Letter: Elections Have Consequences

Massachusetts’ sanctuary state policies have imposed a crushing $2–3 billion annual cost in FY2025, diverting funds from the state’s 351 cities and towns and forcing many to pursue polarizing Proposition 2½ overrides to sustain basic services. Ironically, the taxpayers bearing the brunt of this fiscal burden—through higher taxes and strained local budgets—are the very same voters who consistently elect the officials perpetuating these policies. This self-inflicted wound underscores the stark reality: elections have consequences, and Massachusetts residents are paying the price for their choices.

The state’s sanctuary framework, rooted in the 1983 right-to-shelter law and a 2017 Supreme Judicial Court ruling barring immigration-based detentions, drives staggering costs: $679.6 million for emergency shelters, $467 million for food ($64 per person daily for ~20,000 individuals), $575 million for educating 25,000 migrant children ($23,000 per student), hundreds of millions for medical care (Medicaid and emergency services), and at least $149.7 million for miscellaneous services like legal aid and SNAP. Federal aid ($647.5 million through 2027) barely dents this burden, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.

Dividing $2–3 billion among Massachusetts’ 351 municipalities would provide each with $5.7–8.5 million annually—enough to bolster schools, fix roads, enhance public safety, or lower property taxes without divisive Proposition 2½ overrides. These overrides, which allow towns to exceed the 2.5% tax levy cap, spark bitter community battles, as seen across the Commonwealth, where residents clash over funding schools versus affordability. With $5.7–8.5 million per town, these fights could be avoided, stabilizing budgets and uniting communities.

The bitter irony is that Massachusetts taxpayers, who fund these policies, repeatedly vote for leaders like Governor Maura Healey and legislators and mayors who double down on sanctuary commitments. These officials prioritize migrant services over local needs, with the Center for Immigration Studies warning of a “fiscal time bomb” as parolees gain broader welfare eligibility by 2026. Critics argue these policies act as a “magnet,” drawing more migrants and escalating costs, yet voters return the same policymakers to office, ensuring their own financial strain persists.

Elections shape this reality. By choosing leaders who favor sanctuary policies over fiscal restraint, Massachusetts taxpayers undermine their own communities, sacrificing billions that could transform local budgets. The cycle of voting for officials who divert resources from cities and towns proves that elections have profound consequences—consequences taxpayers feel in their wallets and divided neighborhoods every day.

Donald Mauch, Vice Chair

Norwell Capital Budget Committee