Any discussion of the new law in Arizona must begin with awareness of the federal government’s deficiencies.  The U.S. Constitution clearly assigns the federal government the responsibility to protect the states “against invasion.” (See Article IV, Section 4.) If that duty were faithfully being carried out, there would be no need for the recently passed law in Arizona.

Note that the Constitution didn’t say “military invasion,” just invasion. And the millions who have broken our laws and inundated our country constitute an invasion.

A large percentage of Arizona’s crime wave, welfare and medical costs, narcotics problem, etc., is traceable to the border-crossers.  How else to deal with the situation when practically no help comes from those assigned to cope with the problem?

The John Birch Society reports on a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq who said that his unit was given the responsibility of sealing the border between Syria and Iraq.  He added, “We did it, and if we could do that at the Syria-Iraq border, it can be done at our nation’s southern border.”  What’s missing is the will to do the job.  This missing will should be a topic for discussion.

Oklahoma enacted tough laws against hiring illegal immigrants when it became obvious that a federal law enacted to target this problem wasn’t being enforced. Many of the illegal immigrants fled the state.

Critics will insist that Arizona has gone too far. Why don’t they criticize the federal government for not going far enough?

Robert Bruce Acheson, Dixfield