Who will have to stop enforcing federal immigration laws? The state or the national government?
If you mean the state, then usually they are not allowed to enforce federal law. The state must go through special training and enter into an agreement with ICE in order to do it at all. But that would be at the behest of the state not the national government. (In other words, the reverse of an unfunded mandate).
But, since you bring it up, what the state Attorney General should do is file a writ of mandamus against the Secretary of Homeland security and the head of ICE forcing them to do their job and enforce the immigration laws. That would take the burden off AZ.
mmmmmmmm....that law has been somewhat changed, I believe. There was some Congressional legislation that allowed states to enforce immigration laws if they so choose. Buy enforce I mean actually use their state and local police forces.
But they aren't required to do it.
Arizona couldn't do that, could they...force the federal government to enforce its own laws if they believe they aren't beholden to the federal government's laws.
My county actually does enforce immigration laws. The officers had to be sent to ICE training and few other things before they could do it. So, states can't do it willy-nilly, they have to follow a course of action.
If they file a
writ in Federal Court and they were successful, the Federal Judge would order the Secretary to enforce the law. This is what was at the bottom of Marbury v. Madison. Marbury was a guy who was appointed a Magistrate at the end of the Adams administration. But, the appointments were not delivered at the time of the change of administrations. When Madison showed up to take over the job, the appointments were still on his desk. Marbury filed a Writ of Mandamus to force Madison to deliver the appointments. Of course, nobody even cares about the actual case now, we all know it because that's where Chief Justice Marshall proclaimed that the Supreme Court had the power to say what the law is.
But, I think you missed the point of what AZ is saying. They are not saying the laws of the US do not apply to them. They are taking the nuanced approach of saying that instead of being a "truism", the Tenth Amendment has real meaning. That the Federal government is violating the Constitution with some of laws it has written. Some of them, not all of them, exceed their enumerated powers under the Constitution. Basically, they want the go back to when
Hammer v. Dagenhart was still good law. So, what they are doing is not really that crazy. It won't work, but it does have basis for the contentions that they are making.
This isn't 1820s South Carolina saying that it has the power to nullify any federal law it disagrees with. This is more like a return to the law as it existed up to 1940.