be. It depends on how serious we slathering freedom-freak libertarian types are about nullification, and here I stand on the brink of a dangerous position. Nullification has an ugly ring of facile nostalgia for the days of black slavery. So does its cousin, interposition. Neither doctrine justifies defending a massa-servant relationship of one class of American citizens to another nor of the old Jim Crow laws, nor of government-mandated racial segregation. Nullification, as the term is used here, is not a means of attacking a race; it is an ambition to protect a nation.

It may bring life to a theoretical dispute about the the right of a political subdivision of the United States to protect its citizens from a serious local threat, even though the peril may resultfrom politically inspired federal action, or inaction.

---

Citizens of basket-cases posing as countries flee their thug-ridden homes to places like The United States because they are driven by economic desperation, and because they lack the will to organize for the redemption of their own home lands. They find it more convenient to follow the coyote across the border to a place where the natives have already made the necessary sacrifices to create a land of relative freedom and opportunity.

The crossing is, of course, illegal. National law makes it so. We were told repeatedly that the people of Arizona enacted a border control measure which mirrors the federal statutes only because Obama and his predecessors, hand-in-hand with rabbitty national legislators, lacked the courage to enforce the laws they, themselves, enacted