I see your point, but it's kind of the opposite thing, isn't it? For something to simply not be illegal at the federal level doesn't mean the states can't outlaw it. But for something to be illegal at the Federal level and to have the states undermining it... I mean, the whole point of something being illegal at the Federal level IS TO MAKE SURE it is illegal at the state level. I mean, there is nowhere in the US you can go where you are only under Federal law (that I know of).
To try to make an analogy, imagine you're a child and your parents say, "No soda after 8pm, bed by 9pm" and that's their regular rule. One night they leave you with the baby-sitter, and the baby-sitter decides you are too hyper, so no soda tonight at all. Now, the child can wail "Mom lets me!!" but if the baby-sitter says, "Well, not tonight," it seems a little less egregious than if she said "I don't care what your mom says, let's fire up the bong!!"
Do you see what I mean? The state can be stricter than the Fed, but it shouldn't be looser.
If The federal government states illegal immigration is illegal, does that give the states rights to execute illegals?After all, the state is being stricter than the feds using your analogy.