If the federal government were to uphold AZ setting it’s own laws, then other states would follow suit, and likely as not, laws which would provide them with visa waivers, cards, etc.
Section 3 was meant to enforce existing federal immigration law. It is a giant leap that other states could issue visa waviers, cards, etc, which are in direct conflict with existing federal immigration law. States are expressly prohibited from doing such things by the Constitution.
AZ would turn over those apprehended to federal immigration authorities for their disposal. AZ is not setting its own laws, but mirroring federal law just like states do with kidnapping, bank robberies, etc.
These immigrants would now be legal and AZ couldn’t enforce their own provisions to deport them.
AZ 1070 doesn't authorize the deportation of anyone. Just like every other state, they are handed over to ICE, which then makes that determination thru federal immigration courts. You are misrepresenting what is in AZ 1070.
“Section 3 was meant to enforce existing federal immigration law.”
That’s what section 2 does.
Section 3 is AZ stating, we believe that all illegal immigrants caught in AZ should receive a punishment of X from AZ. Why? Because they want to enforce their own law, not that of the federal government. Which is why SCOTUS went so far to say, “The federal government says the law is Y. This law changes AZ law to X”. There cannot be a uniform immigration law if this section of the bill were upheld.
“which are in direct conflict with existing federal immigration law.”
Why not? Arizona is trying to pass a law that is in direct conflict with existing federal immigration law. That’s section 3.
“AZ is not setting its own laws”
They do in section 3.