Policy Isn’t Abstract — It Has Local Costs

In the national debate over immigration enforcement, it’s easy to get lost in slogans — until the numbers start landing in our own backyards.

Today’s New York Post opinion column by Betsy McCaughey highlights a poll suggesting a seismic shift in public sentiment: about two-thirds of Americans now disapprove of the work of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That’s a dramatic change from not long ago, and McCaughey argues it’s the backdrop for efforts in Congress to restrict immigration enforcement funding. 

What makes that statistic consequential isn’t just the political signal — it’s the real-world cost McCaughey says comes with it. She points to data suggesting that undocumented residents are linked with crime rates roughly three times higher than legal residents, according to reporting on New York crime statistics.  If those figures are taken at face value, they aren’t just abstract percentages — they become taxpayer impacts: policing costs, judicial congestion, emergency services, school resource strain.

Locally in the Hudson Valley, we’ve been debating school budgets, housing demand, ambulance runs, and staffing shortages. Here’s the practical question at the heart of this debate: if federal enforcement is weakened or underfunded, who shoulders the downstream consequences? From a governance perspective — and fiscally — it’s rarely a federal checkbook that writes those costs: it’s states, counties, cities, and ultimately taxpayers.

Critics of ICE call for reform or restraint to prevent family separations and protect civil liberties. Supporters of enforcement emphasize rule-of-law and public safety. Both sides raise moral points — but morality rarely balances a municipal ledger. Numbers do.

Whether you agree with McCaughey’s interpretation of the data or not, the core tension she points to is one our local leaders will have to grapple with: how much responsibility our communities carry when national policy shifts? Because policy isn’t only written in Washington. Eventually, it shows up in school board budgets, sheriff’s department overtime, and county social service costs.

And in the end, someone locally has to explain the bill — without political spin, without distraction, and without pretending that abstract debates don’t have very real, very local consequences.