No to sanctuary cities

Dear Wil,
We have immigration laws for several reasons: to limit the amount of aliens to a number we can accommodate, to screen them for health issues, to check their criminal history, and to ensure their desire to assimilate into our cultures.
With a federal debt of $17 trillion, a Mass debt of $768 million, and a Belmont debt of $5 million, all on the backs of taxpayers, how can we afford to open our doors to people, especially illegal trespassers, who need our financial assistance? We can’t even afford to take care of ourselves! Most politicians at all levels just keep spending tax money to buy votes, kicking the debt levels down the road for the future. I find it highly irresponsible to encourage illegal immigration with sanctuary locations, tax payer assistance, and failure to enforce immigration law. If you were in debt and struggling to care for your family, would you further harm your family by taking in a dependent trespasser? If our country doesn’t get their act together at all levels, I’m very fearful for our future.
David Benoit

One reply on “No to sanctuary cities”

  1. Got it, Dave.

    I think that the immigration law is fundamentally a federal issue. If, as a result of federal action and/or inaction, people are here in Massachusetts, I want to integrate them in our economy — it does have costs, but the long-term costs of isolating people are even higher.

Comments are closed.