Pros and cons of being a sanctuary city

Published: 12/22/2016 3:04:11 PM

I notice that Chris Collins thought that becoming a sanctuary city would make us “an accomplice to the violation of federal immigration law.” First, there is nothing in federal law that says we are obligated to help the Feds rip families apart. Why less than two months ago, we voted to defy federal DEA law by legalizing marijuana. Did Chris give us a hard time for such a unpatriotic act? Should local police report suspected smokers to the federal Drug Enforcement Agency?

I thought conservatives liked local control and looked askance at federal intrusion when not necessary. Do Chris and like minded folks look down their noses at past Greenfield residents who were part of the Underground Railroad or more recent ones who participated in sit-ins? But back to the specific question at hand.

Sanctuary cities help to protect so-called “illegal” immigrants from being preyed upon by criminals or slumlords or sweatshop employers. Also, an “illegal” immigrant most likely would not come forward as a witness to a crime, or victim of a crime, if it meant deportation. I vaguely recalled some guy saving a person in a burning building and then it was discovered that this hero was “illegal” and found himself deported. What’s that saying, “No good deed goes unpunished?”

So, though there are arguments on both sides of the sanctuary cities debate, I personally think that becoming one is more humane, civilized, and fiscally responsible than allowing our police force helping or doing the very dubious work of the federal government.

Tom Tolg

Greenfield


Please support the Greenfield Recorder's COVID-19 coverage

Thank you for your support of the Recorder.




Greenfield Recorder

14 Hope Street
Greenfield, MA 01302-1367
Phone: (413) 772-0261
Fax: (413) 772-2906

 

Copyright © 2019 by Newspapers of Massachusetts, Inc.
Terms & Conditions - Privacy Policy