Here's the situation, Ken. Let me stress this:
(1) The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT AGAINST STATES (even cities)
ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAWS - QUITE THE CONTRARY, they need all the
help they can get.
(2) Rest assured that Reagan, the Bushes, even a theoretical McCain
Administration would have sued as well. This is seen as "Federal
Supremacy" vs. "States Rights" (aka, by some as: "Jim Crow Laws).
----------------------
Here's a great tutorial explanation. Suppose that you (the Federal
Government) have a very nice car (aka immigration policy). In this
analogy I am your neighbor (the State of Arizona). Suppose further
that I am under the impression that you don't take care of your car as
well as you should (read: I am convinced you are a slob), and every
morning I wash it, buff it, dry it, pamper it, etc.
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says that Foreign Matters
(embassies, treaties, immigration, etc.) are the province of the
FEDERAL Branch. IOW: The CAR belongs to YOU.
After my unauthorized car-cleaning activities, you have 3 options:
(1) Ignore me. Leave me alone. "Hey, that guy 'Ramon Arizona' is doing
a great job, the car looks great!". This is what has happened with
California marihuana laws vs. Federal laws. The Feds have decided no
to sue.
(2) Sue me. "This is my friggin' car! DO NOT TOUCH IT!!" This is what
the Federal government has done with Arizona and the other copycat,
rogue states that have attempted to pass similar legislation.
(3) Finally, you and I can sign a detailed agreement: "You can wash
the car, only when I don't need it, but not when I am sleeping, and
never use toxic polish". This is the IDEAL result, but as long as
Arizona say: "It is MY way or the high way!", Washington will reply:
"Actually, dear, it is MY friggin' car, so it is MY way".
-Ramon The Amateur Constitutionalist
(to be continued)