Yeah, I know it was a weird place to find that tidbit.
Here's the whole text:http://nationaljournal.com/politics/tex ... g-20120625
Scalia's dissent is on page 30-51. His slavery-era thing was meant to show the powers he says are available to the states. It's pretty much a states' rights argument, and while the majority came down on the side of immigration being a federal matter not a state matter, he flatly disagrees. On page 41 he says:
The most important point is that, as we have discussed, Arizona is entitled to have “its own immigration policy”—including a more rigorous enforcement policy—so long as that does not conflict with federal law. The Court says, as though the point is utterly dispositive, that “it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States,” ... It is not a federal crime, to be sure. But there is no reason Arizona cannot make it a state crime for a removable alien (or any illegal alien, for that matter) to remain present in Arizona.
He goes on to make it clear he really, really can't stand the behavior of the current administration regarding immigration and aliens, which hasn't got an awful lot to do with the legal questions he's been appointed to adjudicate. But hey, it's his dissent.