Illegal immigrants
As I read the Boston Herald editorial (“Taxpayers shouldn’t foot defense bill for illegal immigrants,” Feb. 11), I thought what a great common sense approach to all the progressive nonsense of late. As the Boston Herald acknowledged “Flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. Legal and illegal do not.”
The fact that the Massachusetts Legislature is even thinking of establishing a public-funded program providing legal representation to illegal immigrants facing deportation tells one all they need to know about how far removed Massachusetts has become from America as it celebrates its 250th birthday.
More and more states and local communities apparently either do not understand or simply choose to oppose our federal constitution. There is no fundamental right to have a public defender with you in an immigration courtroom if you are an illegal immigrant. Elected officials who support this idea need to re-read the Constitution of the United States.
I also read the news story (“Stop With the Smears,” Boston Herald, Feb. 11) concerning an ICE arrest of a drug trafficker in Roslindale Square. I am at a loss for words over District 5 City Councilor Enrique Pepen’s actions and statements over the arrest. Pepen it an “abduction.” However, ICE has called this arrest an action it took against a serial criminal illegal immigrant with criminal charges including “trafficking cocaine and fentanyl and identity theft.” Pepen has vowed to keep pushing back against ICE.
Does Pepen really want undocumented drug traffickers freely roaming through the streets of the Roslindale community? Are these illegal immigrants simply just our neighbors passing through? Things will only get worse.
Sal Giarratani
East Boston
Climate change
The priorities of the Trump administration with regard to our health and the health of the planet are clear: they don’t care about either one (“Trump’s EPA revokes scientific finding that underpinned US fight against climate change,” Feb 12). Repealing the 2009 endangerment finding doesn’t change the science, but it makes it much harder to mitigate the risks, like extreme weather and wildfires, that are made worse by the warming climate, as climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe of The Nature Conservancy has noted.
Any notion that loosening emissions standards will reduce costs to the public completely ignores the multiple and enormous costs to public health and infrastructure, some of which we are already seeing – think about the huge expense of recovering from floods and wildfires, or the increases in illness and death from air pollution that will result from rising emissions.
Scientists, former EPA staff, bipartisan appointees, cities, and states have spoken out in opposition to this reversal. These objections come from people who, unlike the current administration, understand and respect the scientific underpinning of the endangerment finding, which has been upheld multiple times in court.
Our government is abandoning its fundamental responsibility to protect human health and welfare.
Sia Stewart
Conway
