LPMA Statement on the "Sanctuary State"

Libertarian Party of Massachusetts statement on amendment #1147 to S.4  05/24/2018

The Libertarian Party believes that every citizen has the right to associate with whomever they choose, regardless of where that person is born. That millions of Americans have chosen to do so attests to the fundamental value of freedom of association.

When a peaceful activity is made illegal by law, we oppose the law and do not consider violation of that law to be immoral. The amendment to the state budget to not expend state resources on enforcing misguided and cruel Federal mandates is morally sound.

The amendment is only controversial because fear of immigrants has been praised and encouraged in gullible voters in order to boost vote totals for Republican candidates. The economic benefits, low crime rates, and low use of public resources of immigrants, legal or not, are well documented by dispassionate analysts. But none of this matters for the false dichotomy that defines the mythical division between Democrats and Republicans.

Any effort to oppose the cruelty now being inflicted on decent people should be applauded. The federal government has destroyed peaceful and hard-working families by deporting their breadwinners and has ripped children from the arms of Central American mothers who are desperate for asylum from unfathomable violence.  Federal law says that these actions of Federal law enforcement agents are not crimes, but in reality, they are crimes against humanity. The efforts of Massachusetts legislators to refuse to abet this disgraceful campaign of terror is highly praiseworthy.

It is completely consistent with libertarianism to oppose a shameful police state devoted to the persecution of foreign-born persons who have done nothing wrong but who have had their peaceful behavior defined as criminal activity by unjust laws.

Showing 3 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Kevin Weldell
    commented 2018-09-27 15:09:48 -0400
    I am 100% for not using State funds to do a Federal Agency’s work for them.

    However, we should most certainly be requiring proof of citizenship for state funded programs. (66.(a)) There is no reason for us to be spending more state funds on criminals when the idea is to reduce costs collected from the law abiding tax payer.

    In addition state entities should not, in anyway, hinder the work or investigations of a federal agency and/or entity. (63.(e)) Local law enforcement does not require consent to interview a suspect and to require such of other is hypocritical at best. This does not mean we must aide their efforts however.
  • Cooper Allard-Jones
    commented 2018-07-27 22:01:31 -0400
    Illegal immigration is and should be a crime. Prospective immigrants should immigrate legally and take the proper steps to citizenship, however, we should fully vet these immigrants and use a points-based system to select people with the highest skills. Also to the “peaceful action” point – is leaving one’s own child to starve a “peaceful action”? Technically it is “peaceful”, but it is a crime and should be so. Crimes must not be exclusively violent actions, though the vast majority should be. So I think this sanctuary state policy should not be pursued and we should protect our borders to protect the liberty of our citizens.
  • Terry Reiber
    commented 2018-05-25 11:50:28 -0400
    I believe a component of this law will block enforcement from useful information to do their jobs such as identifying and pursuing dangerous criminals, as well as stopping dangerous criminals from being released from police custody.

Donate

connect