Letters submitted by BDN readers are verified by BDN Opinion Page staff. Send your letters to [email protected]
I am writing in response to Michael Capeci’s recent column regarding the bill that could make Maine a sanctuary state. Capeci claims that these policies “can lead to increased risks for public safety.” For example, he states that law enforcement detainers are issued for individuals “who may be in the country illegally or are suspected of … committing crimes.” He also states that sanctuary cities create environments where “individuals who may pose a risk … are allowed to go free.” Who exactly determines which individuals may pose a risk?
The words “may,” “could” and “suspected of” are frequently repeated in Capeci’s argument.
In reality, sanctuary cities do not prohibit law enforcement from acting when there are proven criminal offenses. As we are all aware, now immigrants can be picked up, not offered due process, and may even be subjected to unfair imprisonment.
Data shows that there is no correlation between sanctuary policies and increased crime. Instead, there is a decrease in crime rates in cities that welcome and support immigrants. Linking immigration status with dangerous criminal status is just wrong, morally and statistically. Data continues to show that protecting marginalized communities helps all of us.
I thank Maine lawmakers for the courage to pass LD 1971.
Joyce Mallery
Bangor
