I disagree. Although they ruled against AZ for passing immigration laws that mirrored Fedgov immigration law (which is not a State right no matter how much you twist the Constitution) ,they did uphold that AZ has a State right for LEO's to determine if someone they have detained if they are legally in the country.
I tend to agree with that ruling. I'm an ex-MinuteMan and have been a FAIR supporter since 1987. I was anti-illegal immigration proponent before it was ever a concern.
Plus, you forget that in 2011, the USSC held up Arizona's right to require employers to E-Verify their employees. That was a huge win and why AZ is experiencing less traffic over their border and less illegals looking for jobs.
IMHO, you are wrong about AZ SB1070. It was a win for States' rights. Arizona can now Constitutionally allow their local LEO's to determine if someone is legally in this country. The whole profiling/racist thing was put to bed, for the time being. Of course, there will be persons/groups that bring this stupid profiling thing back up, but it was still a States' Rights win. Yes, Obama has pretty much nullified that with his 800,000 or so free pass to children of illegals and his EO of stopping deporting such? Enjoy a partial win while you can! Have a pizza! Have a beer or two...
The problem is the word 'immigration'.
While the federal gov has the authority to make a uniform rule for immigration, it does not the same as giving them rule over immigration.
The Constitution does give the federal gov authority for a presence at points of entry, yet this jurisdiction is concurrent with the States, not superior to them, AND the sole purpose of this 'border authority' concerns taxation.
There is no Constitutional authority for the federal gov to protect the border, only the authority to respond should a State petition for assistance.
To top it off, unless someone applies FOR citizenship, they are not an 'immigrant', but a denizen, and fall under the jurisdiction of the State.
The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
St. George Tucker
-------
That said, I'd like to say a big THANK YOU to you and any other Minutemen who may be lurking. You guys (and gals) have my up-most respect.