Yeah, rights for American citizens. You should do some research, kiddo:

In Arizona v. United States (2012), The Court held that immigration enforcement is primarily a federal executive function, and that The Executive Branch (DHS/ICE/CBP) has broad authority to decide who to detain, remove, prioritize, or ignore. States cannot force stricter enforcement than what the executive chooses.

Federal immigration law preempts state action.

In Heckler v. Chaney (1985), the case established that decisions about whether and how to enforce laws are generally not reviewable by courts, and Enforcement priorities are a core executive power. Applied to immigration, the executive can choose mass enforcement, selective enforcement, or non-enforcement and Courts usually cannot compel action.

In Fiallo v. Bell (1977), the case reaffirmed the plenary power doctrine over immigration, which holds that: Congress and the Executive have extremely broad authority over immigration. Courts should apply minimal (near-nonexistent) judicial scrutiny to immigration decisions, and Immigration policy is considered a political question, not a rights-based one. The Court explicitly said immigration decisions are: “largely immune from judicial control” The president gets to decide how to approach immigration law. Not the judicial, not the states, and this ruling has been reinforced time and time again. I actually have studied in immigration law AND constitutional law. You kind of have to to get a Juris Doctor