No, it merely stands for the proposition that the Constitution means what it says, when it states in Article VI that,
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
In short, that means that states cannot are not allowed to creat their own laws to supercede what the Constitution or Congress have already passed into law.
States are not totally "defenseless," because they can (and do) take cases to court against the Federal Government. Costs and damages imposed on the States by the Federal Government's failure to properly address illegal immigration, is something that can be, should be, and is being, challenged in the courts.
That quote is not pertinent to this issue.
It is agreed the federal government has higher authority, but that does not mean the state is powerless in the face of an intentional absence of federal action. The means available to a state that wishes to defend its citizens from foreign invasion is not limited to litigating the issue in a courtroom.
To say otherwise is to say that one who perceives imminent danger or actual harm to one’s family is limited to calling 911, which may or may not decide to respond.
Bear in mind also that the legislation passed by the state of AZ was not intended to, and does not supersede the Constitution or federal law.
Question. Does what you say mean that states cannot recognize/act on crimes where/when the federal government has laws dealing with such crimes. What comes to mind is someone caught by state police trying to blow up an interstate highway bridge. Does the state cop instead of a formal arrest just say don’t do it until I call the feds? Or does it all hinge on the state cop having to have a state law that allows him to make an arrest?
Question. Does what you say mean that states cannot recognize/act on crimes where/when the federal government has laws dealing with such crimes. What comes to mind is someone caught by state police trying to blow up an interstate highway bridge. Does the state cop instead of a formal arrest just say don’t do it until I call the feds? Or does it all hinge on the state cop having to have a state law that allows him to make an arrest?