Readers React: Learn something about actual immigrants before trashing L.A.’s ‘sanctuary’ status
To the editor: Many people view sanctuary cities as safe havens for those who have crossed our borders illegally or are dangerous criminals. Obviously, to those people, sanctuary cities are viewed with disdain. (“It took a while, but L.A. formally declares itself a ‘city of sanctuary,’” Feb. 8)
Yes, we need to protect our borders, and people cannot be allowed to enter our country illegally. But let’s look at all the circumstances, determine the facts and then decide.
It is important for sanctuary cities to describe why they became what they are and what would happen to some residents if they stopped protecting immigrants, and to humanize the people who benefit from the policy. They should show why becoming a sanctuary city is about upholding American values.
Then, after gathering all these facts, see if you want to tell immigrants who have fled violence to go back to where they belong.
Sid Pelston, Marina del Rey
To the editor: I am very opposed to Los Angeles designating itself a sanctuary city. I expect my elected officials to uphold the law, not subvert it.
I was a registered Democrat for more than 60 years until our state Legislature passed Senate Bill 54, making California a sanctuary state. I immediately changed my registration to no affiliation. I will not belong to a party that flouts federal law.
I am not opposed to immigration. My father and his family were immigrants who came from Scotland legally. Both of my wife’s parents came to the country legally from Japan as teenagers sponsored by relatives living here. They also spent three and a half years in a concentration camp at Manzanar along with my wife and her brother during World War II.
Giving sanctuary to immigrants in the country illegally is just wrong.
Jim Fox, Los Angeles
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.