The publication July 20 of the letter to the editor by Bob Casimiro highlighting the release of tens of thousands of criminal immigrants into our communities was followed the next day by an Associated Press report of hundreds of thousands of immigrants waiting for federal court hearings. Doesn’t that perhaps suggest a moratorium on immigration might be in order?

The preferred solution seems to be: More. More government workers, more immigration, more law enforcement. So, in addition to paying those salaries, taxpayers are also expected to foot the bill for the housing, education and law enforcement required by mass immigration, while enduring reduced freedom and increased surveillance to avoid more San Bernardinos, Boston Marathons, Orlandos and 9/11s.

Given we have $18 trillion in public debt and the atrocities continue unabated, doesn’t that perhaps suggest that maybe we can’t afford the expense, and we can’t be kept reasonably free of mass violence? The numbers and the data just might indicate that not only don’t we need more immigration, but that we really can’t handle the immigration we already have.

And yet, we allow a million people annually to settle in our country legally, with a half million more settling uninvited each year. Perhaps we have enough people already?

We have been told all our lives that immigration is an unmitigated good. Maybe. Maybe it was all to the good a hundred years ago. But might I suggest that the world has changed a bit since then, and the objective data seems indicative of a need to question our premises.

Since more doesn’t seem to be working out quite how we want, might I suggest: Less?

Christopher Reimer

Arundel