Attitude disturbingly ethnocentric
Last Sunday’s letter from Richard Foster (“Making sanctuary ultimately illegal”) is disturbing, getting uncomfortably close to pure BS with his statement that “… poorly educated illegals are a net loss to our economy.”
Whose economy, sir?
Further, as to “Why should the rest of the population support people who aren’t legally in the country to begin with?:”
The implication is that one must be both educated and legal to be of the economic benefit to the “rest” of us. This is hard-core ethnocentrism at its best, as almost any graduate economist could explain.
What makes someone valuable to society is far more involved than crude measurements of income or trips to the hospital or through their rent and sales taxes. To think otherwise is to time-travel to the middle ages.
I can’t speak to the assertion that “sanctuary cities are illegal” before it has actually been decided. But as a matter of functional democratic good sense, Geni Flores (Jan. 6 letter headlined “Acceptance, care would help city grow”) is on solid ground, while Foster is on ethnocentric quicksand.