Someday we’ll figure out just why it is that the federal government does not like to enforce existing federal immigration laws. Meanwhile, Ace makes very good sense:
Yes, a state law cannot conflict with a federal law in an area of federal jurisdiction, but can a state policy conflict with a federal policy if both state the same law?
In other words — Arizona’s law is the same as the feds’. The big difference is not in the law, but in the policy: the feds have a policy of non- or minimal enforcement; they are angry at Arizona not because Arizona has passed fresh law but because Arizona intends a different policy — a policy of actual enforcement.
So yes, federal law trumps state law, but does mere federal policy trump state policy, especially when federal policy is in fact at odds with its own stated law?
If policy does trump the law, then what point is there to having a law to begin with? After all, every administration can simply define its own policies and not worry about the pesky laws at all.
Oh, wait a minute . . . .