Much is being said these days on the subject of illegal immigration. Here’s the situation as I understand it.

By law and by custom, it is the federal government’s responsibility to manage and control immigration. For most of our history, the government did this quite well. As a result, legal immigrants made countless contributions to our country and our culture.

The promise of the American dream attracted immigrants from all over the world, and the ­diversity of backgrounds and ideas that resulted, bound together by the ideals upon which our country was founded, became one of our greatest strengths. For many years, nearly everything about this was good for both the country and the immigrants. So far, so good.

In the 1980s, some American cities decided to establish ­themselves as “sanctuary cities.” This means they deliberately chose to violate the federal government’s immigration laws. They went so far as to make it illegal for city employees, including police officers, to even inquire about a person’s immigration status. Today, 31 cities, including most of the largest ones in the country, are sanctuary cities. The flood of ­illegal immigrants and the ­attendant problems that followed should be no surprise to anyone. Even though this is a clear violation of federal law, the federal ­government chose to do nothing about it.

Now comes Arizona, which, because of serious crime issues resulting from illegal immigration, passed a law supporting enforcement of the immigration laws. But the federal government, in its ­infinite wisdom, decided to ­challenge that law in the courts.

So to sum it all up, the sanctuary cities that chose to violate the law are tolerated and even supported by the government, while the state that tried to enforce the law is sued.

Can someone help me make sense of this?

John Rowerdink

Pinehurst