Mark, you lost me on that one. It’s not possible for a state to legalize anything that federal law has properly criminalized (i.e., to legalize any behavior that, like illegal immigration, is a proper area of federal regulation). All the state would be doing, if this cockamamie Sutherland proposal were ever adopted, is making the ballyhooed “sanctuary” status some jurisdictions confer a little more formalistic. But surely it is within the discretion of states to choose not to enforce federal laws, just as they are allowed to promote federal laws by enacting enforcement measures that are consistent with federal law (such as the Arizona immigration law). Medical marijuana laws don’t eviscerate the federal drug laws, and all those places that declared themselves “Patriot Act-Free Zones” had no effect on the lawfulness of the Patriot Act.

Even if the Sutherland proposal were made state law, illegal immigration would still be illegal under federal law, and the feds would still be entitled to enforce the federal law inside the state. And while I agree with your point about how bad the think tanks can be, I must say I actually like these sorts of proposals. They sharpen the debate for the public, demonstrate in concrete terms the wages of failing to enforce sensible laws, and make our federal and state representatives choose sides. This has much to commend it in comparison to the Alinskyite practices that are in vogue today, under which officials tell the public what the public wants to hear while working against the public will.