The intro to Justice Scalia’s partial dissent in Arizona v. United States is a perfect demonstration of today’s self-contradictory “conservatism.”  It takes with one hand, then pretends to give back with the other (emphasis mine):

“The United States is an indivisible ‘Union of sovereign States.’ Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U. S. 92, 104 (1938). Today’s opinion, ap­proving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there.”

Proof of this “conservative” schizophrenia can be found in Mark Krikorian’s instant reaction to the ruling, which was to call it a victory for immigration restrictionists and blame the liberal media for “spinning” the story to suggest otherwise (emphasis mine):

“The other three provisions that were challenged were preempted by federal law, according to the Court, but could you even name what those parts are?  Making it a state misdemeanor for an illegal alien to apply for employment would be nice, for instance, but it’s not even a federal crime yet.”