[righttackle44]

". . . I’m not a lawyer, . . . "

I'm not a lawyer either, but it seems to me that your
question is the very reason that the Arizona legis-
lature passed the law. The federal government has
claimed that immigration law is under the purview
of the U.S. government. I think Arizona will claim
that the U.S. government has not done it's job
so the state, seeing the necessity to protect itself,
has passed the legislation under the state's right
to do so under the 10th Amendment.

Even McCain is now hustling around and issued a state-
ments endorsing Arizona SB 1070, a turnaround.

[meadsjn]

The federal government has claimed that immigration law is under the purview of the U.S. government. I think Arizona will claim that the U.S. government has not done it's job so the state, seeing the necessity to protect itself, has passed the legislation under the state's right to do so under the 10th Amendment.

Each State contracted their responsibility for defense against invasion to the US government; the US government has breached its contractual duties and failed to protect the States against invasion.

What do you do with an employee like that? Fire them, and get the job done however you see fit. Then, when the derelict contractor complains, what do you tell them?

Article I, Section. 10.

Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article IV, Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.