“The law makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents and bans day laborers and people who seek their services from blocking traffic on streets.
The law also prohibits government agencies from having policies that restrict the enforcement of federal immigration law and lets Arizonans file lawsuits against agencies that hinder immigration enforcement.”
“The law makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents”
This statement is not an accurate account of the trespassing section of the law. The trespassing section of the Arizona law indicates that the person must be in violation of UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a). I am not sure what those sections of US law refer. Essentially, the state law adds a new penalty for violation of sections 1304(e) and 1306(a). I think there is plenty of precedent for adding a state law violation to a federal law violation.
According this review, the Arizona law does not empower local government. Rather the law restricts local government essentially from sanctuary policies. Local governments are complaining because the law imposes unfunded mandates. I think it is a stretch to say that the law imposes unfunded mandates. The law does preempt local sanctuary laws and policies but state law takes precedence over local laws except where prohibited by state constitutions. The unfunded mandate may be possible if citizens sue a local government for non compliance. I do not think there is anything unconstitutional about granting standing. Environmental laws grant standing to third parties with great harm to the economy. No one has ever indicated that third party standing is unconstitutional.