I'm not so sure. The ruling said that immigration policy is set only by the Federal government. First, I believe this is in agreement with Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Second, had the ruling gone the other way, the individual states would have been able to create their own unique immigration laws. Would you *really* want that? Can you imagine the immigration policy of states like California or Massachusetts?
There is a big difference between what the Constitution grants to the federal government, the very specific power to “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” and the broad extension to policies that have nothing to do with immigration. All other powers except those enumerated in the Constitution are with the states, and the people.
That part of immigration which is allowed is the part that deals with naturalization. The illegal entry and presence of aliens in the US is not a naturalization process, unless you believe that an illegal alien is accomplishing his first step to naturalization, in which case the whole world will sneak in here illegally to get naturalized.
Getting employment is not part of any naturalization process.
Article 1, Section 8? Yes, but doesn’t that same section give the States the authority to call on the militia to “suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”
I would consider what is going on in our border States, especially Arizona, an INVASION...
“Second, had the ruling gone the other way, the individual states would have been able to create their own unique immigration laws. Would you *really* want that? Can you imagine the immigration policy of states like California or Massachusetts?”
You are correct. This opinion paves the way for the feds to take action against “sanctuary cities.” Getting the feds to do that places the obligation right back where it ought to be; as a political issue and changing the people running the show in DC.