should be easy right?
Number 3: That the executive chooses, in a belligerent unlawful manner, to not execute the laws as written by Congress does not require the states to follow their unlawful belligerent lead.
OK your turn.
I will try and remain civil to you, even though you obviously have no intention of being civil to me, or to even attempt to be civil, but, I will try...
First Item
Article 1, Section 8 of that pesky document, you know, that there constitution thingie, gives power over naturalization to the feds..... case law already settles that naturalization and immigration both fall under jurisdiction of the feds.. kinda period, like..
Second Item
All that there fancy legalese IS the decision... to try and remove it from the discussion is to base your decision on pure emotion... now, what other political group that we know of bases their decisions on pure emotions???
Your refusal to accept the so called “Legalese” proves your emotional based response.
Third Item
As I stated previously, the states attorney generals need to gather up all the damages caused their states by the refusal of the feds to enforce their own immigration laws, and SUE the feds, naming the people refusing to carry out the laws of the land by name, and making it as personal as possible and still maintain the government culpability..
Now I have given you a factual, non emotion based responses to all your questions... bet you cannot do the same
#1: no, states may not exclude from their borders anyone whom the federal government has - legally under federal law - permitted into the country.
The problem is that the federal government has abdicated its component of this principle, leading to...
#2: AZ tried to duplicate and enforce federal law on the matter, which (see #1) it lacks power to.
#3: Practical duplication of #2.
The federal government being empowered with a monopoly on naturalization & visas, and being obligated to defend borders, the abdication of said powers & obligations creates a terrible problem for those whom the Constitution relieves of a natural right thereto. AZ had best rediscover Writ Of Mandamus and/or State Militias[1].
[1] - and I don’t mean those camouflage-wearing traffic cops some states call a “militia”. They’d be wise to discover the gaping hole in US Code 922(o).