To the editor:
Bernie Woods (“Politically correct to disregard the law” 8/15/19) writes “I may even go so far as to say we should accept our fair share of true refugees from starving or warring nations,” “we shouldn’t be separating children from their parents and family members,” and “we need to put party lines aside in order to pass compassionate and comprehensive immigration laws and secure our borders!”
However, Mr. Woods also asserts that “the vast majority of the illegal immigrants are coming for the free ride of food stamps, Medicaid, etc.” I strongly doubt that this is true for the “vast majority” and would want proof of that assumption.
I believe most immigrants are eager to work for survival and a better life. Also, undocumented immigrants actually cannot receive most such benefits except life-saving interventions such as emergency Medicaid and necessary nutrition under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
“If one or more of them broke into [our] house, would [we] still want them to stay?” I would want any burglar to stay – for the police. However, it is most likely that the burglar would be a native-born U.S. citizen. Suggesting “we ship 30 or 40” families to Dublin (population about 1,500) to test their sanctuary-town resolve is like calling a kidney donor insincere for donating only one kidney.
Mr. Woods emphasizes a distinction between legal and illegal immigration. However, as U.S. asylum law stands for the moment (8 U.S. Code § 1158), it is legal, with certain exceptions, for a person to enter the U.S. “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and apply for asylum.
The administration is working diligently both to greatly tighten restrictions on legal immigration and to narrow the legal opportunity to apply for asylum, bu t seeking asylum remains lawful for now.
John O. Willis
Peterborough