You point to one of the key elements of the majority view:
…that this cooperation is to occur on the federal government’s terms, not on those mandated by Arizona.
My take on such language is that a state law pertaining to activities within its borders and not in conflict with federal law may nonetheless be superseded via the Supremacy Clause by Executive branch policies, in this case “government terms”. If that is accurate, it dismisses the intent of Congress in favor of whomever controls the Executive, and that is quite troubling.
The better view on the above point may be that of the dissent at 4868:
The majority would read that inability[a state’s inability to remove illegal aliens] as evidence of congressional intent that state officers cannot act at all with respect to other aspects of immigration enforcement that lead to removal, save on the orders of federal officers pursuant to the provisions of written agreements as set forth in…
Sec. 1 of SB1070 clearly was a call to the various AZ agencies to work together with fed agencies. AZ’s law might have been less offensive to the court had the final sentence in Sec.1 provided:
The provisions of this act are intended to work together with federal immigration laws to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.
Regards -